Elite governance at the international level - the epistemic community approach

In an attempt to reduce uncertainty in an interdependent world, co-operation between nation states through international regimes, such as the European Union (EU), has become inevitable (Keohane and Nye 1977).

Epistemic communities play a key role in processing policy ideas through international regimes and diffusing such ideas to member states (see Table 2.1). An epistemic community may be viewed as a policy-making elite, which is comprised of natural, and/or social scientists or individuals from any discipline or profession with authoritative claims to policy relevant knowledge (Haas 1990). Epistemic communities have close relations with international regimes and attempt to use their knowledge resources to promote global awareness of certain policy problems and policy options. The membership of these communities share a set of causal and principled beliefs (analytic and normative) about policy-making that act as a filter mechanism for precluding certain unacceptable policy inputs and circumscribing membership of the community. A continuous process of bargaining and negotiation takes place within and between epistemic communities in a war of ideas. It has been argued by Adler and Haas (1992), and others, that policy-makers have become increasingly dependent on the intelligence-gathering skills and knowledge resources of epistemic communities. Indeed, a significant degree of international policy convergence can be identified with regard to food aid, financial regulation and environmental issues as a consequence of the influence of epistemic communities in regime politics in, for example, the EU. Regimes are the practical functional application of elite governance in international relations; for it is regimes that privilege certain elite actors above others (such as epistemic communities) and help to establish international policy agendas (see Higgott 1996: 21).

Regime theory and the concept of the epistemic community have been criticized in three main ways. First, regime theory underestimates the role of domestic actors and politics in shaping international policy agendas, for the views of state policy-makers ultimately determine the influence of an epistemic community. Secondly, regimes often act as a site of struggle between member states which may well lead to policy divergence rather

Table 2.1 The characteristics of epistemic communities and policy communities
Dimension	An epistemic community (Adler and Haas)	A policy community (Marsh and Rhodes)
Membership
number of	Limited, a shared set of causal	Limited, a shared set of
participants	and principled beliefs (analytic and normative) act as a filter mechanism to preclude certain inputs.	causal and principled beliefs (analytic and normative) act as a filter mechanism to preclude certain inputs.
type of interest	Includes natural and social scientists from any discipline or profession with authoritative claims to policy relevant knowledge which reside in international regimes.	Normally includes representatives of governmental interests, economic groups, and/or professional interests in tight-knit decision structure.
Integration
frequency of	An ongoing process of	Frequent, high-quality,
interaction	bargaining within and between epistemic communities.	interactions on all matters related to the policy arena.
continuity	Membership and values persist over time as long as reputation survives.	Membership, values and outcomes persist over time.
consensus	All participants share a consensual knowledge base and a common policy enterprise.	All participants share basic values and accept the legitimacy of the outcome.
Resources
distribution of	All participants have knowledge	All participants have
resources	resources in an exchange	resources in an exchange
(within	relationship.	relationship.
network)
distribution of	Policy-makers are dependent on	Hierarchical; leaders can
resources (within participating	the intelligence gathering skills and knowledge resources of the epistemic community.	deliver members.
organizations)
Power	The view of policy-makers ultimately determines the influence of an epistemic community and its status of acceptance.	A balance of power exists among members - although one group may dominate, it must be a positive-sum game if the community is to persist.

Sources: Adapted from Marsh and Rhodes (1992) and Adler and Haas (1992).

than convergence.

Thirdly, epistemic communities tend to have influence in areas of policy-making with a high level of technical content such as environmental policy, but have much less influence in most other areas of policy-making. This third criticism illustrates the limited scope of the epistemic community approach as an elite theory of policy-making with general application.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Hay Colin, Lister Michael, Marsh David (eds.). The State: Theories and Issues. Palgrave,2005. — 336 p.. 2005

Elite governance at the international level - the epistemic community approach

More on the topic Elite governance at the international level - the epistemic community approach: