Expert consensus helps policymakers solve complex problems by identifying and legitimizing policy solutions. Yet, persistent hesitation remains among policymakers regarding the technically adequate policy solution despite the existence and mobilization of epistemic communities. This paper contends that more attention should be given to studying the epistemic competition that may arise when multiple epistemic communities grapple with the same problem but have divergent understandings of its technical nature and its adequate policy solutions. Building on Science and Technology Studies and on the literature on polarization, this paper suggests that two social dynamics, namely the mobilization of resources and increased polarization, may complexify the technical disagreement among experts. In turn, these dynamics may lead to a deadlock in the debates, negatively impacting the institutional context where they take place. To illustrate this, this paper analyzes the case of the pharmaceutical innovation system, which has been prone to tensions between experts arguing for strong patent protection and experts arguing for greater flexibility to meet public health needs. This paper builds on a mixed method combining a social network analysis of experts invited to provide their expertise in the WHO-WTO-WIPO Trilateral Cooperation events and on semi-structured interviews with 24 of these experts.
Policy Implications
- Epistemic competition between epistemic communities entails challenges for policymakers as they do not have an epistemic consensus to rely on and must navigate epistemic uncertainty.
- The socialization processes within an ongoing epistemic competition may lead to epistemic consensus as well as polarization. The latter alternative entrenches the debates into a stalemate, risking a disengagement of experts with the consensus-building efforts.
- Governmental institutions are key arenas to set up deliberative space for experts to seek consensus. However, they must set up guardrails to prevent amplifying factors of epistemic competition and mitigate some of its negative effects. Otherwise, consensus-building debates that plunge into deadlock may negatively impact the perceived credibility, relevance and performance of the institutional context where they take place.
Photo by RF._.studio