Cross-national comparisons in epistemic governance: analysis of parliamentary debates from eight countries

Abstract

Cross-national comparisons are a common instrument of epistemic governance in national parliaments. Their prevalence could be seen as a consequence of the emergence of the ‘competition state’ and the ‘rankings explosion’. However, what is actually done with cross-national comparisons has not been properly analysed. The study analyses almost 1000 parliamentary debates from 8 countries from the years 1994–2013. It builds a comprehensive categorisation of the functions of cross-national comparisons. Altogether, six categories were identified: competing nations; rational governance; morals of governance; modern condition; scaling, and picking apples and oranges. The findings indicate no significant increase in the number of comparisons during the studied period. More importantly, only about one third of the comparisons evoke a competitive framing. Cross-national comparisons are a stable feature of political rhetoric and their ubiquitous nature is due, precisely, to their malleability in defining political problems and principles of good governance outside a competitive framework.