Science is widely regarded as a valuable basis for political decision-making because. That is because it is seen as relatively independent from commercial and partisan interests. Moreover, science is subject to established quality-assurance mechanisms. Accordingly, science advisory at the international and national levels has expanded and diversified in many countries, including Germany. What has received far less systematic attention, however, is how scientific expertise is incorporated into local decision-making. This is true particularly in interactions between academic researchers and municipal governments, small towns, and villages in the vicinity of universities.
In Germany, we identified a form of local know-how, namely “quasi-scientific actors,” who provide solution-oriented consultation to local authorities while claiming to be science-based. Below, we share our insights into science–policy advice at the local level and the role of quasi-scientific actors within it. This policy insight draws on a qualitative study of scientific advice to local politics in Germany (link at the bottom of the page). Based on 17 in-depth interviews with mayors, senior public officials, and experts involved in science–policy advice across municipalities, districts, and district-free cities, the study examined how local decision-makers access and use scientific expertise, which actors provide it, and how advisory practices are organised in practice.
Germany offers a particularly revealing case, given the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of its municipalities and districts. Local governments exercise far-reaching authority over policy domains such as urban development, transport, education, social services, and environmental planning—areas that directly shape citizens’ everyday lives.
The central finding is clear: although the demand for scientific expertise in local politics is growing, academically organised science plays only a marginal role in local decision-making. Instead, local governments rely predominantly on commercial consultancies and intermediary organisations that present their services as research-based. These actors, which we term quasi-scientific, have become key providers of policy-relevant expertise at the local level in Germany.
A structurally uneven advisory landscape
Germany has a highly developed and institutionally dense science–policy advisory ecosystem. It is strongly decentralised and comprises more than a thousand organisations, including universities and public research institutes, expert commissions, departmental research bodies, academies of sciences, and temporary advisory councils. In addition, federal ministries maintain extensive advisory networks that provide decision-makers with access to scientific expertise across a wide range of policy domains.
This institutional density can be observed mostly on the national and federal level of government, however, does not extend downwards. At the municipal and district levels, formal advisory structures linking politics and academic research are rare. Local administrations typically lack dedicated staff for science relations, and interactions with universities or public research institutes are usually ad hoc, project-based, and dependent on personal contacts. Scientific advice, when it occurs, tends to follow a linear pattern: a study is commissioned, a report is delivered, and implementation is left to public administration.
At the same time, the market for public-sector consulting by private entities has expanded steadily in Germany, including at the local level. Such consulting firms do not fit into the description of purely scientific advisory actors or purely commercial because they are private entities that present their advice as research based, referring particularly to scientific research. We call these actors quasi-scientific. Such firms are widely perceived by local decision-makers as providers of evidence-based expertise. In practice, many interviewees made little distinction between academic and commercial advice, as long as it appeared scientifically grounded and practically useful.
Local politics turns to quasi-scientific advice
The prominence of quasi-scientific actors does not necessarily imply a decline in public trust in science or a diminished demand for scientific expertise. On the contrary, local politicians and public officials consistently expressed high regard for academic science, particularly for its perceived neutrality, methodological rigour, and independence from vested interests. The problem, rather, lies in a structural mismatch between the operational logics of academic research and those of local governance.
Local politics is characterised by time pressure, limited administrative capacity, and strong implementation demands. Decision-makers require advice that is continuous rather than episodic, closely tied to ongoing policy processes, and adaptable to changing political and administrative conditions. Academic advice, by contrast, is often perceived as slow, abstract, and difficult to integrate into everyday decision-making. Reports are described as lengthy, linguistically complex, and insufficiently aligned with practical constraints.
Further reading: How local depopulation changes our future
Quasi-scientific actors respond more effectively to these conditions. They offer process-oriented support, frequent interaction, and outputs tailored to administrative routines and political realities. From the perspective of local governance, this makes them highly attractive. From a science policy perspective, however, their growing dominance raises critical questions.
The marginalisation of academic science
The reliance on quasi-scientific advice at the local level is not inherently problematic. However, the near absence of academically organised science from local policymaking carries significant risks for evidence-informed and democratic governance.
First, there is a clear issue of quality assurance. Academic research is embedded in institutionalised norms of transparency, peer review, and scientific self-governance. For commercial advisory actors, such standards are neither uniform nor publicly visible. Local administrations often lack the resources and expertise to assess whether commissioned advice reflects the state of scientific knowledge or selectively mobilises evidence to legitimise predetermined policy choices.
Second, the outsourcing of expertise raises concerns about democratic accountability. Advisory reports, data, and methodological assumptions are frequently not publicly accessible, limiting scrutiny by elected councils, civil society, and citizens. This risks reframing political conflicts as technical necessities and weakening democratic debate.
Third, reliance on market-based advice exacerbates territorial inequalities. Larger and wealthier municipalities are better positioned to commission expertise, while smaller or financially weaker local governments face high search costs and limited options. This risks deepening disparities in evidence-informed policymaking across regions.
Most importantly, the neglect of the local level represents a strategic blind spot in scientific policy advice. Municipalities are not merely implementing higher-level decisions; they exercise autonomous political judgement in precisely those policy areas that are central to societal transformation. If scientific policy advice remains focused primarily on national governments, it fails to engage with where many of the most consequential decisions are actually made.
Recentring scientific policy advice on the local sphere
Scientific policy advice should take local politics far more seriously. This is not a call for more outreach or better communication, but for a structural reorientation of advisory practices. The success of quasi-scientific actors demonstrates a strong demand for continuous, context-sensitive expertise at the local level. The policy challenge is to meet this demand without sacrificing scientific quality, transparency, and independence.
Universities of applied sciences, regional research institutes, and publicly accountable intermediaries are particularly well placed to play a stronger role, given their applied orientation and territorial proximity. However, this requires changes in funding schemes, incentive structures, and institutional strategies. Engagement with local policymaking must be recognised as a core component of scientific policy advice, not as a peripheral or voluntary activity.
Policy recommendations
To strengthen scientific policy advice at the local level, we recommend:
- Building advisory capacity within local administration, including shared regional structures for science relations and evidence appraisal.
- Establishing minimum standards for commissioned expertise, covering transparency of methods, evidence sources, and uncertainty, regardless of whether advice is academic or commercial.
- Creating durable science–policy interfaces at the local level, particularly through long-term partnerships with universities of applied sciences and public research institutes.
- Reforming academic incentive structures so that sustained engagement with local policymaking is recognised in funding, evaluation, and career progression.
- Enhancing transparency and public access to expert advice used in major local decisions to safeguard democratic accountability.
References
Christensen, Johan, Cathrine Holst, and Anders Molander. 2022. Expertise, Policy-Making and Democracy. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003106555.
Kühnel, Markus. 2022. “Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung für Kommunen im Demografischen Wandel.” In Kommunale Demografiepolitik in Theorie und Praxis: Eine Politikfeldanalyse zur Genese und der Rolle von wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung, Dortmunder Beiträge zur Sozialforschung, ed. Markus Kühnel. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 139–79. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-38136-3_4.
Mäding, Heinrich. 2007. “Wissenschaftliche Beratung der Kommunen.” In Handbuch der kommunalen Wissenschaft und Praxis: Band 1 Grundlagen und Kommunalverfassung, eds. Thomas Mann and Günter Püttner. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 41–54. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68884-6_3.
Mäding, Heinrich. 2011. “Zur Vielfalt Der Politikberatung in Der Raum-Und Stadtentwicklung. Erfahrungen Und Erwägungen Am Beispiel von ARL Und Difu.” Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 7(8): 461–70.
Pamuk, Zeynep. 2021. Politics and Expertise: How to Use Science in a Democratic Society. Princeton University Press.
Reed, Mark S. C., Saskia Gent, Fran Seballos, Jayne Glass, Regina Hansda, and Mads Frederik Fischer-Møller. 2022. “How Can Impact Strategies Be Developed That Better Support Universities to Address Twenty-First-Century Challenges?” Research for All 6. doi:10.14324/RFA.06.1.24.
Weingart, Peter, Justus Lentsch, and Renate Mayntz. 2008. Wissen-Beraten-Entscheiden: Form Und Funktion Wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung in Deutschland. Velbrück Wissenschaft.