This paper explores different “cultures of evidence” in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. The urgent energy system transformation needed to respond to the climate crisis depends on policies informed by technical and engineering expertise, and particularly energy modeling. Such expertise had traditionally been poorly represented in the energy ministries of the Dutch, German, and UK governments. There is limited understanding of how policy advisory systems have evolved to respond to these emerging evidence needs. This paper presents a framework for describing how cultures of evidence differ, and applies this to a comparative study of energy policymaking in the UK, Netherlands, and Germany. I show clear differences in how evidence is understood and used. The Dutch and German governments have sought technical and modeling evidence from consultants or independent agencies. In doing so, the Dutch and German ministries appear to place stronger value on the “independence” of such evidence, while the UK system builds credibility through adherence to formal procedures. A second clear difference in the cultures of evidence relates to different beliefs about the extent to which expert knowledge can be impartial and value-free. The cases suggest that different cultures of evidence have coevolved with each country’s institutional history and shaped the energy policy advisory system.

中文翻译：

---

探索英国、德国和荷兰能源政策制定中的证据文化


本文探讨了英国、德国和荷兰能源政策制定中不同的“证据文化”。应对气候危机所需的紧急能源系统转型取决于以技术和工程专业知识为依据的政策，尤其是能源建模。传统上，荷兰、德国和英国政府的能源部很少代表这些专业知识。对于政策咨询系统如何发展以应对这些新出现的证据需求，人们的理解有限。本文提出了一个框架来描述证据文化如何不同，并将其应用于英国、荷兰和德国能源政策制定的比较研究。我展示了在如何理解和使用证据方面存在明显差异。荷兰和德国政府已向顾问或独立机构寻求技术和建模证据。在此过程中，荷兰和德国各部委似乎更加重视此类证据的“独立性”，而英国的制度则通过遵守正式程序来建立公信力。证据文化的第二个明显差异与对专家知识在多大程度上可以公正和无价值的不同看法有关。这些案例表明，不同的证据文化与每个国家的制度历史共同演变，并塑造了能源政策咨询系统。