Consensus-Building
#4Key Findings
Switzerland falls among the top ranks internationally (rank 4) in the category of consensus-building.
Drawing lessons from the COVID-19 crisis, the government has taken steps to integrate scientific expertise more readily into policymaking during crises. This has included the creation of ad hoc scientific advisory groups and the establishment of crisis-preparation clusters in areas like cybersecurity and public health.
Policymaking in Switzerland has historically involved robust public consultation with interest groups. Business groups have generally had more influence than trade unions. The process involves numerous pre-parliamentary procedures and committees focused on consultation with various societal groups.
Social welfare and environmental groups have traditionally had less influence, but are increasingly being integrated into consultation procedures. Open data policies are robust, with a large body of qualitative and quantitative data available online.
Drawing lessons from the COVID-19 crisis, the government has taken steps to integrate scientific expertise more readily into policymaking during crises. This has included the creation of ad hoc scientific advisory groups and the establishment of crisis-preparation clusters in areas like cybersecurity and public health.
Policymaking in Switzerland has historically involved robust public consultation with interest groups. Business groups have generally had more influence than trade unions. The process involves numerous pre-parliamentary procedures and committees focused on consultation with various societal groups.
Social welfare and environmental groups have traditionally had less influence, but are increasingly being integrated into consultation procedures. Open data policies are robust, with a large body of qualitative and quantitative data available online.
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.
In addressing the challenges of crisis management, which became particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, Switzerland has demonstrated both strengths and areas in which improvement are needed with regard to integrating scientific expertise into its policymaking process. The formation of the Swiss National COVID-19 Science Task Force – which during the first wave of the pandemic comprised more than 70 academic experts from diverse fields such as medicine, epidemiology, and even ethics and economics – exemplified Switzerland’s ability to rapidly mobilize representatives of a broad range of scientific perspectives. This interdisciplinary approach facilitated extensive consultations and underscored the country’s commitment to comprehensive crisis response strategies (Hirschi et al. 2022).
However, the Task Force faced challenges related to transparency, particularly with regard to its mandate and communication protocols, highlighting the need for clearer role definitions and processes. Additionally, the balance between scientific independence and political decision-making emerged as a critical issue, alongside the complexity of effectively coordinating scientific advice within Switzerland’s federal structure (Sager et al. 2022). Another challenge was the Task Force’s difficulty in persuading politicians to adopt its recommendations beginning with the second pandemic wave (Eichenberger et al. 2022).
The Federal Council’s recent proposal for activating scientific expertise during crises, as evidenced by the creation of ad hoc scientific advisory groups, marks a significant stride in integrating scientific knowledge into the policymaking process, particularly in times of crisis. This initiative, adopted in response to lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, underscores the importance of consulting scientific experts early in the crisis-management process (Federal Council 2023). The involvement of Switzerland’s key education, research and innovation (ERI) institutions in nominating experts for these groups is fundamental to ensuring the effectiveness, credibility and legitimacy of the scientific advisory process.
A noteworthy aspect of this approach is the close cooperation with ERI institutions, which include prominent organizations such as the Swiss Conference of Rectors of Higher Education Institutions (swissuniversities), the ETH Board and the Swiss National Science Foundation (Swiss Science Council et al. 2023). This collaboration ensures a broad-based support system for the scientific advisory group, enhancing its multidisciplinary reach and representativeness. The implementation proposal mandates that the need for a scientific advisory group be examined whenever an interdepartmental crisis organization is established, thereby institutionalizing the inclusion of scientific advice in crisis response mechanisms (Federal Council 2023).
Additionally, the ERI institutions and the confederation have collaboratively developed a Code of Practice that clearly defines the tasks and responsibilities of scientific experts. This code stipulates that experts are expected to advise policymakers about the current state of certainty and uncertainty in their fields, develop realistic scenarios, and outline different policy options along with their respective risks and benefits. Importantly, the code acknowledges that scientific evidence, while crucial, is not the sole basis for decision-making; societal values and interests must also be taken into account (Swiss Science Council et al. 2023).
This structured approach is further complemented by the establishment of topic-related clusters for crisis preparation. These clusters, focused on areas such as cybersecurity, public health and international challenges, enable the rapid recruitment of experts in times of crisis (Federal Council 2023). Moreover, they foster ongoing discussion in these individual fields with the federal administration, and as necessary with parliament and the cantons. Such proactive engagement ensures that a network of experts is continually in dialogue with policymakers, enhancing the responsiveness and relevance of scientific advice.
Overall, Switzerland’s approach to utilizing scientific knowledge in policymaking – particularly evident during the COVID-19 crisis and evolving with the more recent structural changes – demonstrates a commitment to improving the integration of scientific advice into decision-making. These efforts reflect an ongoing process intended to balance scientific expertise and political considerations, ensuring more effective and transparent policymaking in times of crisis. In normal times, the inclusion of external expertise is based on the broadly diffused practice of mandating policy evaluations (see section G8), on ad hoc informal consultations of academic experts by administrations (which can lack transparency), and on thematic extra-parliamentary commissions filled either with academics or practitioners (e.g., on the topics of vaccination or nuclear safety) (Hirschi et al. 2022).
Citations:
Eichenberger, S., Varone, F., Sciarini, P., Stähli, R., and Proulx, J. 2023. “When Do Decision Makers Listen (Less) to Experts? The Swiss Government’s Implementation of Scientific Advice During the COVID-19 Crisis.” Policy Studies Journal 51: 587-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12494
Hadorn, S., Sager, F., Mavrot, C., Malandrino, A., and Ege, J. 2022. “Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 63 (2): 359-382.
Hirschi, C., Hornung, J., Jaton, D., Mavrot, C., Sager, F., and Schlaufer, C. L. 2022. Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung in Krisenzeiten in der Schweiz: Eine Analyse der Finanzkrise, des Fukushima-Unfalls und der Covid-19-Pandemie.
Sager, F., Mavrot, C., and Hornung, J. 2022. Wissenschaftliche Politikberatungssysteme in der Covid-19-Krise: Die Schweiz im Vergleich mit Deutschland, Italien, Frankreich und Grossbritannien.
Swiss Science Council, Innosuisse, swissuniversities, ETH Board, Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, Swiss National Science Foundation. 2023. Code of Practice for Participants in the Swiss National Science Advice Network.
Federal Council. 2023. “Federal Council Regulates Crisis-Related Activation of Scientific Expertise.” https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen/bundesrat.msg-id-99270.html
However, the Task Force faced challenges related to transparency, particularly with regard to its mandate and communication protocols, highlighting the need for clearer role definitions and processes. Additionally, the balance between scientific independence and political decision-making emerged as a critical issue, alongside the complexity of effectively coordinating scientific advice within Switzerland’s federal structure (Sager et al. 2022). Another challenge was the Task Force’s difficulty in persuading politicians to adopt its recommendations beginning with the second pandemic wave (Eichenberger et al. 2022).
The Federal Council’s recent proposal for activating scientific expertise during crises, as evidenced by the creation of ad hoc scientific advisory groups, marks a significant stride in integrating scientific knowledge into the policymaking process, particularly in times of crisis. This initiative, adopted in response to lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, underscores the importance of consulting scientific experts early in the crisis-management process (Federal Council 2023). The involvement of Switzerland’s key education, research and innovation (ERI) institutions in nominating experts for these groups is fundamental to ensuring the effectiveness, credibility and legitimacy of the scientific advisory process.
A noteworthy aspect of this approach is the close cooperation with ERI institutions, which include prominent organizations such as the Swiss Conference of Rectors of Higher Education Institutions (swissuniversities), the ETH Board and the Swiss National Science Foundation (Swiss Science Council et al. 2023). This collaboration ensures a broad-based support system for the scientific advisory group, enhancing its multidisciplinary reach and representativeness. The implementation proposal mandates that the need for a scientific advisory group be examined whenever an interdepartmental crisis organization is established, thereby institutionalizing the inclusion of scientific advice in crisis response mechanisms (Federal Council 2023).
Additionally, the ERI institutions and the confederation have collaboratively developed a Code of Practice that clearly defines the tasks and responsibilities of scientific experts. This code stipulates that experts are expected to advise policymakers about the current state of certainty and uncertainty in their fields, develop realistic scenarios, and outline different policy options along with their respective risks and benefits. Importantly, the code acknowledges that scientific evidence, while crucial, is not the sole basis for decision-making; societal values and interests must also be taken into account (Swiss Science Council et al. 2023).
This structured approach is further complemented by the establishment of topic-related clusters for crisis preparation. These clusters, focused on areas such as cybersecurity, public health and international challenges, enable the rapid recruitment of experts in times of crisis (Federal Council 2023). Moreover, they foster ongoing discussion in these individual fields with the federal administration, and as necessary with parliament and the cantons. Such proactive engagement ensures that a network of experts is continually in dialogue with policymakers, enhancing the responsiveness and relevance of scientific advice.
Overall, Switzerland’s approach to utilizing scientific knowledge in policymaking – particularly evident during the COVID-19 crisis and evolving with the more recent structural changes – demonstrates a commitment to improving the integration of scientific advice into decision-making. These efforts reflect an ongoing process intended to balance scientific expertise and political considerations, ensuring more effective and transparent policymaking in times of crisis. In normal times, the inclusion of external expertise is based on the broadly diffused practice of mandating policy evaluations (see section G8), on ad hoc informal consultations of academic experts by administrations (which can lack transparency), and on thematic extra-parliamentary commissions filled either with academics or practitioners (e.g., on the topics of vaccination or nuclear safety) (Hirschi et al. 2022).
Citations:
Eichenberger, S., Varone, F., Sciarini, P., Stähli, R., and Proulx, J. 2023. “When Do Decision Makers Listen (Less) to Experts? The Swiss Government’s Implementation of Scientific Advice During the COVID-19 Crisis.” Policy Studies Journal 51: 587-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12494
Hadorn, S., Sager, F., Mavrot, C., Malandrino, A., and Ege, J. 2022. “Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 63 (2): 359-382.
Hirschi, C., Hornung, J., Jaton, D., Mavrot, C., Sager, F., and Schlaufer, C. L. 2022. Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung in Krisenzeiten in der Schweiz: Eine Analyse der Finanzkrise, des Fukushima-Unfalls und der Covid-19-Pandemie.
Sager, F., Mavrot, C., and Hornung, J. 2022. Wissenschaftliche Politikberatungssysteme in der Covid-19-Krise: Die Schweiz im Vergleich mit Deutschland, Italien, Frankreich und Grossbritannien.
Swiss Science Council, Innosuisse, swissuniversities, ETH Board, Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, Swiss National Science Foundation. 2023. Code of Practice for Participants in the Swiss National Science Advice Network.
Federal Council. 2023. “Federal Council Regulates Crisis-Related Activation of Scientific Expertise.” https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen/bundesrat.msg-id-99270.html
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.
Policymaking in Switzerland is strongly based on public consultation with interest groups. Traditionally, in the Swiss liberal-conservative political system, business and employer interest groups have more influence and power than trade unions or non-producer interests. The latter, however, have recently enjoyed a significant increase in their political influence (Kriesi 1980; 1982; Häusermann et al. 2004; Armingeon 2011; Sciarini et al. 2015; Eichenberger 2020; Mach et al. 2020).
Within Switzerland’s corporatist system, which links the state and organizations representing labor and capital, there are numerous pre-parliamentary procedures and committees focused on consultation with various societal groups. One of the main such mechanisms is the consultation procedure, which enables invited (communal and cantonal umbrella organizations, relevant interest groups) and uninvited parties to submit statements in the context of a preliminary legislative procedure. These instruments are designed to prevent government proposals from failing in parliament or in subsequent referendums, and to offer solutions that benefit all parties. However, authorities can synthesize and integrate these comments into the design of policy at their discretion.
Research shows that the degree of corporatist integration has declined in recent years. This is in part attributable to the growing intensity of conflicts between the social partners, as well as to the influence of European integration and internationalization. If judged from a comparative perspective, the level of corporatist integration remains very high in Switzerland, but from a historical perspective it is low.
During the pandemic, corporatism proved to be a resilient and efficient instrument for swift socioeconomic policymaking, although this corporatist coordination happened very silently, while the mass media was more focused on lobbying efforts (Armingeon and Sager 2022). These neocorporatist features also gave the upper hand to economic actors with regard to influencing COVID-19 measures, to the detriment of other CSOs (Sager/Mavrot 2020). In any case, the direct democracy aspects of the system offer interest groups very significant influence, since they can threaten to trigger a referendum. This offers strong incentives for political elites to incorporate major interest groups in the policy-development process. On the other hand, the federal government has become stronger in the domestic political environment due to the consequences of European integration.
Citations:
Armingeon, Klaus. 2011. “A Prematurely Announced Death? Swiss Corporatism in Comparative Perspective.” In Switzerland in Europe: Continuity and Change in the Swiss Political Economy, eds. C. Trampusch and A. Mach. London/New York: Routledge.
Armingeon, Klaus, and Fritz Sager. 2022. “Muting Science: Input Overload Versus Scientific Advice in Swiss Policymaking During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Unpublished paper.
Eichenberger, S. 2020. “The Rise of Citizen Groups within the Administration and Parliament in Switzerland.” Swiss Political Science Review 26 (2): 206-227.
Fischer, Manuel, and Pascal Sciarini. 2019. “Die Position der Regierung in Entscheidungsstrukturen.” In Blackbox Exekutive. Regierungslehre in der Schweiz, eds. Adrian Ritz, Theo Haldemann, and Fritz Sager. Zürich: NZZ Libro, 49-64.
Häusermann, S., Mach, A., and Papadopoulos, Y. 2004. “From Corporatism to Partisan Politics: Social Policy Making under Strain in Switzerland.” Revue Suisse de Science Politique 11 (3): 33-59.
Kriesi, H. 1980. Entscheidungsstrukturen und Entscheidungsprozesse in der Schweizer Politik. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus.
Kriesi, H. 1982. “The Structure of the Swiss Political System.” In Patterns of Corporatist Policy-Making, eds. G. Lehmbruch and P. C. Schmitter. London, Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lexicon of parliamentary terms. 2022. “Consultation procedure.” https://www.parlament.ch/en/%C3%BCber-das-parlament/parlamentsw%C3%B6rterbuch/parlamentsw%C3%B6rterbuch-detail?WordId=225
MACH, A., VARONE, F., and EICHENBERGER, S. 2020. “Transformations of Swiss Neo-Corporatism: From Pre-Parliamentary Negotiations toward Privileged Pluralism in the Parliamentary Venue.” In CAREJA, R., EMMENEGGER, P., and GIGER, N., eds. The European Social Model under Pressure. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27043-8_4
Sager, F., and C. Mavrot. 2020. “Switzerland’s COVID-19 Policy Response: Consociational Crisis Management and Neo-Corporatist Reopening.” European Policy Analysis 6: 293-304.
Sciarini, Pascal, Manuel Fischer, and Denise Traber, eds. 2015. Political Decision-Making in Switzerland. The Consensus Model under Pressure. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Within Switzerland’s corporatist system, which links the state and organizations representing labor and capital, there are numerous pre-parliamentary procedures and committees focused on consultation with various societal groups. One of the main such mechanisms is the consultation procedure, which enables invited (communal and cantonal umbrella organizations, relevant interest groups) and uninvited parties to submit statements in the context of a preliminary legislative procedure. These instruments are designed to prevent government proposals from failing in parliament or in subsequent referendums, and to offer solutions that benefit all parties. However, authorities can synthesize and integrate these comments into the design of policy at their discretion.
Research shows that the degree of corporatist integration has declined in recent years. This is in part attributable to the growing intensity of conflicts between the social partners, as well as to the influence of European integration and internationalization. If judged from a comparative perspective, the level of corporatist integration remains very high in Switzerland, but from a historical perspective it is low.
During the pandemic, corporatism proved to be a resilient and efficient instrument for swift socioeconomic policymaking, although this corporatist coordination happened very silently, while the mass media was more focused on lobbying efforts (Armingeon and Sager 2022). These neocorporatist features also gave the upper hand to economic actors with regard to influencing COVID-19 measures, to the detriment of other CSOs (Sager/Mavrot 2020). In any case, the direct democracy aspects of the system offer interest groups very significant influence, since they can threaten to trigger a referendum. This offers strong incentives for political elites to incorporate major interest groups in the policy-development process. On the other hand, the federal government has become stronger in the domestic political environment due to the consequences of European integration.
Citations:
Armingeon, Klaus. 2011. “A Prematurely Announced Death? Swiss Corporatism in Comparative Perspective.” In Switzerland in Europe: Continuity and Change in the Swiss Political Economy, eds. C. Trampusch and A. Mach. London/New York: Routledge.
Armingeon, Klaus, and Fritz Sager. 2022. “Muting Science: Input Overload Versus Scientific Advice in Swiss Policymaking During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Unpublished paper.
Eichenberger, S. 2020. “The Rise of Citizen Groups within the Administration and Parliament in Switzerland.” Swiss Political Science Review 26 (2): 206-227.
Fischer, Manuel, and Pascal Sciarini. 2019. “Die Position der Regierung in Entscheidungsstrukturen.” In Blackbox Exekutive. Regierungslehre in der Schweiz, eds. Adrian Ritz, Theo Haldemann, and Fritz Sager. Zürich: NZZ Libro, 49-64.
Häusermann, S., Mach, A., and Papadopoulos, Y. 2004. “From Corporatism to Partisan Politics: Social Policy Making under Strain in Switzerland.” Revue Suisse de Science Politique 11 (3): 33-59.
Kriesi, H. 1980. Entscheidungsstrukturen und Entscheidungsprozesse in der Schweizer Politik. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus.
Kriesi, H. 1982. “The Structure of the Swiss Political System.” In Patterns of Corporatist Policy-Making, eds. G. Lehmbruch and P. C. Schmitter. London, Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lexicon of parliamentary terms. 2022. “Consultation procedure.” https://www.parlament.ch/en/%C3%BCber-das-parlament/parlamentsw%C3%B6rterbuch/parlamentsw%C3%B6rterbuch-detail?WordId=225
MACH, A., VARONE, F., and EICHENBERGER, S. 2020. “Transformations of Swiss Neo-Corporatism: From Pre-Parliamentary Negotiations toward Privileged Pluralism in the Parliamentary Venue.” In CAREJA, R., EMMENEGGER, P., and GIGER, N., eds. The European Social Model under Pressure. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27043-8_4
Sager, F., and C. Mavrot. 2020. “Switzerland’s COVID-19 Policy Response: Consociational Crisis Management and Neo-Corporatist Reopening.” European Policy Analysis 6: 293-304.
Sciarini, Pascal, Manuel Fischer, and Denise Traber, eds. 2015. Political Decision-Making in Switzerland. The Consensus Model under Pressure. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Historically characterized by neocorporatism, the Swiss political system has seen a gradual shift toward a more pluralistic approach in which a variety of interest groups, including social welfare CSOs, have gained increased access to the policymaking process. This transition reflects a move away from a system that was predominantly dominated by major economic umbrella associations.
Eichenberger (2020) notes that the legal framework in Switzerland has evolved to mandate “balanced representation” in decision-making bodies, ensuring the inclusion of diverse interests. This legal evolution is evident in the participation of social welfare CSOs in extra-parliamentary committees and in these organizations’ responses to consultations, in which the share of access granted to citizen groups has increased in both administrative and legislative venues.
However, major economic groups, including business interest associations and trade unions, continue to hold a dominant position, particularly in the domains of economic and social policies (Mach, Varone and Eichenberger, 2020).
Citations:
Eichenberger, S. 2020. “The Rise of Citizen Groups within the Administration and Parliament in Switzerland.” Swiss Political Science Review 26 (2): 206-227.
Mach, A., Varone, F., and Eichenberger, S. 2020. “Transformations of Swiss Neo-Corporatism: From Pre-Parliamentary Negotiations toward Privileged Pluralism in the Parliamentary Venue.” In The European Social Model under Pressure, eds. Careja, R., Emmenegger, P., and Giger, N. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27043-8_4
Eichenberger (2020) notes that the legal framework in Switzerland has evolved to mandate “balanced representation” in decision-making bodies, ensuring the inclusion of diverse interests. This legal evolution is evident in the participation of social welfare CSOs in extra-parliamentary committees and in these organizations’ responses to consultations, in which the share of access granted to citizen groups has increased in both administrative and legislative venues.
However, major economic groups, including business interest associations and trade unions, continue to hold a dominant position, particularly in the domains of economic and social policies (Mach, Varone and Eichenberger, 2020).
Citations:
Eichenberger, S. 2020. “The Rise of Citizen Groups within the Administration and Parliament in Switzerland.” Swiss Political Science Review 26 (2): 206-227.
Mach, A., Varone, F., and Eichenberger, S. 2020. “Transformations of Swiss Neo-Corporatism: From Pre-Parliamentary Negotiations toward Privileged Pluralism in the Parliamentary Venue.” In The European Social Model under Pressure, eds. Careja, R., Emmenegger, P., and Giger, N. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27043-8_4
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.
Historically, the Swiss neocorporatist regime was dominated by major economic umbrella associations, which were central political actors in the pre-parliamentary phase of decision-making, including in extra-parliamentary committees and consultation procedures (Mach, Varone & Eichenberger 2020). Since the 1990s, however, there has been a significant reconfiguration toward a more pluralist system in which interest groups, including environmental CSOs, have actively sought to influence the parliament (Mach, Varone & Eichenberger 2020; Eichenberger, 2020). This shift is attributed to factors such as the declining role of the pre-parliamentary phase, the revalorization of the parliament and the increasing role of media in politics (Mach, Varone & Eichenberger 2020).
Eichenberger (2020) notes that the share of access granted to noneconomic interest groups, including environmental CSOs, has increased in both the administrative and legislative venues across all federal departments and most legislative committees in Switzerland. This change suggests an adaptation of the Swiss system of interest intermediation to the growing significance and organizational consolidation of these groups.
Noneconomic interest groups are very heterogeneous in Switzerland. Nevertheless, some environmental groups, undertaking cooperative efforts with academic bodies, offer reasonable proposals and hold considerable capacity for political mobilization. Recent research emphasizes the growing importance of environmental CSOs such as the WWF (Eichenberger 2020; Mach et al. 2020).
The revalorization and growing professionalization of the Swiss parliament have made the parliamentary venue more hospitable to citizen groups defending general causes and objectives. Nevertheless, economic interest groups have also adjusted their political strategies and expanded their presence within the parliamentary venue, indicating a nuanced strengthening of citizen groups (Mach, Varone & Eichenberger 2020).
Citations:
Eichenberger, S. 2020. “The Rise of Citizen Groups within the Administration and Parliament in Switzerland.” Swiss Political Science Review 26: 206-227.
Mach, A., Varone, F. and Eichenberger, S. 2020. “Transformations of Swiss Neo-corporatism: From Pre-parliamentary Negotiations toward Privileged Pluralism in the Parliamentary Venue.” In The European Social Model under Pressure, eds. Careja, R., Emmenegger, P. and Giger, N. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27043-8_4
Eichenberger (2020) notes that the share of access granted to noneconomic interest groups, including environmental CSOs, has increased in both the administrative and legislative venues across all federal departments and most legislative committees in Switzerland. This change suggests an adaptation of the Swiss system of interest intermediation to the growing significance and organizational consolidation of these groups.
Noneconomic interest groups are very heterogeneous in Switzerland. Nevertheless, some environmental groups, undertaking cooperative efforts with academic bodies, offer reasonable proposals and hold considerable capacity for political mobilization. Recent research emphasizes the growing importance of environmental CSOs such as the WWF (Eichenberger 2020; Mach et al. 2020).
The revalorization and growing professionalization of the Swiss parliament have made the parliamentary venue more hospitable to citizen groups defending general causes and objectives. Nevertheless, economic interest groups have also adjusted their political strategies and expanded their presence within the parliamentary venue, indicating a nuanced strengthening of citizen groups (Mach, Varone & Eichenberger 2020).
Citations:
Eichenberger, S. 2020. “The Rise of Citizen Groups within the Administration and Parliament in Switzerland.” Swiss Political Science Review 26: 206-227.
Mach, A., Varone, F. and Eichenberger, S. 2020. “Transformations of Swiss Neo-corporatism: From Pre-parliamentary Negotiations toward Privileged Pluralism in the Parliamentary Venue.” In The European Social Model under Pressure, eds. Careja, R., Emmenegger, P. and Giger, N. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27043-8_4
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.
The government and its institutions – in particular the Federal Statistical Office – pursue a highly user-friendly policy of internet-based access to information. Any citizen interested in public policy and having access to the internet will find a large body of qualitative and quantitative data available. The Freedom of Information Act (Bundesgesetz über das Öffentlichkeitsprinzip der Verwaltung, BGÖ/LTrans) ensures full access to public documents apart from classified information (see section D3).
The official information bulletin is the most important source of information for citizens making decisions in direct-democratic votes. Overall, government information policy can be considered comprehensive, and enables citizens to fully inform themselves about most aspects of the political system and its policymaking.
However, as made clear by the 2019 case in which the Supreme Court overturned the outcome of a popular vote, this information policy is not flawless, and is subject to close scrutiny in the context of the country’s direct democracy. The mistakes made by the Federal Council in delivering erroneous information regarding a vote on the taxation of couples compelled the court to annul the referendum (Jacquemoud 2019).
Citations:
Jacquemoud, C. 2019. “L’annulation du scrutin fédéral sur l’initiative ‘Pour le couple et la famille – Non à la pénalisation du mariage.’“ www.lawinside.ch/763/
Swiss Confederation, Federal Act on Freedom of Information in the Administration (Freedom of Information Act, FoIA) of 17 December 2004 (Status as of 1 November 2023): https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2006/355/en
The official information bulletin is the most important source of information for citizens making decisions in direct-democratic votes. Overall, government information policy can be considered comprehensive, and enables citizens to fully inform themselves about most aspects of the political system and its policymaking.
However, as made clear by the 2019 case in which the Supreme Court overturned the outcome of a popular vote, this information policy is not flawless, and is subject to close scrutiny in the context of the country’s direct democracy. The mistakes made by the Federal Council in delivering erroneous information regarding a vote on the taxation of couples compelled the court to annul the referendum (Jacquemoud 2019).
Citations:
Jacquemoud, C. 2019. “L’annulation du scrutin fédéral sur l’initiative ‘Pour le couple et la famille – Non à la pénalisation du mariage.’“ www.lawinside.ch/763/
Swiss Confederation, Federal Act on Freedom of Information in the Administration (Freedom of Information Act, FoIA) of 17 December 2004 (Status as of 1 November 2023): https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2006/355/en