Abstract
The study examined how alcohol policy stakeholders use research evidence to influence legislation and how the role of evidence and scientific expertise has changed over the past three decades in parliamentary alcohol policy consultations in Finland. The data consisted of parliamentary committee hearings on the comprehensive Alcohol Act reforms of 1994 and 2017. The analysis focused on the statements made by experts representing corporate interests, non-governmental organisations and research. The findings indicate the growing importance of science in the ways alcohol policies are influenced during the final stages of the law-making process. Researchers are being heard more frequently, and referencing research evidence has become a significant part of the epistemic work by which various stakeholders in the alcohol policy domain attempt to influence decision-makers. However, the scientification of policy debate does not necessarily indicate an increasing authority of science in determining policy outcomes. The demand for evidence appears to signal a shift in discourse rather than a change in the practice of parliamentary decision-making. Moreover, the consolidation of the ideal of evidence-based policymaking seems to be accompanied by shifting ways in which scientific experts are used – trending towards a legitimising function and an interest-based orientation.
Keywords
Introduction
In recent decades, the evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) paradigm – which implies that, ideally, decision-making should be grounded in objective evidence and research-based knowledge – has evolved into a major public policy framework. However, conflicting views have been expressed regarding the significance of scientific expertise (Parkhurst, 2016). On the one hand, researchers seem to play a prominent role in the public domain, as they are expected to conduct policy-relevant research (Bandola-Gill, 2019), and science is increasingly employed to legitimise and support various policy positions (Weingart, 1999). Research communities with epistemic authority can thus be regarded as privileged players in policymaking processes and political decision-making (Jasanoff, 1990; Ritter, 2015). On the other hand, considering EBPM as an ideal model does not take into account the diversity of competing influences in policymaking or the fact that scientific evidence is not the only priority when determining policy goals (Cairney, 2022). Furthermore, discussions regarding the politicisation of science (Maasen and Weingart, 2005) have emphasised the erosion of scientific authority.
This study aimed to analyse the varying and often contradictory roles of scientific expertise and research evidence in policymaking and how these roles may have changed over time in the context of Finnish alcohol policy decision-making. Being one of the most extensively researched and evaluated policy areas (see Babor et al., 2023), alcohol policy provides a particularly compelling case to explore the changing status of scientific expertise. Departing from earlier alcohol policy research – which has largely focused on examining whether science or experts are used enough, or in a correct manner, in policymaking (e.g., Vallance et al., 2022) – we analysed the changing status and uses of scientific expertise from the perspective of epistemic governance (Alasuutari and Qadir, 2014). This approach emphasises that invoking science (i.e., research results) is a form of epistemic work by which policy actors, including researchers in consultative roles, aim to influence the political views, framings and definitions of a situation. We examined how alcohol policy stakeholders employ scientific evidence to influence legislation and how the role of evidence and scientific expertise has changed over the past three decades in parliamentary alcohol policy consultations.
To this end, we analysed the parliamentary standing committee hearings of the Finnish Alcohol Act reforms in 1994 and 2017. Committee hearings are one of the final phases of the legislative process in which the invited experts have an opportunity to appeal to legislators as to whether a bill should be approved, amended or discarded. By analysing the parliamentary hearing phase, we can better understand the different and evolving ways of using science in decision-making, relating to who is heard, how extensively research is used, in what ways it is used in argumentation, and what the actual impacts are regarding policy outcomes. While we analysed the final stages of the legislative process, parliamentary hearing is the most public phase of the process, thereby enabling us to gain valuable insights into the dynamics and historical changes involved in the relationship between science and politics. Parliamentary hearings are also the primary site for the members of parliament (MP) to directly engage with scientific advice and critically evaluate its implications (Geddes, 2020).
Our study makes a threefold contribution. The first concerns alcohol policy research, which has extensively studied the lobbying activities of the alcohol industry; however, the ways in which researchers attempt to influence the same policy processes have been, more or less, overlooked. As part of our study, we examined researchers as active players in alcohol policy decision-making. Second, our study illustrates how parliamentary committee hearings can be used to analyse the significance of science at several stages of political decision-making: from the selection of experts to the statements delivered in hearings and, finally, to the drafting of the committee report. Third, we demonstrate that the increasing references to science and research results does not necessarily mean that researchers would have a greater impact on policy or that scientific evidence is given more weight in political decisions. The growing demand for scientific advice, we found, may result in researchers being forced into the role of advocates, which may somewhat paradoxically contribute to the erosion of science's credibility and legitimacy in policymaking.
Science in policymaking and epistemic governance
To clarify the significance of scientific expertise in influencing policies, we conceive policymaking as a complex and inherently political process, largely determined by the societal context in which policy decisions are made, and evidence is actively used by various actors to shape policy outcomes (Cairney, 2016). Accordingly, the literature on policy processes has repeatedly emphasised the contested nature of how policies emerge (Head, 2010). Typically, many actors struggle in political processes to determine which issues are placed in the political agenda, which information sources are considered reliable and relevant, and who should be regarded as credible experts (Weiss, 1977). In most cases, research evidence makes only a limited impact on decision-making, which can rarely be characterised as a purely rational process. Policymaking has been classically described as ‘muddling through’ (Lindblom, 1959), a process in which policymakers do their best to make use of the available evidence and tools for utilising it while taking incremental steps towards policy aims that are not always clear. A wide body of literature has sought to elaborate the circumstances that facilitate or hinder the integration of scientific evidence into policymaking (e.g., Bijker et al., 2009; Pielke, 2007), challenging the notion of a straightforward and unproblematic relationship between science and politics as it has been assumed in some depictions of EBPM.
The policy debates on alcohol policy measures that promote public health provide an intriguing case to illustrate the contested status of scientific evidence in policymaking related to an issue in which both values (i.e., related to state responsibility vs. consumer freedom) and financial interests play central roles. According to massively accumulated research evidence, the national-level, universal alcohol policy measures controlling the availability, price, and marketing of alcoholic beverages are the most effective ways to decrease alcohol consumption and its related harm among any population (Babor et al., 2023). In the 1970s, an international group of researchers working under the World Health Organization and national governments proposed the public health approach to alcohol problems. The most influential work at that time – Alcohol Control Policies in Public Health Perspective (Bruun et al., 1975) – emphasised research-based solutions for the population-level prevention of alcohol-related harm and the role of national governments in establishing effective alcohol policies to regulate private alcohol markets. Its main argument – which highlighted the ‘total consumption model’, according to which the overall consumption of alcohol in a population affects the rate of alcohol-related problems in that population – remains a cornerstone of alcohol policy justification in most Nordic countries with relatively strict alcohol control measures (Room and Livingston, 2017).
Since the epidemiological evidence on the relationship between population-level consumption and consequent harm is strong, researchers worldwide have called for more prominent recognition of alcohol as a major public health concern (Babor et al., 2023). However, on a global scale, national-level alcohol policies are influenced by various political forces – most significantly by the global alcohol industry, which promotes consumer freedom and free markets, typically justifying its claims by drawing on alternative research sources, such as industry-funded studies, reports and policy briefs (McCambridge et al., 2020).
Our perspective for studying the tensions related to scientific expertise and evidence in alcohol policy decision-making is based on the analytical framework of epistemic governance. The framework is based on the observation that the governance of modern societies is fundamentally linked to various actors’ attempts to control and shape a shared understanding of reality (Alasuutari and Qadir, 2014, 2019). Whenever actors participate in political discourse to influence social change, they draw from and work on the shared perceptions of reality (i.e., political problems demanding attention), the relevant actors, and the worthy and acceptable means and objectives. The framework of epistemic governance is not limited solely to studying the role of experts and scientific knowledge in politics; rather, the framework expects that the actors engaged in epistemic governance rely on all possible forms of knowledge to the extent that they consider it useful for advancing their aims (Alasuutari and Qadir, 2019). It is the task of empirical studies to discover what kinds of knowledge become relevant or what counts as ‘expertise’, ‘scientific knowledge’, or a credible scientific authority (Qadir and Syväterä, 2021; Syväterä et al., 2023).
Earlier studies on epistemic governance that have explicitly focused on the role of scientific authority in the context of parliamentary debates have made intriguing observations about the role of research in legislative processes. One of these observations is that the MPs in all the studied countries, including Finland, frequently justify their arguments with references to scientific authority (Qadir and Syväterä, 2021; Syväterä et al., 2023). However, it is remarkable that, very often, these references are based on rather abstract invocations of science instead of any specific studies or research results. Furthermore, these studies have illustrated that the norm according to which it is important that government proposals for new legislation are backed by science or research-based evidence prevails in parliamentary debates. This is particularly visible in the frequent instances in which the MPs accuse each other (or the government) of not taking science- or research-based knowledge into account (Syväterä, 2020).
Our analysis focused on the expert statements offered in formal parliamentary consultations. The parliamentary committees’ consultations form an intriguing yet scarcely studied site of epistemic governance. We examined the consultation phase by utilising the concept of ‘epistemic work’ (Alasuutari and Qadir, 2019: 21–33) which provides a useful analytical approach for studying how the politicians and various stakeholders involved in Finnish alcohol policy utilise evidence- and research-based knowledge to influence decision-making. Epistemic work entails all the techniques actors utilise in epistemic governance – that is, when actors draw from widely held conceptions of reality, actor identities and values while attempting to convince others about the necessary or appropriate course of action. In these attempts, the actors also seek, knowingly or not, to influence, more or less, the hegemonic views about how things are, which actors are relevant to consider, and which aims and means of achieving them are appropriate. While Alasuutari and Qadir (2019: 23) argue that epistemic work always includes all these aspects, they suggest that an analytical distinction can be drawn between three objects of epistemic work, all of which are worked upon whenever an actor makes claims in political discourse: ontology of the environment, actors and identifications, and norms and ideals.
The first object, the ontology of the environment, concerns ‘the shared view of what is a truthful and accurate picture of the situation’ (Alasuutari and Qadir, 2019: 24). In policymaking, this relates to making claims about how a particular policy can be expected to solve a policy problem or what the policy problems are in the first place.
The second object, actors and identifications, involves defining who the relevant actors are and what kinds of groups and communities (real or imagined) they can be identified as belonging to. It also includes making claims about the interests of different actors and groups. In national-level politics, this usually entails depictions of competing interests between various stakeholders, as well as attempts to define the ‘national interest’. The third object, norms and ideals, focuses on the values and other normative ideals that underpin argumentation and, in doing so, offer a more or less shared sense of what the good, proper or desirable aims are and the ways to achieve them (Alasuutari and Qadir, 2019: 28). While the epistemic claims concerning the ontology of the environment were the focal point of our analysis, we also examined the epistemic work related to actor identifications and normative ideals, albeit only to the extent that ontological claims were drawn from or contributed to their construction.
Parliamentary committee hearings as epistemic work
As Teubner (1987: 19–22) has underscored while discussing the ‘regulatory trilemma’, any legislative project must pass through several stages, all of which include complicated negotiations between three realms: political power, legal norm-making and social life. In the initial stages, political will must be gathered behind the project; political guidance is then necessary for ‘legalising’ the aspired intervention into actual law proposal, again followed by its politicisation during the phase by which the proposal is subjected to political debate and decision-making. For the law to eventually become effective, both the proposal and the law's anticipated implementation must also be negotiated in relation to ‘social life’ – the prevailing moral values, habits and practices. Parliamentary committees are, we argue, among the most crucial sites where the negotiations ‘on both frontiers of the law, that which borders on politics and that which borders on the area of social life’ (Teubner 1987: 22) take place in lawmaking.
Despite being one of the final stages of lawmaking, standing committee hearings are considered by many scholars to have a generally weak influence (Diermeier and Feddersen, 2000). Ruling parties are typically not inclined to impede the passage of laws in parliament or to make significant revisions to bills. Moreover, opportunities for interested parties to influence new regulations are greater in the pre-parliamentary phases of law drafting or the initial stages of agenda setting (Eising and Spohr, 2017). However, recent research on standing committees and formal consultations has revealed a more nuanced picture of their role. Studies from various countries, including those on European Union (EU) policies, indicate that hearings do influence legislative proposals and may lead to changes in bills. In the German Bundestag, as Cross et al. (2021) note, it is common for government proposals to be amended, and expert statements should be considered when explaining these amendments. Findings from ethnographic fieldwork in the UK Parliament (Geddes, 2020: 104) suggest that evidence presented to a select committee impacts the legislative process, and oral hearings, in particular, ‘bring different claims to knowledge, scientific advice and evidence to life’, allowing MPs to critically engage with the provided evidence. Additionally, interest groups view parliamentary lobbying as a tool for influencing policy decisions (Binderkrantz, 2005). While most lobbying efforts occur before a government bill is submitted to parliament, opportunities to influence legislation remain during standing committee hearings (Binderkrantz et al., 2014).
As part of its work, the standing committee gathers specialised knowledge from experts in the relevant field. During hearing, these experts are expected to evaluate the proposed bill, which often includes the consideration of its impact on the community they represent. Through the consultation phase, MPs have the opportunity to obtain information about the proposed legislation independently of the ministerial bureaucracy and to identify relevant actors as well as sources of opposition and support for the proposal (Eising and Spohr, 2017).
During hearings, experts engage in epistemic work when delivering their statements; however, epistemic work by politicians is also involved. The selection of experts already reflects the epistemic tensions inherent in the policy process. While experts are consulted to provide advice and information for decision-making on complex issues, expert hearings also serve to provide legitimacy, as policies can be justified by claiming they are supported by expert advice (Grundmann and Stehr, 2012: 15). On the other hand, the practice of hearing experts itself can ensure the legitimacy of the process due to the strong norm that expert knowledge should be considered in lawmaking. Many scholars have noted that expert consultations are typically intended to justify pre-existing views on a proposal (Weiss, 1979) and that, strategically, experts and stakeholders are invited to consultations to support politicians’ positions (Kropp and Wagner, 2010). After consultations, further epistemic work takes place when the committee drafts a final report that is (more or less) based on experts’ statements.
Data and methods
The case: 1994 and 2017 Alcohol Act reforms in Finland
Both the 1994 and 2017 reforms liberalised the Finnish alcohol policy system by removing market regulations and increasing the availability of alcoholic beverages, albeit to different extent. Before 1995, the Finnish alcohol monopoly (Alko) controlled the production, import, export and sale of alcoholic beverages, making Finland one of the most restrictive countries in Europe in terms of alcohol policy measures. Following the 1994 law reform, Alko retained only a retail monopoly over stronger alcoholic beverages. The new law and its implementation also liberalised the sale of mild alcoholic beverages (with a maximum alcohol content of 4.7% by volume) in private retail stores, including kiosks and petrol stations, increased the number of bars and clubs along with their opening hours, and permitted, with certain restrictions, the advertising of mild alcoholic beverages. The next comprehensive reform of the Finnish Alcohol Act, in 2017, further reduced Alko's monopoly on alcohol retail sales. The main changes introduced by the reform allowed grocery stores to sell a wider range of mild alcoholic beverages, as the maximum alcohol content permitted in grocery stores increased from 4.7% to 5.5%, and extended the opening hours of Alko and late-night bars and clubs.
Data
Our analysis covered the epistemic work conducted at all stages of the parliamentary hearing phase, from the selection of experts to the ways research evidence was invoked in expert statements and committee reports. Our data consisted of lists of consulted experts, written expert statements submitted to the Social Affairs and Health Committee regarding the 1994 and 2017 reforms, and the committee reports drafted based on the hearings.
In 1994, 49 experts were invited for consultations before the standing committee, of whom 28 provided a written statement. In 2017, 67 experts were heard, with 65 submitting written statements. The committee also requested 12 written statements. Our analysis focused on statements from key alcohol policy stakeholders: corporate interest representatives, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and researchers (in 1994, N = 19; in 2017, N = 38). The statements typically ranged from one to five pages in length. In 2017, the Power Point slides presented to the committee were attached to the expert statements, and they were also included in the analysis. The total number of pages in the analysed statements was approximately 400.
We focused on the representatives of corporate interests and NGOs, as these groups have been identified as key stakeholders in alcohol policy decisions (Anderson and Baumberg, 2006). We assumed that the changing role of research would be particularly evident in their argumentation. Moreover, the relative weight given to these groups in the hearings provided a clear indication of which issues in the bills were most controversial or debated. In the analysed law reforms, corporate interests, such as the alcohol industry and retail, represented those who benefited from deregulation and strongly advocated for increased alcohol availability. NGOs focused on public health and substance use issues, on the other hand, typically advocated for some level of regulation to prevent substance abuse and promote public health. We also examined researchers as a separate group to analyse their evolving roles in the hearings. We categorised a large number of the experts invited to the hearings as ‘others’; this group consisted of ministry officials, representatives of government agencies, and trade union representatives. Since the members of this group are consulted in almost all major legislative projects, they are not specifically concerned with alcohol policy.
Committee hearings are not open to the public. They are attended by MPs who are members of the committee, the chairman, the secretary and the consulted experts. The committee secretary is responsible for inviting the experts. Some hearings may involve only one expert, while others may include dozens, depending on the legislative project. The representatives of the ministry responsible for preparing the government bill are usually the first to be heard. Additionally, the standing committees consult with other committees and anyone they deem relevant. All committee members may propose experts for the hearings. From the gathered statements and the debate following the hearings, the standing committee prepares a report, which forms the basis for parliamentary review and vote.
Methods
First, we examined the epistemic work involved in expert selection, focusing on who were deemed relevant experts and how prominent the researchers’ role was compared to that of other stakeholders. Second, we analysed how frequently research was referenced in the statements by the three key groups of experts and how they utilised epistemic claims to justify their arguments – that is, how the experts established a link between evidence and its implications for what should be done. Third, we analysed how epistemic claims were used in committee reports, the final outcomes of the hearings, and the resulting changes to the bill. Throughout our analysis, we paid specific attention to the changes that occurred.
We performed both quantitative and qualitative analyses. First, we examined the lists of experts consulted by the committees and categorised them into four distinct groups: (1) corporate interest representatives, (2) representatives of public health NGOs, (3) researchers and (4) others. The shares of representatives of the different groups were calculated based on the total number of experts consulted by the standing committee for each year (Figure 1).
The shares of experts representing corporate interests, research and NGOs consulted in the hearings of the Social Affairs and Health Committee on the Alcohol Act reforms in 1994 and 2017.
As our analysis focused on the key groups of experts representing specific alcohol policy interests, the group of ‘others’ was excluded from further analysis. From the written statements, we identified epistemic claims, which we defined as instances in which factual propositions were utilised as part of the epistemic work that aimed at convincing the audience of the current situation or the potential effects of the proposed reform. We further coded each epistemic claim according to whether it was supported by research evidence at a general level ('Studies have shown that…’) or whether specific research evidence was cited. References to individual studies, statistics, reports or sources that conducted or published the results were considered references to specific research evidence. Tables and figures based on statistical data were also considered specific references even if the exact source was not given. The numbers of research references from the statements in the 1994 and 2017 consultations are summarised in Table 1.
Number of epistemic claims supported by general and specific research references from the written expert statements in 1994 and 2017.
NGO: non-governmental organisation.
In the qualitative analysis of the statements, we conducted a thematic analysis to determine the type of policy change advocated by the various expert groups. Next, we examined the kinds of epistemic claims that were used to justify the policy goals. Our aim was to explore how the experts engaged in epistemic work as they sought to influence policymakers and how research evidence was utilised. The research references in the committee reports were also examined to determine how the expert consultations were reflected in the final bills. The quotations illustrate the different ways in which the expert groups employed knowledge-based arguments to support their claims.
Results
Epistemic work in expert selection
A relatively large number of experts were heard in 1994, but in 2017, the total number was considerably higher (Figure 1). The large number of experts indicates that both reforms were particularly tense political issues involving a wide range of economic and political interests. The ‘others’ group, which included government representatives, civil servants and trade union representatives, was the largest group in both cases. However, there was a marked difference in the shares of corporate interest representatives, NGOs and researchers between the two reforms. In 1994, the most prominent of these groups was corporate interest representatives. The 1994 reform was historic in the sense that, for the first time ever, corporate interest representatives were heard in the standing committee consultations related to Alcohol Act reforms (Alavaikko and Österberg, 2000). While they maintained a significant position in 2017, the share became equal to that of NGOs and researchers, whose shares considerably increased between the two reforms.
Experts’ epistemic work and the use of research evidence
When we evaluated how research evidence was used to support epistemic claims, we found that the statements from the two time points differed significantly (Table 1). Only two general research references were made in the 1994 statements. In contrast, the statements in the 2017 consultations referred significantly more frequently to specific studies, reports, statistics, and data sources than to general research knowledge.
Alcohol Act reform of 1994
A key theme of the expert consultations on the 1994 law reform was the dissolution of Alko's monopoly and the re-organisation of its operations, as Finland's membership in the EU in 1995 required aligning the Finnish alcohol policy system with the EU regulatory framework. The 1994 reform marked a significant shift in Finland's centralised alcohol policy and simultaneously opened a policy window for various interest groups to propose additional changes.
Corporate interest groups
The corporate interest representatives shared the view that Alko's retail monopoly should be fully dissolved and that alcohol advertising should be permitted, both of which were not included in the changes outlined in the government bill. They advocated for more liberal policies, in line with the level of regulation in other European countries. To justify their position, corporate interest groups appealed to the need for improved competitiveness of the domestic industry and the protection of consumer interests, as reflected in the following statement: It is essential when reforming alcohol legislation to take into account the capabilities of domestic companies operating in the alcohol sector as opposed to those of foreign companies. The interests of consumers should also not be forgotten. (Chambers of Commerce, 1994)
In 1994, corporate interest groups prioritised the legalization of alcohol advertising as their most pressing issue. They argued for lifting the advertising ban by claiming that alcohol advertising does not lead to increased consumption. The following statement asserts that, on the contrary, alcohol consumption has declined in several European countries without advertising restrictions, suggesting that such bans are not an effective means of regulating alcohol use: Despite the advertising ban, alcohol consumption increased until 1991. Several European countries have adopted the opposite policy, where advertising is either completely unrestricted or permitted, subject to certain limitations. In any case, the experience so far suggests that advertising bans do not influence the total consumption of alcohol in the desired manner. (Association of Advertising Agencies, 1994)
The abolition of the retail monopoly was also justified by claims that preventing alcohol-related harm does not require a state-controlled retail monopoly. Instead, proponents emphasised the importance of health education as a more effective approach: Safeguarding social and health policy goals does not require systems based on monopolies in any respect. […] Education has a significantly greater impact on people's behaviour than coercive legislation. (Chambers of Commerce, 1994)
Researchers
In 1994, researchers’ epistemic work on the ontology of the environment primarily focused on demonstrating how the law change would affect their own operating environment. At the time, most alcohol researchers worked under Alko, and the potential impact of the new law on funding and the status of alcohol research remained uncertain. The researchers’ statements stressed the importance of preserving resources for alcohol research and education. Funding research, communication and health education about the harmful effects of alcohol with a special alcohol tax is an absolute requirement for continuing these activities. To handle these increasing responsibilities, it is imperative that all education related to this field, from undergraduate and postgraduate to continuing levels, is initiated and maintained. (Helsinki University Central Hospital, 1994)
The statements did not include explicit claims about the impact of alcohol policy measures or the potential outcomes of the law reform. However, the quotation above references ‘increasing’ responsibilities due to the new law, underscoring the importance of alcohol research. Notably, no references to research evidence were made (see Table 1). Instead, the researchers’ epistemic work centred on norms and ideals, aiming to convince the committee of the significance of alcohol research. Regarding actors and identifications, the Alcohol Policy Research Institute – then responsible for monitoring alcohol consumption and its associated harms in Finland – emphasised that Finnish alcohol research was of a high standard both internationally and academically. This argument served to justify the need for continued funding under the revised law. In its statement, the Alcohol Policy Research Institute focuses on those sections of the bill that directly concern the status of research. […] The general scientific role of alcohol research can be seen, for example, in the large number of PhDs produced by research units funded by Alko and in the contribution of alcohol researchers to university teaching. […] When evaluating the status and resources of alcohol research, it is therefore necessary to keep this general scientific task in mind. (Alcohol Policy Research Institute, 1994)
Non-governmental organisations
In 1994, the NGOs emphasised the importance of alcohol research, prevention and care, particularly in light of the potential increase in alcohol-related harm resulting from the new law: Similarly to other Nordic countries, Finland must strengthen the status of alcohol research and education in the future. If, at the same time, alcohol prices fall and availability increases even more, social and health care will have an almost impossible task in trying to combat and treat the growing harms caused by alcohol. In order to prevent the harms brought about by a freer alcohol system, education and research resources should be strengthened because other means of alcohol policy will be less and less available in the future. (A-clinic Foundation, 1994)
Regarding the ontology of the environment, the NGOs argued that increasing alcohol availability would lead to higher levels of related harm. Consequently, emphasising norms and ideals, they stressed that the primary goal of alcohol policies must be to reduce consumption. In light of these claims, measures such as allowing alcohol advertising and expanding alcohol sales at gas stations and kiosks were deemed inappropriate. Additionally, Finland was aligned with the Nordic countries as part of the epistemic work focused on actors and identifications, highlighting the importance of investing in alcohol education. One reference to research evidence was made in the statements: Studies and experiences from different countries show that the greater the harms of alcohol, the higher the total consumption of alcoholic beverages. This is why alcohol policy must aim to decrease total consumption. (Temperance Organizations 1994)
In the statements made by the NGOs, the epistemic claims focused on the harm caused by alcohol. Through these claims, the NGOs’ epistemic work sought to convince the committee that the structures and funding for the prevention and treatment of alcohol-related problems should be strengthened under the new law.
Alcohol Act reform of 2017
The 2017 hearings primarily focused on the availability of alcoholic beverages. While the consulted experts were generally in favour of reforming the alcohol law and easing regulations, they were divided on whether grocery stores should be allowed to sell stronger alcoholic beverages.
Corporate interest groups
In 2017, the corporate interest groups supported the expansion of the availability of alcoholic beverages. As in 1994, regarding ideals and identifications, they demanded more liberal policies that aligned with those of other European countries, emphasising consumer freedom, competitiveness and greater profits for Finnish industries. The increased productivity and competitiveness of the alcohol industry were seen as beneficial to society as a whole. Moreover, the liberal policies were viewed as a way to promote a less harmful European drinking culture: The proposed amendment to the Alcohol Act would have many positive effects on society. The majority of Finns consider the proposed amendment to the Alcohol Act to be good. […] The proposed reform would further support the ongoing cultural change and the development of European drinking and food culture in Finland. (The Finnish Grocery Trade Association, 2017)
Regarding alcohol consumption habits, the claims focused on changes in Finns’ alcohol consumption patterns. It was noted that Finns had been consuming less alcohol for some time, with young people in particular drinking less. To support the argument that the proposed law change would not lead to increased alcohol consumption, research institutes and evidence were cited. There is a positive trend in alcohol consumption among young people. Alcohol consumption by young people has decreased throughout the 2000s. According to the National Institute of Health and Welfare, it is already a megatrend. This major development was not jeopardised by the significant lowering of alcohol taxation in 2004. The development can also be seen elsewhere in Europe, but particularly strong in Finland. (The Federation of the Brewing and Soft Drinks Industry, 2017)
In 2017, the corporate interest representatives referred to specific research 63 times. An important object of reference was the study conducted by a private research company, Taloustutkimus, for the Finnish Grocery Trade Association, an organisation that represented the largest beneficiaries of the reform. The study aimed to provide counterevidence for the assessment of the National Institute of Health and Welfare (NIHW), the research institute responsible for monitoring alcohol-related issues and representing the foremost expertise in alcohol policy in Finland. The NIHW estimated that the reform would result in increasing alcohol-related harm; challenging this, the Taloustutkimus study suggested that the reform would barely impact drinking and its related harm: Third, the [NIHW's] assessment miscalculates the change in consumers’ consumption habits, when it starts with the assumption that a large part of consumers would switch to drinking stronger beers. According to the Taloustutkimus report, only 14% would change to stronger beers if they were available in supermarkets. This estimate is supported by several other factors, including the higher price of stronger beer due to taxation, consumers’ taste preferences and restaurant statistics: according to statistics, only approximately 15% of the beer consumed in restaurants is stronger than the average beer. (Finnish Grocery Trade Association 2017)
Researchers
In 2017, most researchers opposed the reform on the grounds that it would make alcoholic beverages more available, which, in turn, would increase alcohol-related harm. Only one of the consulted researchers, who was not affiliated with any research institution at that time and who had publicly declared his changed view on alcohol research, expressed a positive attitude towards the reform. In their statements, the researchers’ epistemic work concentrated on the ontological claims aimed at convincing the politicians of the numerous negative effects, particularly on youth, families and individuals suffering from alcohol-related harm: Since the harms caused by alcohol consumption affect a younger population than health harms in general, the increase in alcohol consumption affects the sustainability gap in two ways: the increase in consumption increases social and healthcare costs in particular, and at the same time, it reduces the number of those who pay the costs, as morbidity and mortality increase and work ability and work efficiency decrease. The increase in alcohol consumption increases socio-economic health differences and weakens the well-being of children and families. (NIHW, 2017)
As the corporate interest representatives commissioned their own study to assess the law's impact, presenting results that differed from the NIHW's assessments, the researchers highlighted the weaknesses and biases in the Taloustutkimus study. A researcher from the NIHW was specifically invited to explain why the estimates differed so widely: PTY/Taloustutkimus’ assessment is based on the internet panel participants’ own estimations of how they would change their behaviour. […] What kinds of methods are used [in research] with good resources and by top scientists? The most significant prediction models for changes in policy actions all use the same type of method: the best evidence is sought from the research literature on what kind of changes actual similar alcohol policy changes have brought about elsewhere or previously in the same place, preferably using meta-analyses, and these estimates are applied to the target group. Examples include evidence from the Scottish Minimum Price reform (Sheffield University)3; OECD microsimulations to compare the cost-effectiveness of different policy measures4; modelling of the effects of dissolving Systembolaget (University of Victoria).5 None of these types of high-quality projects aimed at meeting the highest scientific standards would base their reasoning on asking people ‘How are you going to change your behaviour?’ (NIHW, 2017)
Non-governmental organisations
In 2017, the NGOs unanimously opposed the law reform in terms of increasing availability of alcohol. In agreement with the researchers, they expressed their concern about the potential negative impact of the proposed law: In the light of domestic and international research evidence, it is clear that the reform, which drastically increases availability and lowers prices, would increase both consumption and alcohol harm in Finland. (Mental Health Finland, 2017) The magnitude of the risk correlates with the amount of alcohol consumed throughout life, but there is no safe amount of alcohol in relation to cancer: just one daily dose of alcohol increases the risk of breast cancer by around 10% compared with not drinking alcohol at all. Whether the alcohol is beer, wine or spirits is irrelevant to the risk. There is more detailed information about the relationship between cancer, alcohol and alcohol policy in the Duodecim article published on 6 November 2017. (Cancer Society of Finland, 2017)
Epistemic work in committee reports
After the 1994 hearings, the Social and Health Committee decided to make several modifications to the government's proposal. Alko's monopoly was dismantled beyond what was initially proposed. Though subject to certain restrictions, the committee also recommended allowing the advertising of mild alcoholic beverages. The committee report referenced research evidence only once and did not cite the opinions of the consulted experts in its justifications for the modifications. According to the Social and Health Committee's understanding, the purpose of advertising and other sales promotion activities is to increase sales. Although no empirical research results have been presented on the matter, the existence of advertising in itself suggests that advertising is important not only in the distribution of market shares of products but also in terms of the needs created for consumers. (Social Affairs and Health Committee, 1994)
In 2017, the committee revised the government's proposal concerning the increase in the alcohol content of beverages sold in grocery stores, recommending that the limit remain at 4.7%. This decision was justified by research evidence and the expert opinions presented during the consultations. A proposal by the government is to increase the maximum percentage by volume for retail alcoholic beverage sales from 4.7% to 5.5%. According to information received by the Social Affairs and Health Committee, the change in question will significantly affect the availability and consumption of alcohol. Due to the fact that Finns consume more than half of all alcohol as brewed products, alcohol strength plays a decisive role in the degree of harm they suffer. (Social Affairs and Health Committee, 2017)
Discussion
We investigated how the status of scientific expertise in the parliamentary alcohol policy decision-making process changed between 1994 and 2017. By examining the Finnish Alcohol Act reforms, we explored the evidence base for political decision-making at multiple levels. Our focus was on committee hearings as a form of epistemic work, analysing three stages of integrating science into parliamentary decision-making: (1) who were consulted and how the role of the research community changed; (2) how often and in what ways research evidence was referred to in expert statements and (3) how research-based claims that emerged in the hearings were reflected in committee reports – specifically, whether research evidence was explicitly used to justify the proposed legislation.
Our study illustrates how, in the context of parliamentary consultations, expert statements play a crucial role not only in fulfilling the need for knowledge but also in negotiating the extra-legal connections (i.e. the political and social conditions and implications) of the law. According to Teubner (1987), this process is essential for the successful passage of any law. Our analysis suggests that in the selection of experts, epistemic work is closely tied to the type of knowledge deemed relevant at the final stage of the legislative process. However, relevance extends beyond an ‘objective’ assessment of who possesses valuable information about the bill. As Brown et al. (2005) argue, political decision-makers seek expert advice for two main reasons: problem-oriented and politics-oriented purposes. Problem-oriented expertise promotes transparency, accountability and effectiveness in decision-making (Kropp and Wagner, 2010). In contrast, the politics-oriented use of expertise serves to legitimize predetermined policy positions, justify already-made decisions, or avoid responsibility (Weingart, 1999).
The politics-oriented use of expert advice was evident in the examined law reforms. Moreover, our analysis highlighted how the composition of selected experts reflected the issues still under debate in the bill. In other words, the selection of experts can indicate the type of epistemic support political parties seek to push for changes to the bill. In 1994, most of the consulted corporate interest representatives came from groups that would benefit from lifting the ban on alcohol advertising, suggesting a political inclination to overturn the restriction. By 2017, the role of researchers in the hearings had grown more prominent, as evidenced by the increased number of researchers consulted relative to corporate interest representatives. This shift likely indicates that the committee was uncertain about its stance on the reform and that the issue had become highly polarising, with both proponents and opponents of the proposed law seeking epistemic support from experts.
In the committee hearings, epistemic work involved how the consulted experts sought to persuade legislators of the desired direction of decision-making. Our focus was on epistemic work related to the ontology of the environment – that is, the types of epistemic claims experts made about the alcohol policy landscape and how they supported these claims with research evidence. The way experts articulated their claims changed significantly between the two time points. In 1994, epistemic claims were rarely supported by direct references to research evidence, whereas in 2017, such references were frequently used. Comparison of the reforms suggests a scientification of the legislative process on alcohol policy, as research evidence has become an important point of reference for all stakeholder groups. This shift aligns with the ideals of EBPM and the growing demand for scientific advice in politics. Our analysis thus reflects a broader trend of the scientification of politics observed in existing literature.
During the preparation of committee reports, epistemic work was related to the justifications for potential amendments to the bill. A key question was how the consulted experts’ epistemic work and claims were reflected in the final report. In 1994, the law was amended in line with corporate interest representatives, whereas in 2017, the claims of researchers and NGOs were explicitly cited as justifications in the committee report. However, the arguments in the reports did not directly reveal which group had the most influence on the legislative process. The shift in committee reports can be attributed to the growing demand for epistemic, scientific justifications rather than an increase in researchers’ influence. Ultimately, despite the prominence of research-based arguments in 2017, the final law still favoured corporate interests over researchers’ advocacy.
Conclusion
Our study indicates the growing importance of science in the ways in which alcohol policies are influenced at the final stages of lawmaking process in Finland. Researchers are being consulted more frequently, and referencing research evidence has become a key aspect of the epistemic work by which various stakeholders in the alcohol policy domain seek to influence decision-makers. In this sense, the parliamentary phase of alcohol policy decision-making has become more ‘scientific’. However, the scientification of experts’ epistemic work does not necessarily translate into greater authority for science, nor does it grant the research community a privileged position in policy influence. Instead, the increasing demand for evidence appears to indicate a shift in the discourse rather than a fundamental change in the practice of parliamentary decision-making (Boswell, 2014; Wesselink et al., 2014).
While different parties of policymaking appeared committed to evidence-based argumentation, they had conflicting views on what the evidence shows and how it should be used to justify policies. Weingart (1999) has argued that the growing demand for scientific reasoning and justification in policymaking inevitably leads to the politicisation of science, as whenever scientific knowledge is deemed to have policy relevance, it becomes evaluated on the basis of who represents it. In the studied period, Finnish alcohol industry stakeholders began to utilise research-based policy claims and commissioned studies, similarly to their international counterparts (McCambridge and Mialon, 2018). For alcohol researchers, this created an ethical dilemma as they navigated the same policy processes. Our results suggest that the power of the alcohol industry and its efforts to challenge the research on alcohol's harmful effects forced researchers as well as NGOs to focus on justifying the credibility of evidence in support of more restrictive alcohol policies. Similar alliances between researchers and NGOs have been observed in other studies (e.g., Lesch and McCambridge, 2021). In this context, NGOs and researchers can be seen as an epistemic community (Haas, 1992), which, during the 2017 reform, acted as a counterforce to alcohol industry stakeholders, pushing them into roles of advocates rather than neutral experts. Because the cultural legitimacy of scientific policy advice largely relies on its perceived objectivity and disinterestedness (Bijker et al., 2009; Drori et al., 2003; Pielke, 2007; Qadir and Syväterä, 2021), this kind of advocacy position can undermine the credibility of the evidence researchers present and eventually reduce its effectiveness and influence on policymaking.
Our findings confirm that the seemingly contradictory claims regarding the growing importance of EBPM and the eroding authority of science can both be true simultaneously. Furthermore, “the symbolic function” (Boswell 2009, 61) of science has become increasingly central in political justification, particularly when financial interests are at stake. The consolidation of the ideal of EBPM appears to be accompanied by the shifting ways in which scientific experts are used – and this shift is trending towards legitimising function and interest-based orientation.
Our study also demonstrates how parliamentary committee consultations provide an opportunity to examine the role of science in decision-making at multiple stages, from the selection of experts to the committee's final report. Moreover, we show how these consultations provide stakeholders and politicians with opportunities to push desired policies, thus making them an integral part of the political decision-making process rather than a mere formality at the end of it. Future research should explore and compare how the use of science in committee consultations has evolved across different policy areas. While we found that the rhetorical scientification of the debate did not directly influence legislative outcomes, further studies should examine the extent to which scientific expertise and evidence shape policymaking.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
AK gave a statement in the committee hearing of the 2017 Alcohol Act Reform. This statement is part of the data used in this study.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Strategic Research Council and the Research Council of Finland (grant numbers 358263, 358267, and 341716).
