IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v8y2020i4p520-532.html

Experts in Government: What for? Ambiguities in Public Opinion Towards Technocracy

Author

Listed:
  • Ernesto Ganuza

    (Institute of Public Goods and Policies, Spanish National Research Council, Spain)

  • Joan Font

    (Institute of Advanced Social Studies, Spanish National Research Council, Spain)

Abstract

Technocratic governments and similar systems that give more voice to experts in the decision-making process are one of the potential alternatives to traditional representative party government. These alternatives have become increasingly popular, especially in countries where strong political disaffection and previous favourable pro-expert attitudes exist simultaneously. The Spanish case is one of these settings, with the emergence of a political party, Ciudadanos (Citizens), that represents these ideas. This article contributes to the understanding of public opinion support for an expert government, its main motives, and social supports. We claim that experts are not so much a decision-making alternative as they are a desired piece of the decision-making process. Support for a more significant role for experts comes especially from those that credit them with ample technical capacities, but most citizens want them to work as a piece of representative government, not as an alternative to it. The article combines two types of evidence: A survey of a representative sample of the population, including innovative questions about support to expert governments, and 10 focus groups that allow a more in-depth comprehension of the support (and criticism) of an increased role for experts. The results provide a nuanced picture of the types of expert involvement sought and their respective social support.

Suggested Citation

  • Ernesto Ganuza & Joan Font, 2020. "Experts in Government: What for? Ambiguities in Public Opinion Towards Technocracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 520-532.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v8:y:2020:i:4:p:520-532
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v8i4.3206
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3206
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v8i4.3206?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joan Font & Magdalena Wojcieszak & Clemente J. Navarro, 2015. "Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 153-172, April.
    2. Caramani, Daniele, 2017. "Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 111(1), pages 54-67, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Petra Guasti & Lenka Buštíková, 2020. "A Marriage of Convenience: Responsive Populists and Responsible Experts," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 468-472.
    2. Yiwen Zhang, 2024. "The EU’s Democratic Dilemma: Assessing the Rise and Ramifications of Technocratic Government," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(4), pages 21582440241, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ernesto Ganuza & Joan Font, 2020. "Experts in Government: What for? Ambiguities in Public Opinion Towards Technocracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 520-532.
    2. Jean-Benoit Pilet & Davide Vittori & Emilien Paulis & Sebastien Rojon, 2024. "The Preferred Governing Actors of Populist Supporters: Survey Evidence From Eight European Countries," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
    3. Emiliana De Blasio & Lorenzo Viviani, 2020. "Platform Party between Digital Activism and Hyper-Leadership: The Reshaping of the Public Sphere," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 16-27.
    4. John Mary Kanyamurwa & Joseph Okeyo Obosi, 2020. "The Influence of Citizen Competence on District Level Political Accountability in Uganda," Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(3), pages 443462-4434, December.
    5. Natascha Zaun & Ariadna Ripoll Servent, 2023. "Perpetuating Crisis as a Supply Strategy: The Role of (Nativist) Populist Governments in EU Policymaking on Refugee Distribution," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 653-672, May.
    6. Janne Ingelbeen & Tessa Haesevoets, 2025. "Technocracy in Times of Crisis: Unravelling Citizens’ Support for Experts during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Belgium," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 501-519, June.
    7. Philipp Harms & Claudia Landwehr, 2017. "Preferences for direct democracy: intrinsic or instrumental? Evidence from a survey experiment," Working Papers 1719, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    8. Nikitas Konstantinidis & Konstantinos Matakos & Hande Mutlu-Eren, 2019. "“Take back control”? The effects of supranational integration on party-system polarization," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 297-333, June.
    9. Sergiu Gherghina, 2026. "In the Pursuit of Democracy: Support for Referendums in Moldova," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 14.
    10. Reinhard Heinisch & Carsten Wegscheider, 2020. "Disentangling How Populism and Radical Host Ideologies Shape Citizens’ Conceptions of Democratic Decision-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 32-44.
    11. Alexandre Chirat & Cyril Hédoin, 2025. "An Economic Theory of Populism: Political Disequilibrium and Democratic Instability [Une théorie économique du populisme : déséquilibre politique et instabilité démocratique]," Post-Print hal-05414427, HAL.
    12. Fernando Filgueiras & Pedro Palotti & Graziella G. Testa, 2023. "Complexing Governance Styles: Connecting Politics and Policy in Governance Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    13. Maria Snegovaya, 2020. "Different Strokes for Different Folks: Who Votes for Technocratic Parties?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 556-567.
    14. Antonino Castaldo & Luca Verzichelli, 2020. "Technocratic Populism in Italy after Berlusconi: The Trendsetter and his Disciples," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 485-495.
    15. Elena Semenova, 2020. "Expert Ministers in New Democracies: Delegation, Communist Legacies, or Technocratic Populism?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 590-602.
    16. Petra Guasti, 2020. "Populism in Power and Democracy: Democratic Decay and Resilience in the Czech Republic (2013–2020)," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 473-484.
    17. Geschwind, Stephan & Roesel, Felix, 2022. "Taxation under direct democracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 536-554.
    18. Paris Aslanidis, 2018. "Measuring populist discourse with semantic text analysis: an application on grassroots populist mobilization," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 1241-1263, May.
    19. Antonino Castaldo & Luca Verzichelli, 2020. "Technocratic Populism in Italy after Berlusconi: The Trendsetter and his Disciples," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 485-495.
    20. Markus Hinterleitner & Christoph Knill & Yves Steinebach, 2024. "The growth of policies, rules, and regulations: A review of the literature and research agenda," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 637-654, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v8:y:2020:i:4:p:520-532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.