Unity of beliefs between scientific experts and policymakers: The decision of the Belgian federal government to lockdown

Although they experienced increasing political distrust in recent years (Dryzek et al. 2019), the Covid-19 health crisis has brought the influence of scientific experts on public policy back to the forefront. They convinced the government that the lockdown of the whole population was the best option available in a context where scientific information was multiple and uncertain, at least at the beginning of the pandemic. How can the choice of such an extreme public policy instrument be explained (Baumgartner and Jones 2016)? This communication shows that this regained and strong influence of experts results from a unity of beliefs within the subsystem that facilitates the instrumental use of knowledge. First, we hypothesize the existence of an identical perception of the problem and its solution between scientists and policymakers. Second, we consider that this unity of beliefs relies not only on scientific evidence but involves non-scientific elements(Engebresten and Baker, 2022) as well, such as values, cognitive biases, political interests, and conformity. These assumptions are tested on the two lockdown periods decided by the Belgian federal government (March 2020-May 2020 and November 2020-March 2021). Based on the systematic collection of the government’s press conferences and proceedings of advisory bodies for the whole periods, we analyse the different arguments put forward by experts and policymakers in their justification to lockdown. The results open a reflection on the potential limits of a relationship between science and government that would be exempt from a critical perspective. Can an evidence-informed policy actually claim to be rational and neutral? They call for a reconsideration of decision-making procedures in crisis periods and highlight the room for interpretation, values, and interests that these procedures carry on. References : Baekkeskov, E. (2016) Explaining science-led policy-making: pandemic deaths, epistemic deliberation and ideational trajectories, Policy Sciences, 49(4): 395–419. Boswell, C. (2008). "The political functions of expert knowledge: knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy". Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4): 471-488. Chaudhuri, A. (2022). Nudged into Lockdown?: Behavioral Economics, Uncertainty and Covid-19. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cairney, P. (2016a). The politics of evidence-based policy making. Springer. Cairney, P. (2016b). Principles of science advice to government: key problems and feasible solutions. Paul Cairney: Politics and Public Policy. Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., ... & Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science, 363(6432), 1144-1146. Engebretsen, E., & Baker, M. (Janvier 2022). Rethinking Evidence in the Time of Pandemics: Scientific vs Narrative Rationality and Medical Knowledge Practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Oh, C.H. and R.F. Rich (1996). "Explaining use of information in public policymaking". Knowledge and Policy, 9(1): 3-35.