Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 131–139 | Cite as

“Technocracy,” democracy … and corruption and trust

  • Phil RyanEmail author
Discussion and Commentary

Abstract

Mutual distrust between experts and ordinary citizens—manifest in the wake of the Brexit referendum, the rise of the Tea Party and the election of Donald Trump—is not new. But it takes on particular urgency in an age when ill-informed “populist” policies on issues such as climate change may cause irreparable damage. This article examines the viability of Gilley’s (Policy Sci 50:9–22, 2017) attempt to resolve the conflict between “technocracy” and democracy. Gilley’s solution relies on the objective qualities of a policy to assign it to its appropriate “sphere”: Highly technical problems are best addressed by experts, while those marked by technical uncertainty can be handled by democracy. This article argues that such a solution will not be stable under current political conditions. We must recognize that various forms of corruption of expertise have contributed to today’s populist reaction against experts. The challenge of reforming expertise and mitigating mistrust of experts is a “divergent” problem, which requires ongoing balancing, and does not admit of a once-and-for-all solution.

Keywords

Technocracy Experts Populism Corruption 

References

  1. American Economic Association. (2012). AEA disclosure policy. https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/policies/disclosure-policy.
  2. Caplan, B. (2006). The myth of the rational voter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dahl, R. (1947). The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration Review, 7, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davenport, C., & Lipton, E. (2017). How G.O.P. leaders came to view climate change as fake science. New York Times, 3 June.Google Scholar
  5. Ehrenreich, B. (2017). New kinds of work require new ideas—and new ways of organizing. New York Times, 23 February.Google Scholar
  6. Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2016). Public opinion about genetically modified foods and trust in scientists connected with these foods. Pew Research Center (1 December). http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/public-opinion-about-genetically-modified-foods-and-trust-in-scientists-connected-with-these-foods/.
  7. Gelbspan, R. (1997). The heat is on. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. Gilley, B. (2017). Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy. Policy Sciences, 50, 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  10. Hamilton, A., Jay, J., & Madison, J. (1937). The Federalist. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, G., & Berenson, A. (2005). Ten voters on panel backing pain pills had industry ties. New York Times, 25 February.Google Scholar
  12. Ibsen, H. (1999). An enemy of the people. Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  13. Kaiser, D., & Wasserman, L. (2016). The Rockefeller family fund versus Exxon. New York Review of Books, 8 December.Google Scholar
  14. Kant, I. (1991). Appendix to perpetual peace. In H. Reiss (Ed.), Kant: Political writings (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Krimsky, S., & Schwab, T. (2017). Conflicts of interest among committee members in the National Academies’ genetically engineered crop study. Public library of science, 28 February.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172317.
  16. Lewandowsky, S., et al. (2015). Uncertainty as knowledge. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 373, 20140462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lipton, E., Confessore, N., & Williams, B. (2016). Think tank scholar or corporate consultant? It depends on the day. New York Times, 8 August.Google Scholar
  18. Monbiot, G. (2004). Goodbye, kind world. Guardian weekly, 20 August.Google Scholar
  19. Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Washington: Pew Research Center. http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf.
  20. Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Schumacher, E. F. (1974). Small is beautiful. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, A. (1937). The wealth of nations. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
  23. Tyrrell, G. N. M. (1952). Man the maker: A study of man’s mental evolution. New York: E.P. Dutton.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. House. (2009). Committee on Energy and Commerce. Preparing for climate change: Adaptation policies and programs: Hearing before the subcommittee on energy and environment. 111th Congress, 1st session, 25 March.Google Scholar
  25. Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, W. (1987). The study of administration. In J. Shafritz & J. Ott (Eds.), Classics of public administration (2nd ed.). Chicago: The Dorsey Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public Policy and AdministrationCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations