IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v51y2018i1d10.1007_s11077-017-9305-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Technocracy,” democracy … and corruption and trust

Author

Listed:
  • Phil Ryan

    (Carleton University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Phil Ryan, 2018. "“Technocracy,” democracy … and corruption and trust," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(1), pages 131-139, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:51:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-017-9305-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-017-9305-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-017-9305-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-017-9305-1?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sheldon Krimsky & Tim Schwab, 2017. "Conflicts of interest among committee members in the National Academies’ genetically engineered crop study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Bruce Gilley, 2017. "Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 9-22, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lorenz Kammermann & Karin Ingold, 2019. "Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 43-65, March.
    2. Gędek, Wojciech, 2021. "Koncepcja koprodukcji wiedzy a tworzenie polityki oparte na dowodach. Analiza literatury przedmiotu," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Judit Oláh & József Popp & Szabolcs Duleba & Anna Kiss & Zoltán Lakner, 2021. "Positioning Bio-Based Energy Systems in a Hypercomplex Decision Space—A Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-23, July.

    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:kap:policy:v:51:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-017-9305-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.