Eksperters innflytelse på offentlig politikk (INFLUEX)

• Holst, Cathrine & Wig, Tore (2026). The affinities between democracy and science. Inquiry (Oslo). Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Making Epistemic Considerations Primary Does Not Make Social Values Secondary: A Reply to Hilligardt. Social Epistemology Review and reply Collective. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Hegstad, Eilev; Holst, Cathrine & Molander, Anders (2026). Er og bør i samfunnsforskningen. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning (TfS). Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Var 22. juli-kommisjonen en sannhetskommisjon? I Lohne, Kjersti; Houge, Anette Bringedal; Liden, Kristoffer & Sandvik, Kristin Bergtora (Red.), Etter 22. juli. Overgangsrettferdighet og terror. Cappelen Damm Forskning/NOASP. s. 55–75. doi: 10.23865/cdf.289.ch3. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  The chapter is an analysis and discussion of the governmental inquiry commission from 2012 that investigated the terror attacks in Norway 22 July 2011. It is argued, first, that the commission was a seemingly ordinary commission. In terms of its composition, the commission process, and the various features of the submitted commission report, the commission had many of the characteristics of a standard Nordic-style public investigation. However, literature on transitional justice has argued that such investigations in the aftermath of extreme terror attacks should preferably be organized along the lines of so-called truth commissions. Based on criteria derived from this literature, the chapter goes on to assess the extent to which the 22 July inquiry had the features of a truth commission. It is concluded that the inquiry, despite its appearance of being “nothing special” qualifies as a rudimentary, but not a full-fledged, truth commission. Finally, the chapter discusses whether the 22 July investigations could and should have taken on more truth commission traits at the time, and the extent to which we need another truth commission now, many years after the 2011 attacks, to properly reconciliate after what remains a national trauma in Norway.

• Baghramian, Maria & Holst, Cathrine (2026). Expert advice and institutional trust. I Samarzija, Hana & McKenna, Robin (Red.), The European Face of Political Epistemology. Palgrave Macmillan. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Defending expertise. Contemporary Political Theory. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Langvatn, Silje Aambø & Holst, Cathrine (2026). Science advice for policy: enhancing the legitimacy of non-epistemic value judgments through proportionality analysis. European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 16. doi: 10.1007/s13194-026-00734-z. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Science advice bodies increasingly shape public policy. Yet, their analyses and recommendations routinely involve non-epistemic value judgments that sit uneasily with ideals of democracy and separation of powers. We argue that in liberal constitutional democracies the political legitimacy of such judgments can be enhanced by integrating structured proportionality analysis into the workflow of policy-recommending advisory bodies. This deliberative procedure – first developed by constitutional courts – brings attention to policies’ impact on protected rights and amounts to a multi-pronged scrutiny of the justifiability of a policy which infringe on rights. We show, first, that existing guidelines for science advice bodies nationally and in international organizations implicitly acknowledge non-epistemic judgments but under-specify how to deal with them. Second, recent philosophy of science rightly foregrounds the democratic scrutiny of values (and so representation, alignment, and participation) but underemphasizes rights-based constraints. Our proposal reorients advisory practice toward rights-sensitive, deliberative justification that science advice bodies can apply ex ante—where these bodies often possess superior expertise on relevant aspects such as the suitability and necessity of a policy. Embedding proportionality analysis both mid-stream (to shape option generation) and in public justifications (to enable contestation and deliberation across branches and publics) improves transparency, mitigates overreach, and aligns advice with the rule-of-law and rights commitments of liberal democracies. The final part discusses scope conditions, institutional implications and limitations of our proposal. Structured proportionality analysis does not guarantee optimal outcomes, but supplies a stable, recognized method to discipline non-epistemic judgments and thereby enhance the legitimacy of science-based policy advice.

• Krick, Eva; Holst, Cathrine & Christensen, Johan (2025). The governance of policy advice: between scientization and participation. I Howlett, Michael & Fraser, Simon D. (Red.), Handbook of Policy Advice. Edward Elgar Publishing. s. 246–261. doi: 10.4337/9781035318087.00029. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This study investigates two significant shifts in modern governance: scientization and the participatory turn. Scientization refers to the increased reliance on scientific expertise in policy-making, driven by the growing complexity of policy issues and a demand for evidence-based solutions. Conversely, the participatory turn emphasizes expanding public involvement in governance as a response to legitimacy challenges in representative democracy. By analyzing Norway's ad hoc public advisory committees (Norges offentlige utredninger or NOUs) across diverse policy areas—climate change and family and gender equality policies—this research evaluates trends in both scientization and citizen participation over time. Findings reveal shifts in the makeup and citation patterns of NOUs, indicating a stronger presence of scientific expertise, while also examining evolving openness to public involvement. The study contextualizes these trends within the broader political landscape, exploring their compatibility and implications for legitimacy and effective governance.

• Christensen, Johan; Hesstvedt, Stine; Pronin, Kira; Holst, Cathrine; Christiansen, Peter Munk & Holli, Anne Maria (2025). Experts in Governance: A Comparative Analysis of the Nordic Countries. Policy & Politics. doi: 10.1332/03055736Y2025D000000079. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Bach, Tobias; Forum, Bjørn Mo & Hesstvedt, Stine (2025). Norway: formal and informal politicization in a merit bureaucracy. I Peters, B. Guy; Knox, Colin; Francisco, Panizza; Larraburu, Conrado Ramos & Staroňová, Katarína (Red.), Handbook of Politicization and Political Patronage. Edward Elgar Publishing. s. 78–96. doi: 10.4337/9781035326242.00012. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  The chapter focuses on formal and informal politicization in Norway, particularly examining positions within the state administration for which the cabinet or ministers have the power to make appointments. Additionally, it investigates the selection process for expert commissions, which play a significant role in policy development. We show that the civil service in Norway has experienced a gradual increase in formal politicization, as evidenced by the growing number of political appointees. However, informal politicization is largely absent, except for the appointment of former ministers to the position of county governors. The chapter also shows that civil servants are functionally politicized and face dilemmas between political responsiveness and other civil service values. Finally, the chapter demonstrates that the merit-based civil service was able to accommodate a populist party in government.

• Holst, Cathrine & Teigen, Mari (2024). The “boy problem” in public policy. Politics & Policy. doi: 10.1111/polp.12570. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  The article investigates how gender differences in school performance are conceptualized in recent Swedish and Norwegian public commission reports against the backdrop of an increasing public focus on “problem boys” and boys' underachievement in school as a policy challenge. We found substantive country differences, despite regime similarities and the considerable level of gender equality norms and policy diffusion within the Nordic region. Whereas Swedish reports address gender differences in school performance and behavior equipped with radical feminist perspectives and theories of patriarchal oppression, Norwegian reports largely avoid explicit references to feminist theory and include analyses of the unfair burdens of boys in school and society. It is argued that the diverging approaches are connected to features of the commissions and of the wider knowledge regimes of the two gender equality forerunners, but also to historical differences in the ideological underpinnings of Swedish and Norwegian gender equality policy making.

• Elster, Jakob & Holst, Cathrine (2024). Philosophy, Policy, and Moral Expertise. Res Publica. doi: 10.1007/s11158-023-09651-x. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Hart, Rannveig Kaldager & Holst, Cathrine (2024). What About Fertility? The Unintentional Pro-natalism of a Nordic Country. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society. 31(3), s. 429–454. doi: 10.1093/sp/jxad033. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Abstract Combining high birth rates with gender equality and women’s reproductive choice is often put forward as a Nordic success story. We analyze Norwegian governmental commission reports delivered 1984–2017, tracing how fertility issues are approached in policy-making under shifting demographic conditions. We focus on four key topics—pro-natalism, individual versus societal level effects of policies, socioeconomic differences in fertility, and immigration. We see little or no attention given to the fact that policy effects may vary by class background or preferences. Relatively high fertility is considered positive, but pro-natalist intent is downplayed or absent, even when fertility is falling. We connect these findings to the distinctive Nordic dual earner/care-giver model, a historical legacy of “unintentional” pro-natalism, and features of the commission system. We call for more interchange between demography and institutionalist scholarship and argue that questions of macro-level fertility effects of family policies could be better handled in a more explicit debate.

Se alle arbeider i NVA

• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Demokratisk impact: Model og forslag til videre undersøgelser. Københavns Universitet. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv

Se alle arbeider i NVA

• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Tillit til vitenskap i befolkningen. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Positivismestriden i samfunnsvitenskapene. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Perspektiver på en ny Makt- og demokratiutredning. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Long problems in legacy institutions. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). I strupen på staten. [Journal]. Dag og Tid. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Gjensyn med Habermas' teknokratikritikk i en tid der folk har fått nok av eksperter. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Tillit under press? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Når forskning blir fienden: er forskning udemokratisk? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Technocracy - or epistocracy? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2026). Designing legitimate science advice arrangements. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2025). Politicians - more than representatives: statemanship in Plato between knowledge and command. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2025). Ekspertenes innflytelse. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2025). Forskerens oppgave er ikke å springe etter applausen. [Internet]. KILDEN. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2025). The casaul relationship between democracy and science – and its philosophical implications. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2025). Beyond independence: How expert advisory bodies need both academic autonomy and government involvement to be influential. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2025). Folkepaneler - et demokratisk verktøy i møte med klimakrisen? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Kanskje er mastergraden slett ikke så syk. [Journal]. Morgenbladet. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Plato’s dreams come true: modern epistocracy. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Public trust in science. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Kunnskap og demokrati. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Mer makt til ekspertene? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Impact of citizen panels. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Academic freedom and democracy. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Democratization of expertise: the epistemic track. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine & Rem, Tore (2024). Uten kunnskap forvitrer demokratiet. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Tru og tvil. Dag og Tid. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Jakten på den liberale tradisjon. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Intervju om tillit i politikken. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Hvordan utvikle demokratiet? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Democratic innovations in expert advice. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Tenketankene i norsk offentlighet. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Er medisinere eksperter på helsepolitikk? Ramazzini: norsk tidsskrift for arbeids- og miljømedisin. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holst, Cathrine (2024). Philosophy, Policy, and Moral Expertise. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Skorge, Øyvind Søraas & Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). When Are Women Used as Policy Experts? Theory and Evidence from Norway. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Skorge, Øyvind Søraas & Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). When Are Women Used as Policy Experts? Theory and Evidence from Norway. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). Mellom fag og politikk i 50 år: NOU-ene 1972-2023. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv

Se alle arbeider i NVA