Knowledge Use in the European Parliament’s Health Policy: Whose Knowledge Do Parliamentary Actors Consider?

Parliaments function not only as democratic governance institutions but also as knowledge institutions. Although research on evidence use in parliaments has gained momentum, studies focusing on knowledge use within the European Parliament (EP) – particularly regarding health policy – remain limited. Whose knowledge the EP engages with has significant implications for democratic governance. This paper maps the evidence base of the EP, using a comparative quantitative approach that draws on two case studies: the COVID-19 pandemic and the issue of cancer. By creating stakeholder datasets for the EP’s ninth parliamentary term (2019–2024), we identified and collected the knowledge sources from committee hearings (oral knowledge) and parliamentary studies (written knowledge). A subsequent citation analysis compared these two types of evidence, revealing whether hearing witnesses were also cited in studies (and to what extent) and vice versa. The preliminary results reveal notable differences between the knowledge base of committee hearings and written briefings, depending on the issue under discussion and the committee involved. More than a fifth of witnesses invited to hearings were from Belgium, and about two-thirds were men. In studies as well, most references were from Belgian sources, although there was a better gender balance. Overall, committees predominantly relied on witnesses from the non-profit sector (23.08%) and the private sector (21.98%), whereas studies relied mainly on in-house knowledge (33.19%) and external research organisations (31.35%). Comparing case data showed that actors from non-profit or research backgrounds were most prevalent in cancer-related issues, whereas knowledge about COVID-19 largely came from the private and governmental sectors (both at the EU and member state level). By illustrating that different parliamentary structures and health issues influence whose knowledge the EP engages with, this paper makes valuable contributions to the fields of parliamentary studies, European studies, and health policy studies.