Consensus-Building
#20Key Findings
Austria falls into the lower-middle ranks (rank 20) with regard to consensus-building.
Governments in some cases seek expert opinions, but tend to consult experts they already agree with. Scientists have criticized the government for inaction particularly on environmental issues.
Labor and business organizations have long played a powerful role. These social partners participate in parliamentary deliberations and the legislative review process, helping to shape important bills, especially when governments are internally divided.
Social welfare and environmental organizations have comparatively less influence, with the latter often focusing on public protest. The government has been slow to adopt transparency measures, with critics saying even the new Freedom of Information Act will do little to undo a tradition of secrecy.
Governments in some cases seek expert opinions, but tend to consult experts they already agree with. Scientists have criticized the government for inaction particularly on environmental issues.
Labor and business organizations have long played a powerful role. These social partners participate in parliamentary deliberations and the legislative review process, helping to shape important bills, especially when governments are internally divided.
Social welfare and environmental organizations have comparatively less influence, with the latter often focusing on public protest. The government has been slow to adopt transparency measures, with critics saying even the new Freedom of Information Act will do little to undo a tradition of secrecy.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent is the government successful in effectively harnessing the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes?
10
9
9
The government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
5
4
3
4
3
Only rarely is the government able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
2
1
1
The government is not able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
Recent Austrian governments have tried to create the impression that they are eager to benefit from the advice of accomplished experts. For instance, presentations by external experts marked the kick-off event of the ÖVP–Green government conclave early in 2023.
The role of experts in Austrian public policymaking has been generally limited and ambiguous. Governments may seek expert opinions when it is politically convenient, but they are not obligated to do so. Typically, they invite and listen to experts they are already aligned with. There is no formalized process to ensure strictly evidence-based governmental activities and public policies.
One existing agency, the Council for Research, Science, Innovation and Technological Development, is intended to provide expert advice to the government. However, its concrete impact has remained uncertain or even limited. Austria lacks an equivalent to the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers, a body institutionalized to provide scientific advice on economic policy. In contrast, Germany has formal standing scientific advisory committees at the ministries of finance, labor, and the economy. Austria has nothing comparable. A very limited role is played by the Staatsschuldenausschuss, a body concerned with advising on government debt issues.
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new forum – the “Future Operations Clearing Board” – was established in the chancellery to facilitate the exchange between scientific knowledge and policymaking. Recent governments have also made a limited effort to provide scientific micro-data.
Different scientists, particularly concerning issues of climate change and environmental protection, have criticized governments harshly for failing to take necessary steps. However, it is worth noting that the relative weakness of scientific expertise as a source of public policymaking in Austria has been accompanied by a strikingly low appreciation for scientific research among the wider Austrian public.
Citations:
file:///C:/Users/c4021008/Downloads/expertise_in_krisenzeiten_gecko.pdf
https://science.apa.at/power-search/7052218416774764840
file:///C:/Users/c4021008/Downloads/Open%20Science%20policy%20Austria%20eng.%20(1).pdf
https://oe1.orf.at/artikel/703253/Wenn-Politik-Experten-regieren
https://www.citizen-science.at/blog/oesterreich-und-die-wissenschaft-eine-komplizierte-beziehung
Koenig, Thomas. 2020. “Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung in Österreich. Die Erfahrungen mit der Einrichtung und Durchführung eines „Future Operations Clearing Board“.” Forschung. Politik – Strategie – Management 13 (3-4): 101-106.
The role of experts in Austrian public policymaking has been generally limited and ambiguous. Governments may seek expert opinions when it is politically convenient, but they are not obligated to do so. Typically, they invite and listen to experts they are already aligned with. There is no formalized process to ensure strictly evidence-based governmental activities and public policies.
One existing agency, the Council for Research, Science, Innovation and Technological Development, is intended to provide expert advice to the government. However, its concrete impact has remained uncertain or even limited. Austria lacks an equivalent to the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers, a body institutionalized to provide scientific advice on economic policy. In contrast, Germany has formal standing scientific advisory committees at the ministries of finance, labor, and the economy. Austria has nothing comparable. A very limited role is played by the Staatsschuldenausschuss, a body concerned with advising on government debt issues.
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new forum – the “Future Operations Clearing Board” – was established in the chancellery to facilitate the exchange between scientific knowledge and policymaking. Recent governments have also made a limited effort to provide scientific micro-data.
Different scientists, particularly concerning issues of climate change and environmental protection, have criticized governments harshly for failing to take necessary steps. However, it is worth noting that the relative weakness of scientific expertise as a source of public policymaking in Austria has been accompanied by a strikingly low appreciation for scientific research among the wider Austrian public.
Citations:
file:///C:/Users/c4021008/Downloads/expertise_in_krisenzeiten_gecko.pdf
https://science.apa.at/power-search/7052218416774764840
file:///C:/Users/c4021008/Downloads/Open%20Science%20policy%20Austria%20eng.%20(1).pdf
https://oe1.orf.at/artikel/703253/Wenn-Politik-Experten-regieren
https://www.citizen-science.at/blog/oesterreich-und-die-wissenschaft-eine-komplizierte-beziehung
Koenig, Thomas. 2020. “Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung in Österreich. Die Erfahrungen mit der Einrichtung und Durchführung eines „Future Operations Clearing Board“.” Forschung. Politik – Strategie – Management 13 (3-4): 101-106.
Graph View
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
Labor and business organizations – or as they are commonly referred to in Austria, the “social partners” – have played an extremely powerful and important role in postwar Austrian politics. Considering their exceptionally prominent role in Austrian politics and public policymaking, it is remarkable that this role, and the desire to maintain it, was constitutionally acknowledged only in 2008.
Compared to interest group politics or interest group/government relations in many other countries, the top labor and business organizations in Austria – the Austrian Economic Chambers (Wirtschaftskammern) and the Federation of Austrian Industry (Die Industriellenvereinigung) for business and employers; the Austrian Trade Union Federation (Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund) and the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labor (Arbeiterkammern) for employees; and the Austrian Chamber of Agriculture (Landwirtschaftskammer) for farmers – are not mere pressure groups seeking to exert influence on political decision-makers from the outside. Rather, they have been directly involved in public policymaking, sometimes formulating nearly complete laws themselves, which parliament then merely approves. This role has long been facilitated by the large share of MPs representing labor and business.
Further, the social partners have been involved in parliamentary deliberations of important bills at the committee stage. Additionally, like other interest groups, the social partners have had and used the opportunity to express their views during the institutionalized review in parliament, which marks a distinct stage in the legislative process in Austria.
To some extent, the notable power of the social partners has reflected the relative weakness – the internal split and disunity – of many Austrian governments (Rathgeb 2017). All else being equal, internally divided governments face a powerful incentive to share policymaking authority with the social partners.
While recent governments have not been significantly more divided internally than previous ones, the overall trend has been toward a long-term weakening of the social partnership as powerful players in the public policymaking process (Tálos and Hinterseer 2019). The reasons for this include the dramatically shrinking share of ministers with close personal ties to one of the social partners, the ideological distance to corporatist forms of governance of governing parties, and a shrinking membership of the trade unions. Still, while the long-standing special status of the social partners – or the social partnership for that matter – is largely gone, the recurrent recent crises facing Austria and many other countries have resulted in unexpected (re)gains in terms of influence.
Citations:
Tálos, Emmerich, and Tobias Hinterseer. 2019. Sozialpartnerschaft: ein zentraler politischer Gestaltungsfaktor der Zweiten Republik am Ende?. Wien: Studienverlag.
Paster, Thomas. 2022. “Sozialpartnerschaft und Arbeitgeber* innenverbände in Österreich.” In Sozialpartnerschaftliche Handlungsfelder: Kontinuitäten, Brüche und Perspektiven: Aktuelle Befunde, eds. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 29-43.
Rathgeb, P. 2017. “Relying on Weak Governments: Austrian Trade Unions and the Politics of Smoothed Dualization.” OZP: Austrian Journal of Political Science 45 (3): 45-55.
Compared to interest group politics or interest group/government relations in many other countries, the top labor and business organizations in Austria – the Austrian Economic Chambers (Wirtschaftskammern) and the Federation of Austrian Industry (Die Industriellenvereinigung) for business and employers; the Austrian Trade Union Federation (Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund) and the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labor (Arbeiterkammern) for employees; and the Austrian Chamber of Agriculture (Landwirtschaftskammer) for farmers – are not mere pressure groups seeking to exert influence on political decision-makers from the outside. Rather, they have been directly involved in public policymaking, sometimes formulating nearly complete laws themselves, which parliament then merely approves. This role has long been facilitated by the large share of MPs representing labor and business.
Further, the social partners have been involved in parliamentary deliberations of important bills at the committee stage. Additionally, like other interest groups, the social partners have had and used the opportunity to express their views during the institutionalized review in parliament, which marks a distinct stage in the legislative process in Austria.
To some extent, the notable power of the social partners has reflected the relative weakness – the internal split and disunity – of many Austrian governments (Rathgeb 2017). All else being equal, internally divided governments face a powerful incentive to share policymaking authority with the social partners.
While recent governments have not been significantly more divided internally than previous ones, the overall trend has been toward a long-term weakening of the social partnership as powerful players in the public policymaking process (Tálos and Hinterseer 2019). The reasons for this include the dramatically shrinking share of ministers with close personal ties to one of the social partners, the ideological distance to corporatist forms of governance of governing parties, and a shrinking membership of the trade unions. Still, while the long-standing special status of the social partners – or the social partnership for that matter – is largely gone, the recurrent recent crises facing Austria and many other countries have resulted in unexpected (re)gains in terms of influence.
Citations:
Tálos, Emmerich, and Tobias Hinterseer. 2019. Sozialpartnerschaft: ein zentraler politischer Gestaltungsfaktor der Zweiten Republik am Ende?. Wien: Studienverlag.
Paster, Thomas. 2022. “Sozialpartnerschaft und Arbeitgeber* innenverbände in Österreich.” In Sozialpartnerschaftliche Handlungsfelder: Kontinuitäten, Brüche und Perspektiven: Aktuelle Befunde, eds. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 29-43.
Rathgeb, P. 2017. “Relying on Weak Governments: Austrian Trade Unions and the Politics of Smoothed Dualization.” OZP: Austrian Journal of Political Science 45 (3): 45-55.
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading social welfare CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
As with other interest groups, the major social welfare CSOs have mostly had the opportunity to present their views on scheduled bills during the institutionalized review process in parliament. Most, but not all, bills are subject to public review, usually at the discretion of the government itself. There have also been strong ties between MPs and individual social welfare groups.
Given Austria’s established tradition of an advanced welfare state, the agendas of such groups are very present in the public arena and cannot easily be ignored by political decision-makers. As a result, the interests represented by these groups are likely to shape government activities more generally, beyond individual key decisions.
Recent literature characterizes the collaboration between Nonprofit Human Service Organizations and different levels of government as a “welfare partnership” (Meyer et al. 2023).
However, even more than at the level of labor and business organizations, the political status and influence of social welfare CSOs have been shaped by the party complexion of governments. Different governing parties have advanced different policies, reflecting their broader views on society as well as strategic considerations concerning their likely supporters at the level of the electorate (see Fischer & Giuliani 2023).
Citations:
Michael Meyer, R. Millner, M. Mehrwald, and P. Rameder. 2023. “A Test for the Welfare-Partnership: Austria’s Nonprofit Human Service Organizations in Times of Covid-19.” Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2023.2186556
Fischer, T., and Giuliani, G. 2023. “The Makers Get It All? The Coalitional Welfare Politics of Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. The Case Studies of Austria and Italy.” European Political Science Review 15 (2): 214-232.
Given Austria’s established tradition of an advanced welfare state, the agendas of such groups are very present in the public arena and cannot easily be ignored by political decision-makers. As a result, the interests represented by these groups are likely to shape government activities more generally, beyond individual key decisions.
Recent literature characterizes the collaboration between Nonprofit Human Service Organizations and different levels of government as a “welfare partnership” (Meyer et al. 2023).
However, even more than at the level of labor and business organizations, the political status and influence of social welfare CSOs have been shaped by the party complexion of governments. Different governing parties have advanced different policies, reflecting their broader views on society as well as strategic considerations concerning their likely supporters at the level of the electorate (see Fischer & Giuliani 2023).
Citations:
Michael Meyer, R. Millner, M. Mehrwald, and P. Rameder. 2023. “A Test for the Welfare-Partnership: Austria’s Nonprofit Human Service Organizations in Times of Covid-19.” Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2023.2186556
Fischer, T., and Giuliani, G. 2023. “The Makers Get It All? The Coalitional Welfare Politics of Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. The Case Studies of Austria and Italy.” European Political Science Review 15 (2): 214-232.
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading environmental CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
As with other groups, major environmental CSOs have the opportunity to present their views on scheduled bills during the institutionalized review process in parliament – if such a review occurs. A more natural method for these groups, however, is public protest, which implies a more diffuse and not necessarily less effective form of influence. Overall, the presence and influence of these groups in the policymaking arena tend to be considerably lower than those of social partners and many social welfare associations.
A particular challenge for environmental CSOs is that the environment and related issues are not as neatly defined as other policy fields. While this challenge is present in all countries, it is compounded in Austria by the complex multilevel nature of the Austrian polity, with split competencies across different levels. More specifically, some observers suggest that Austrian-style corporatism contributes to the intricate actor constellation and poses an additional obstacle to substantive policy progress. The predominance of other groups and their agendas tends to fuel the perceived conflict between economic growth and the job market versus climate change mitigation.
The recent chapters of government-environmental CSO relations have been shaped by the transition from SPÖ-led federal governments to ÖVP-led governments. In particular, the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition, in office from 2017 – 2019, significantly influenced the relationships between the government and civil society organizations, both in the environmental sector and beyond. Some observers have referred to these developments, characterized by strong polarization and widespread defamation of many groups, as “autocratization” (Simsa 2019). The Greens’ inclusion in the government alongside the ÖVP in 2019 marked a positive change. However, the concrete impact on government-environmental CSOs and their role in public policymaking appears to have been more limited than expected.
Citations:
Jansesberger, Viktoria, and Gabriele Spilker. 2023. “Umwelt-und Klimapolitik.” In M. Senn et al., eds., Handbuch Österreichische Außenpolitik, 345-363. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Steurer, Reinhard, and Christoph Clar. “The Ambiguity of Federalism in Climate Policy-making.”
how the political system in Austria hinders mitigation and facilitates adaptation; in: Journal of
Environmental Policy & Planning: 20:2 (2018), 252-265
Simsa, Ruth. 2019. “Civil Society Capture by Early Stage Autocrats in Well-Developed Democracies–The Case of Austria.” Nonprofit Policy Forum 10 (3).
Simsa, R., F. Mayer, S. Muckenhuber, and T. Schweinschwaller. 2021. Rahmenbedingungen für die Zivilgesellschaft in Österreich. Berlin: Maecenata Institut für Philanthropie und Zivilgesellschaft. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-73615-2
A particular challenge for environmental CSOs is that the environment and related issues are not as neatly defined as other policy fields. While this challenge is present in all countries, it is compounded in Austria by the complex multilevel nature of the Austrian polity, with split competencies across different levels. More specifically, some observers suggest that Austrian-style corporatism contributes to the intricate actor constellation and poses an additional obstacle to substantive policy progress. The predominance of other groups and their agendas tends to fuel the perceived conflict between economic growth and the job market versus climate change mitigation.
The recent chapters of government-environmental CSO relations have been shaped by the transition from SPÖ-led federal governments to ÖVP-led governments. In particular, the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition, in office from 2017 – 2019, significantly influenced the relationships between the government and civil society organizations, both in the environmental sector and beyond. Some observers have referred to these developments, characterized by strong polarization and widespread defamation of many groups, as “autocratization” (Simsa 2019). The Greens’ inclusion in the government alongside the ÖVP in 2019 marked a positive change. However, the concrete impact on government-environmental CSOs and their role in public policymaking appears to have been more limited than expected.
Citations:
Jansesberger, Viktoria, and Gabriele Spilker. 2023. “Umwelt-und Klimapolitik.” In M. Senn et al., eds., Handbuch Österreichische Außenpolitik, 345-363. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Steurer, Reinhard, and Christoph Clar. “The Ambiguity of Federalism in Climate Policy-making.”
how the political system in Austria hinders mitigation and facilitates adaptation; in: Journal of
Environmental Policy & Planning: 20:2 (2018), 252-265
Simsa, Ruth. 2019. “Civil Society Capture by Early Stage Autocrats in Well-Developed Democracies–The Case of Austria.” Nonprofit Policy Forum 10 (3).
Simsa, R., F. Mayer, S. Muckenhuber, and T. Schweinschwaller. 2021. Rahmenbedingungen für die Zivilgesellschaft in Österreich. Berlin: Maecenata Institut für Philanthropie und Zivilgesellschaft. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-73615-2
Graph View
To what extent does the government publish data and information that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable?
10
9
9
The government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely publishes data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens to hold the government accountable.
2
1
1
The government does not publish data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens’ capacity to hold the government accountable.
Until recently, Austrian governments have been notably reluctant to publish data and information that empower citizens to hold the government accountable. There has been an established tradition of “secrecy,” and some observers felt that even the latest legislative agendas of the government, particularly its launch of a Freedom of Information Act, will not change much (see above).
As early as 2012, the government launched a major data site, “data.gv.at,” with metadata of the decentralized data catalogues. By mid-2023, there were more than 44,000 data sets from nearly 2,400 organizations, marking a significant contribution to increasing the transparency of public institutions. Unfortunately, there is no information available to the public about aspects such as school quality or hospital quality.
Recent governments have also made efforts to facilitate the provision of scientific micro-data. In 2020, the AUSSDA (Austrian Social Science Data Archive) was awarded the CoreTrustSeal, certifying it as a “trustworthy data repository.” Established in 2016, AUSSDA is a data infrastructure for the social science community in Austria. It offers a variety of research support services, primarily data archiving and assistance with data reuse. More recently, the Austrian Micro Data Center (AMDC) was established as part of the wider infrastructure of Statistik Austria. The AMDC provides accredited research institutes and universities with more sensitive register data from the public sector.
Citations:
https://www.digitalaustria.gv.at/WissensWert/E-Gov-A-Z/Digitale-Webservices/data.gv.at.html
https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/HS-Uni/Hochschulgovernance/Leitthemen/Digitalisierung/Open-Science/Open-Science-Policy-Austria.html
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000176190/oe
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000138979110/regierung-auf-der-datenbremse-und-taeglich-gruesst-das-murmeltier
As early as 2012, the government launched a major data site, “data.gv.at,” with metadata of the decentralized data catalogues. By mid-2023, there were more than 44,000 data sets from nearly 2,400 organizations, marking a significant contribution to increasing the transparency of public institutions. Unfortunately, there is no information available to the public about aspects such as school quality or hospital quality.
Recent governments have also made efforts to facilitate the provision of scientific micro-data. In 2020, the AUSSDA (Austrian Social Science Data Archive) was awarded the CoreTrustSeal, certifying it as a “trustworthy data repository.” Established in 2016, AUSSDA is a data infrastructure for the social science community in Austria. It offers a variety of research support services, primarily data archiving and assistance with data reuse. More recently, the Austrian Micro Data Center (AMDC) was established as part of the wider infrastructure of Statistik Austria. The AMDC provides accredited research institutes and universities with more sensitive register data from the public sector.
Citations:
https://www.digitalaustria.gv.at/WissensWert/E-Gov-A-Z/Digitale-Webservices/data.gv.at.html
https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/HS-Uni/Hochschulgovernance/Leitthemen/Digitalisierung/Open-Science/Open-Science-Policy-Austria.html
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000176190/oe
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000138979110/regierung-auf-der-datenbremse-und-taeglich-gruesst-das-murmeltier