Does the Background of the Regulator Matter? Representation, Critical Mass and Cultural Capture in Regulatory Bodies

Regulatory bodies (RBs) have been conceived as expert bodies able to enhance the credible commitment problem of policies due to their technical capacities and knowledge (Majone, 1994), and also, due to their neutrality and impartiality as key legitimizing features. In contrast to other political organizations, it might be argued that RAs do not need to fulfill social representation. However, previous studies (Jasanoff, 2011; Krick, 2018; Pérez-Durán and Bravo-Laguna, 2019) have emphasized that expert bodies and their members also need to meet some requirements related to: the reliability of their knowledge and competence; and the credibility of their independence in their background and professional trajectories. Our objective is to examine representation and inclusiveness in RBs, and their potential effects on the risks of cultural capture and the lack of plurality of voices in their regulatory process. We propose answering the following research questions: i) To what extent do regulatory bodies have representation and inclusiveness in the professional trajectory of their members?, and ii) To what extent a potential bias could be mitigated through two opposite routes of representation? We will respond to these questions by using two empirical sources of data: First, an original biographical dataset developed in the H2020 TiGRE that contains core biographical and professional characteristics of members involved in regulatory bodies in three policy sectors (finance, food safety and data protection) operating in the European Union and in six countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Israel, Switzerland and Spain). And second, interviews conducted with core actors of the sectors, namely, such as interest organizations, consumers associations, and ministries. Through our study, we seek to provide insights about the extent to which critical mass is needed in expert bodies and regulatory domains; and to contribute to the debate of democratization in expert bodies.