A dynamic duo or a tug-of-war? Michael Svarer on officials in expert groups

There are almost as many types of expert groups as there are opinions on them. Economics professor Michael Svarer talks about what it was like to have civil servants at the table in the Svarer Committee, and we asked him the question: Can expert committees be part of the solution to wild problems?

It was an ordinary gray day in February 2021 when Michael Svarer received a call from Jens Brøchner, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Taxation.

Together with his wife, he was walking on Nordre Strandvej in Risskov on his way home from Føtex. With a shopping bag in one hand and his dog in the other, he maneuvered the headset on. 

"Would you like to chair an expert group to propose solutions for CO2 reduction in Danish agriculture?" was the request.

It came as a surprise to Svarer that he was even asked if he wanted to be chairman. Climate and environmental economics is not really his area of expertise, although he has worked with the topics peripherally as a former senior advisor.

So it wasn't a quick yes from Michael Svarer.

The fact that the chairmanship was offered to Svarer is probably also due to the fact that he already has extensive experience of sitting on expert committees, including five different corona committees and the labor market commission from 2007-9.

INVI spoke to Svarer about the potential and challenges of a constellation where civil servants sit at the expert group table, as was the case with the Svarer Committee, and how he sees the ability of expert groups to tackle complex societal challenges.

Expert power or the key to change
Let's first take a closer look at how attitudes towards expert groups have changed over time and the constellations that expert committees typically appear in.

Denmark has a long tradition of using expert groups. The question of whether expert groups are legitimate has long divided opinion. Proponents believe that expert groups contribute in-depth and specialized knowledge that qualifies politicians' decisions. That it is a space where there is time to think through a qualified action plan, unaffected by the rush of Slotsholmen.

Conversely, the committees are criticized for being expert, undemocratic and disconnected from reality.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen thought the latter: "We do not need experts and taste judges to decide on our behalf," he stated in his New Year's speech in 2001 and with these words he all but put the expert groups to rest over the next 8 years.

Since Anders Fogh Rasmussen, things have gone in the opposite direction. Under the previous Social Democratic government, the Reform Commission had a significant impact, and the new SVM government has not held back on setting up expert committees and commissions.

The government has formed the Structure Commission, the Wage Structure Committee, the Robustness Commission and the Well-being Commission. At the end of February, Michael Svarer's committee presented their recommendations, which perhaps overshadowed the attention that the Tech Expert Group received shortly after when they presented their recommendations for artificial intelligence and tech giants.

Diverse expert groups
There are many expert groups and equally many constellations and approaches. Sometimes the members of the expert groups are free to explore and make suggestions to politicians. Other times, it is tightly controlled and with ongoing political intervention in the process. In this case, the expert group is served by a secretariat of civil servants, as was the case with the Svarer Committee.

The membership of expert committees can also vary considerably. They can be based solely on independent experts, they can have interest groups at the table, and they can conduct surveys among citizens so that other perspectives contribute to the decision-making process.

The latter challenges the idea that they are an expression of expert power.

In the Svarer Committee, officials from six ministries sat at the table. The presence of the officials was sometimes a dance. Other times it was a boxing match.

"It presented challenges, but it also had its advantages," says Michael Svarer.

The power relationship
The expert group has the hard power position against the officials when they participate. On paper, at least. In reality, it's not that easy.

"We can say, 'this is our report, this is our work, and now we're going this way, and you just have to accept it'. But it's clear that such an approach requires a fairly strong expert group, because of course you have to agree with the expert group and you have to be able to withstand the potential pressure," says Svarer and continues:

"And even if the expert group decides, it can get so uncomfortable that you somehow say, okay, we'll give in."

However, it doesn't always end in a feud between the officials and the expert group.

It can also be a rewarding collaboration.

The expert group is given an exam task by the politicians, as Svarer calls it. From here, the expert group has the opportunity to approach the task from different angles, and in this process, the officials can contribute as both an intellectual and practical resource.

The entire process is a purposeful one, with the expert group and officials meeting regularly to decide on the best course of action, priorities and what is considered essential to achieve the final goal.

Bridge builders or barriers
The officials bring the political sphere into the expert group space, weaving political expectations into the work of the expert group.

"Of course, the officials we had working with had a good sense of what the politicians wanted. There is not a complete arm's length from the political process, even though it's not as if the politicians interfere," says Svarer and continues: 

"That way there is independence, but there is also input from the central administration. The process involves agreeing on what is needed."

Do you see the presence of the officials as an advantage or disadvantage? 

"Of course, I and my colleagues in the expert group have given this a lot of thought over the past three years. One disadvantage, of course, is that you're stuck with something that you might not think is optimal. Speaking of wild ideas, it would be nice to think a little more out of the box," says Svarer and continues his well-considered speech:

"The presence of the civil service means that there can be a status quo bias, where you might not think as wildly as you could have."

The presence of civil servants is a double-edged sword. While the officials' contribution can create a status quo bias, it can, on the other hand, mean that the committee's proposals gain traction in Slotsholmen. This is because the officials incorporate political logic into the proposals from the start. It just comes with the price of being less creative than you would otherwise have been," Svarer points out.

"At best, you manage to get the most out of your economic principles and create recommendations that can be implanted in the political system," says Svarer, noting that the ideas you've developed at home on your desk will eventually be born into political reality. Therefore, you can argue that you might as well involve civil servants in the process from the start, he points out.

An additional benefit is that you build what Svarer calls "human capital" in the civil service. Civil servants can carry the visions into the political processes because they were there when they were conceived.

Can wild problems be tackled in expert groups
The Svarer Committee had a very specific task: Recommend models for regulating agriculture that make it possible to meet climate targets - but without costing too many business revenues and jobs.

A task that observers have called "almost impossible". The task appeared as a Gothic knot of conflicting interests: climate, environment, competitiveness, social cohesion. A wild problem. 

Although it is unlikely to have escaped anyone's notice that the recommendations led to a murderous joke from a gallows humorous landowner from Sustainable Agriculture and that the Vice President of the Danish Agriculture and Food Council considers the report a party contribution, the Svarer Committee has been praised by many for providing clear and sober solutions to a complex issue.

But what if the problems had looked different? What if they had been on a larger scale or with greater uncertainty about cause and solution? Does Michael Svarer also see that expert groups can come into play here?

Michael Svarer's short answer is "yes".

"It's a good way to bring focus to an area. And it also provides an opportunity to discuss how to solve the problems. You're allowed to come up with a proposal, and then it can be the subject of a discussion - just like our report. Then we come and say that this is our proposal. And then it can be part of the democratic process in terms of moving forward or solving some of the problems that have been identified," says Svarer.

And do officials also have a seat at the table if there is greater uncertainty about the cause of the problem?

"The wilder the problems, the freer the reins from the civil service," is Svarer's immediate impulse.

He adds that it can also make sense to think in completely different constellations: 

"You can always discuss whether the expert committees are inclusive enough, both in terms of who is involved, but also in terms of who can provide input."

If a problem is wild, it can be well worthwhile to hold hearings and receive citizen suggestions. This is where citizen involvement can be a good thing," says Svarer.