This study examines the practice of evidence-based policymaking in five Nordic countries. By comparing the references that national policy actors have utilized in their policy documents to evidentiate policy ideas and recommendations, it draws attention to the contextual factors that shape each country’s practice of evidence-based policymaking. The results illustrate that all five Nordic countries actively use evidence to support and legitimate their policy proposals; however, their utilization varies by (a) institutionalized forms of policymaking system, (b) degree of self-referentiality, and (c) type of reform. First, by comparing the policy development process of the most recent school reforms, we find that some countries seek evidence for policy proposals mainly through the policy advisory system within the bureaucracy (e.g., Green Papers in Norway and Sweden), while others outsource the production of policy advice (e.g., EVA in Denmark, FIER in Finland, or OECD). National policy contexts regarding how policymakers seek policy knowledge signify each nation’s political orientation and perception toward democratic and technocratic policymaking (Eyal, 2019; Christensen & Hesstvedt, 2019). Furthermore, the change in political models, such as the prosperity of corporatism in Iceland and the decline of corporatism in other Nordic countries, has shaped who participates in the policy process and what their roles are. Second, the reference utilization pattern in each country depends on to what extent the policy system is self-referential or receptive to externalization. The frequent utilization of non-government-published documents in Norway suggests that policymakers were open to external sources of knowledge beyond the system of politics. Indeed, the Norwegian government extensively made use of the knowledge produced by institute sector organizations such as NIFU and NOVA, both of which bridge the systems of politics, science, and practice. Norway also demonstrated the relatively high percentage of international references. On the contrary, Sweden demonstrated a greater tendency toward self-referentiality. It had the highest percentage of government-published documents and the lowest percentage of international references compared with the other Nordic countries. However, it is also possible that Sweden was only less explicit about its externalization (Waldow, 2009). Third, more international references are utilized for a fundamental or controversial reform than for an incremental or non-controversial reform. In-depth analyses of international references in Denmark, for example, showed that policy actors used international references, particularly the ones produced by the OECD, to legitimize the need for the highly controversial 2014/17 Reform by problematizing and diagnosing the existing system.

Christensen, J., & Hesstvedt, S. (2019). Expertisation or greater representation? Evidence from Norwegian advisory commissions. European Politics and Society, 20(1), 83–100. Eyal, G. (2019). The crisis of expertise. Polity Press. Waldow, F. (2009). Undeclared imports: Silent borrowing in educational policy-making and research in Sweden. Comparative Education, 45(4), 477–494.