Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy

  • Discussion and Commentary
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barr, M. D. (2008). Singapore: The limits of a technocratic approach to health care. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38(3), 395–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, D. (1999). Democracy and human rights. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendix, R. (1978). Kings or people: Power and the mandate to rule. Berkeley, London: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2007). Why “What Works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bluhm, W. T., & Heineman, R. A. (2007). Ethics and public policy: Method and cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaz, A., & Nutley, S. (2009). Evidence-based policy and practice. In A. G. Bovaird & E. Löffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (2nd ed., pp. 327–342). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boswell, C. (2009). The political uses of expert knowledge: Immigration policy and social research. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, J. (1933). Technocracy or democracy; which shall govern our industries?. Hollis, NY: C. A. Baker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, B. D. (2007). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centeno, M. A., & Silva, P. (1998). The politics of expertise in Latin America (Latin American studies series). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, R. S. (1965). Twenty-one years. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, A., & American Water Works Association. (2016). Water fluoridation principles and practices. Manual of water supply (6th ed., Vol. M4). Denver, CO: American Water Works Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, R. L., Katz, E., & Rosenthal, D. B. (1969). The politics of community conflict: The fluoridation decision. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crick, B. (1962 (1993)). In defence of politics (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Dargent, E. (2015). Technocracy and democracy in Latin America: The experts running government. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Denhardt, J., & Denhardt, R. (2011). Leadership. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 419–435). Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbos, J., van Schie, N., & Gerrits, L. (2010). Organizing interfaces between government institutions and interactive governance. Policy Sciences, 43(1), 73–94. doi:10.1007/s11077-009-9086-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, K. N. (2011). Snow white and the wicked problems of the west: A look at the lines between empirical description and normative prescription. Science, Technology and Human Values, 36(3), 334–361. doi:10.1177/0162243910385796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1987). Confronting values in policy analysis: The politics of criteria (Vol. 14). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M., & Leifeld, P. (2015). Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for? Policy Sciences, 48(3), 363–382. doi:10.1007/s11077-015-9224-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice (Morality and society). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeze, R. A., & Lehr, J. H. (2009). The fluoride wars: How a modest public health measure became America’s longest-running political melodrama. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Theory and decision library series A, philosophy and methodology of the social sciences (Vol. 15). Dordrecht and Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion (1st ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 175–195. doi:10.1023/a:1024834510939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardasmalani, R. (2016, July 2). Once a money spinner, can Singapore’s casinos beat the odds? Today Newspaper (Singapore), p. 12.

  • Hayek, F. A. (1944). The road to serfdom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heazle, M., & Kane, J. (2016). Policy legitimacy, science and political authority: Knowledge and action in liberal democracies. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heineman, R. A. (2002). The world of the policy analyst: Rationality, values, and politics (3rd ed.). New York: Chatham House Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. M. (2009). Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 341–368. doi:10.1007/s11077-009-9095-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (2006). Policy analysis for democracy. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 169–189). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Policy Studies. (2005). Forum on casino proposal. Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies, National University of Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, L. R., & King, D. S. (2016). Fed power: How finance wins and democratic accountability is restored. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, G. A. (2013). Representative democracy and policy-making in the administrative state: Is agency policy-making necessarily better? Journal of Public Policy, 33(02), 111–135. doi:10.1017/S0143814X13000044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K.Y. (2015, March 27). IRs needed for S’pore to keep abreast of the top cities. Straits Times Newspaper (Singapore), p. 6.

  • Leighninger, M., & Bradley, B. (2006). The next form of democracy: How expert rule is giving way to shared governance-and why politics will never be the same. Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matinga, M. N., Clancy, J. S., & Annegarn, H. J. (2014). Explaining the non-implementation of health-improving policies related to solid fuels use in South Africa. Energy Policy, 68, 53–59. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayersohn, A. (2015, October 6). The people’s technocracy. Boston Review, p. 35.

  • Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2005). Statement by prime minister Lee Hsien Loong on proposal to develop integrated resorts. In G. o. S. Ministry of Trade and Industry (Ed.), (Vol. 18 April). Singapore.

  • Morgenthau, H. J. (1946). Scientific man vs. power politics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumark, D., & Wascher, W. L. (2007). Minimum wages and employment. Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics, 3(1–2), 1–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, B. S. (2015). Smart citizens, smarter state: The technologies of expertise and the future of governing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parliament of Singapore. (2005). Debate on annual budget statement. (Vol. 2 March). Singapore.

  • Pascal, B. (1670 (1961)). The Pensées (Vol. L110). Baltimore: Penguin Books.

  • Pechan, P. (2011). Safe or not safe: Deciding what risks to accept in our environment and food. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, A. G., & Funtowicz, S. (2009). Science for policy: New challenges, new opportunities (Ecological economics and human well-being). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf.

  • Sam, M. P., & Scherer, J. (2006). The steering group as policy advice instrument: A case of “Consultocracy” in stadium subsidy deliberations. Policy Sciences, 39(2), 169–181. doi:10.1007/s11077-006-9014-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, G. (1991). Myth of the Ford Pinto case. Rutgers Law Review, 43(4), 1013–1068.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segatti, A. (2011). Reforming South African Immigration Policy in the Post apartheid Period (1990–2010). In A. Segatti & L. Landau (Eds.), Contemporary migration to South Africa (pp. 31–65). Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shearman, D. J. C., & Smith, J. W. (2007). The climate change challenge and the failure of democracy (Politics and the environment). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim, J. (2013). The casino and modernity: A case study of the integrated resorts in Singapore. Singapore: National University of Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, D. (2003). The benefits of agency policy-making: Perspectives from positive theory. In G. A. Krause & K. J. Meier (Eds.), Politics, policy, and organizations: Frontiers in the scientific study of bureaucracy (pp. 104–129). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spicer, M. W. (2010). In defense of politics in public administration: A value pluralist perspective (Public Administration). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thayyil, N. (2014). Biotechnology regulation and GMOs: Law, technology and public contestations in Europe (Biotechnology regulation). Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

  • Trappenburg, M. (2000). In defence of pure pluralism: Two readings of Walzer’s spheres of justice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 8(3), 343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D. M. (2007). Benefit-cost analysis: Problems in quantifying the social costs and benefits of gambling. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 66(3), 609–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D. M., & Kelly, S. M. (2011). The roots of modern ‘social cost of gambling’ estimates. Economic Affairs, 31(1), 38–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S.-T., & Chen, Y.-S. (2015). The social, economic, and environmental impacts of casino gambling on the residents of Macau and Singapore. Tourism Management, 48(2), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, Urban Center, Portland, OR, 97207, USA

    Bruce Gilley

Authors
  1. Bruce Gilley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Gilley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gilley, B. Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy. Policy Sci 50, 9–22 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9260-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9260-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation