Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy

There is a long-standing debate about the proper application of democratic versus technocratic approaches to decision-making in public policy. This paper seeks to clarify the debate by applying Michael Walzer’s notion of “spheres of justice,” wherein both democracy and technocracy could be seen as distinctive approaches to justice that need to be protected from the domination of the other. The paper shows how the debate on democracy versus technocracy has evolved in both theoretical and applied settings in a manner that reflects the “domination” of one approach by the other. It elaborates the argument through several concrete examples drawn from comparative politics, public policy, and public management. It then explores how the “spheres” approach implies the need for an interpretive mechanism in order to mediate the competing notions of justice in particular policy issues.

[1]  Jeffrey Friedman,et al.  The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies , 2008, Perspectives on Politics.

[2]  Beth Simone Noveck,et al.  Smart Citizens, Smarter State: The Technologies of Expertise and the Future of Governing , 2015 .

[3]  Eduardo Dargent.  Technocracy and Democracy in Latin America: The Experts Running Government , 2014 .

[4]  Michael Walzer,et al.  Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. , 1984 .

[5]  David Beetham,et al.  Democracy and Human Rights , 1999 .

[6]  Lasse Gerrits,et al.  Organizing interfaces between government institutions and interactive governance , 2010 .

[7]  J. Haidt,et al.  The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion , 2014, Utilitas.

[8]  Matt Leighninger.  The Next Form of Democracy: How Expert Rule Is Giving Way to Shared Governance -- and Why Politics Will Never Be the Same , 2006 .

[9]  Elihu Katz,et al.  The Politics of Community Conflict: The Fluoridation Decision , 1969 .

[10]  J. Clancy,et al.  Explaining the non-implementation of health-improving policies related to solid fuels use in South Africa , 2014 .

[11]  David Neumark,et al.  Minimum Wages and Employment , 2007, Found. Trends Microeconomics.

[12]  G. Biesta.  WHY “WHAT WORKS” WON’T WORK: EVIDENCE‐BASED PRACTICE AND THE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH , 2007 .

[13]  Shou-Tsung Wu,et al.  The social, economic, and environmental impacts of casino gambling on the residents of Macau and Singapore , 2015 .

[14]  E. Sørensen,et al.  Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance , 2009 .

[15]  Douglas Walker,et al.  The Roots of Modern Social Cost of Gambling Estimates , 2011 .

[16]  Douglas Walker.  Problems in Quantifying the Social Costs and Benefits of Gambling , 2007 .

[17]  M. Hajer.  Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void , 2003 .

[18]  Angela Guimaraes Pereira,et al.  Science for Policy New: Challenges, New Opportunities , 2009 .

[19]  C. Hendriks,et al.  Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management , 2009 .

[20]  Theodore S. Hamerow,et al.  Kings or People; Power and the Mandate to Rule , 1979 .

[21]  Margo Trappenburg.  In Defence of Pure Pluralism: Two Readings of Walzer's Spheres of Justice , 2000 .

[22]  C. Boswell.  The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research , 2009 .

[23]  Richard Pring.  EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY AND PRACTICE , 2007 .

[24]  L. Jacobs,et al.  Fed Power: How Finance Wins , 2016 .

[25]  M. Barr.  Singapore: The Limits of a Technocratic Approach to Health Care , 2008 .

[26]  R. Freeze,et al.  The fluoride wars , 2009 .

[27]  George A. Krause.  Representative democracy and policy-making in the administrative state: is agency policy-making necessarily better? , 2013, Journal of Public Policy.

[28]  Robert A. Heineman,et al.  The World of the Policy Analyst: Rationality, Values, and Politics , 1997 .

[29]  Michael P. Sam,et al.  The Steering Group as Policy Advice Instrument: A Case of “Consultocracy” in Stadium Subsidy Deliberations , 2006 .

[30]  J. Reardon.  The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy , 2008 .

[31]  Evidence-based policy and practice , 2009 .

[32]  Paul Pechan,et al.  Safe or Not Safe: Deciding What Risks to Accept in Our Environment and Food , 2011 .

[33]  Naveen Thayyil,et al.  Biotechnology Regulation and GMOs: Law, Technology and Public Contestations in Europe , 2014 .

[34]  J. Habermas,et al.  Knowledge and Human Interests , 1972 .

[35]  Paul Serwinek.  Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books. , 2016 .

[36]  Katharine N. Farrell,et al.  Snow White and the Wicked Problems of the West: A Look at the Lines between Empirical Description and Normative Prescription , 2011 .

[37]  J. Kooiman,et al.  Governing as Governance , 2003 .

[38]  M. Centeno,et al.  The Politics of Expertise in Latin America , 1999 .

[39]  D. Bell.  The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, a venture in Social Forecasting , 1974 .

[40]  Naveen Thayyil,et al.  Biotechnology Regulation and GMOs , 2014 .

[41]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Confronting values in policy analysis : the politics of criteria , 1987 .

[42]  A. Schneider,et al.  Policy Analysis for Democracy , 2008 .

[43]  B. Crick.  In Defence of Politics , 1972 .

[44]  A. Segatti.  Reforming South African ImmigrationPolicy in the Postapartheid Period(1990–2010) , 2011 .

[45]  Manuel Fischer,et al.  Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for? , 2015 .