[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Technocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the form of government. For other uses, see Technocracy (disambiguation).
Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government

List of forms of government

List of countries by system of government
Source of power
Democracy (rule by many)
Oligarchy (rule by few)
Autocracy (rule by one)
Anarchy (rule by none)
Power ideology
(socio-political ideologies)
(socio-economic ideologies)
  • Religious
  • Secular
(geo-cultural ideologies)
Power structure
Unitarism
Client state
Federalism
International relations
Related
icon Politics portal

Technocracy is a form of government in which the decision-makers are selected based on their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge. Technocracy follows largely in the tradition of other meritocratic theories and assumes full state control over political and economic issues.[1]

This system explicitly contrasts with representative democracy, the notion that elected representatives should be the primary decision-makers in government,[2] though it does not necessarily imply eliminating elected representatives. Decision-makers are selected based on specialized knowledge and performance rather than political affiliations, parliamentary skills, or popularity.[3]

The term technocracy was initially used to signify the application of the scientific method to solving social problems. In its most extreme form, technocracy is an entire government running as a technical or engineering problem and is mostly hypothetical. In more practical use, technocracy is any portion of a bureaucracy run by technologists. A government in which elected officials appoint experts and professionals to administer individual government functions, and recommend legislation, can be considered technocratic.[4][5] Some uses of the word refer to a form of meritocracy, where the ablest are in charge, ostensibly without the influence of special interest groups.[6] Critics have suggested that a "technocratic divide" challenges more participatory models of democracy, describing these divides as "efficacy gaps that persist between governing bodies employing technocratic principles and members of the general public aiming to contribute to government decision making".[7]

History of the term

[edit]

The term technocracy is derived from the Greek words τέχνη, tekhne meaning skill and κράτος, kratos meaning power, as in governance, or rule. William Henry Smyth, a California engineer, is usually credited with inventing the word technocracy in 1919 to describe "the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers", although the word had been used before on several occasions.[6][8][9] Smyth used the term Technocracy in his 1919 article "'Technocracy'—Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy" in the journal Industrial Management (57).[10] Smyth's usage referred to Industrial democracy: a movement to integrate workers into decision-making through existing firms or revolution.[10]

In the 1930s, through the influence of Howard Scott and the technocracy movement he founded, the term technocracy came to mean 'government by technical decision making', using an energy metric of value. Scott proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates denominated in units such as ergs or joules, equivalent in total amount to an appropriate national net energy budget, and then distributed equally among the North American population, according to resource availability.[11][2]

There is in common usage found the derivative term technocrat. The word technocrat can refer to someone exercising governmental authority because of their knowledge,[12] "a member of a powerful technical elite", or "someone who advocates the supremacy of technical experts".[13][4][5] McDonnell and Valbruzzi define a prime minister or minister as a technocrat if "at the time of their appointment to government, they: have never held public office under the banner of a political party; are not a formal member of any party; and are said to possess recognized non-party political expertise which is directly relevant to the role occupied in government".[14] In Russia, the President of Russia has often nominated ministers based on technical expertise from outside political circles, and these have been referred to as "technocrats".[15][16]

Precursors

[edit]

Before the term technocracy was coined, technocratic or quasi-technocratic ideas involving governance by technical experts were promoted by various individuals, most notably early socialist theorists such as Henri de Saint-Simon. This was expressed by the belief in state ownership over the economy, with the state's function being transformed from pure philosophical rule over men into a scientific administration of things and a direction of production processes under scientific management.[17] According to Daniel Bell:

"St. Simon's vision of industrial society, a vision of pure technocracy, was a system of planning and rational order in which society would specify its needs and organize the factors of production to achieve them."[18]

Citing the ideas of St. Simon, Bell concludes that the "administration of things" by rational judgment is the hallmark of technocracy.[18]

Alexander Bogdanov, a Russian scientist and social theorist, also anticipated a conception of technocratic process. Both Bogdanov's fiction and his political writings, which were highly influential, suggest that he was concerned that a coming revolution against capitalism could lead to a technocratic society.[19][20]: 114 

From 1913 until 1922, Bogdanov immersed himself in writing a lengthy philosophical treatise of original ideas, Tectology: Universal Organization Science. Tectology anticipated many basic ideas of systems analysis, later explored by cybernetics. In Tectology, Bogdanov proposed unifying all social, biological, and physical sciences by considering them as systems of relationships and seeking organizational principles that underlie all systems.

Arguably, the Platonic idea of philosopher-kings represents a sort of technocracy in which the state is run by those with specialist knowledge, in this case, knowledge of the Good rather than scientific knowledge.[citation needed] The Platonic claim is that those who best understand goodness should be empowered to lead the state, as they would lead it toward the path of happiness. Whilst knowledge of the Good differs from knowledge of science, rulers are here appointed based on a certain grasp of technical skill rather than democratic mandate.

Characteristics

[edit]

Technocrats are individuals with technical training and occupations who perceive many important societal problems as being solvable with the applied use of technology and related applications. The administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson theorizes that technocrats are primarily driven by their cognitive "problem-solution mindsets" and only in part by particular occupational group interests. Their activities and the increasing success of their ideas are thought to be a crucial factor behind the modern spread of technology and the largely ideological concept of the "information society". Technocrats may be distinguished from "econocrats" and "bureaucrats" whose problem-solution mindsets differ from those of the technocrats.[21]

Examples

[edit]

The former government of the Soviet Union has been referred to as a technocracy.[22] Soviet leaders like Leonid Brezhnev often had a technical background. In 1986, 89% of Politburo members were engineers.[22]

Leaders of the Chinese Communist Party used to be mostly professional engineers. According to surveys of municipal governments of cities with a population of 1 million or more in China, it has been found that over 80% of government personnel had a technical education.[23][24] Under the five-year plans of the People's Republic of China, projects such as the National Trunk Highway System, the China high-speed rail system, and the Three Gorges Dam have been completed.[25][page needed] During China's 20th National Congress, a class of technocrats in finance and economics are replaced in favor of high-tech technocrats.[26][27]

In 2013, a European Union library briefing on its legislative structure referred to the Commission as a "technocratic authority", holding a "legislative monopoly" over the EU lawmaking process.[28] The briefing suggests that this system, which elevates the European Parliament to a vetoing and amending body, was "originally rooted in the mistrust of the political process in post-war Europe". This system is unusual since the Commission's sole right of legislative initiative is a power usually associated with Parliaments.

Several governments in European parliamentary democracies have been labelled 'technocratic' based on the participation of unelected experts ('technocrats') in prominent positions.[4] Since the 1990s, Italy has had several such governments (in Italian, governo tecnico) in times of economic or political crisis,[29][30] including the formation in which economist Mario Monti presided over a cabinet of unelected professionals.[31][32] The term 'technocratic' has been applied to governments where a cabinet of elected professional politicians is led by an unelected prime minister, such as in the cases of the 2011-2012 Greek government led by economist Lucas Papademos and the Czech Republic's 2009–2010 caretaker government presided over by the state's chief statistician, Jan Fischer.[5][33] In December 2013, in the framework of the national dialogue facilitated by the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, political parties in Tunisia agreed to install a technocratic government led by Mehdi Jomaa.[34]

The article "Technocrats: Minds Like Machines"[5] states that Singapore is perhaps the best advertisement for technocracy: the political and expert components of the governing system there seem to have merged completely. This was underlined in a 1993 article in "Wired" by Sandy Sandfort,[35] where he describes the information technology system of the island even at that early date making it effectively intelligent.

Engineering

[edit]

Following Samuel Haber,[36] Donald Stabile argues that engineers were faced with a conflict between physical efficiency and cost efficiency in the new corporate capitalist enterprises of the late nineteenth-century United States. Because of their perceptions of market demand, the profit-conscious, non-technical managers of firms where the engineers work often impose limits on the projects that engineers desire to undertake.

The prices of all inputs vary with market forces, thereby upsetting the engineer's careful calculations. As a result, the engineer loses control over projects and must continually revise plans. To maintain control over projects, the engineer must attempt to control these outside variables and transform them into constant factors.[37]

Technocracy movement

[edit]
Main article: Technocracy movement

The American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen was an early advocate of technocracy and was involved in the Technical Alliance, as were Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert (the latter of whom later developed the theory of peak oil). Veblen believed technological developments would eventually lead to a socialistic reorganization of economic affairs. Veblen saw socialism as one intermediate phase in an ongoing evolutionary process in society that would be brought about by the natural decay of the business enterprise system and the rise of the engineers.[38] Daniel Bell sees an affinity between Veblen and the Technocracy movement.[39]

In 1932, Howard Scott and Marion King Hubbert founded Technocracy Incorporated and proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates. The group argued that apolitical, rational engineers should be vested with the authority to guide an economy into a thermodynamically balanced load of production and consumption, thereby doing away with unemployment and debt.[2]

The technocracy movement was briefly popular in the US in the early 1930s during the Great Depression. By the mid-1930s, interest in the movement was declining. Some historians have attributed the decline to the rise of Roosevelt's New Deal.[40][41]

Historian William E. Akin rejects this conclusion. Instead, Akin argues that the movement declined in the mid-1930s due to the technocrats' failure to devise a 'viable political theory for achieving change'.[42] Akin postulates that many technocrats remained vocal, dissatisfied, and often sympathetic to anti-New Deal third-party efforts.[43]

Critiques

[edit]

Critics have suggested that a "technocratic divide" exists between a governing body controlled to varying extents by technocrats and members of the general public.[7] Technocratic divides are "efficacy gaps that persist between governing bodies employing technocratic principles and members of the general public aiming to contribute to government decision making."[7] Technocracy privileges the opinions and viewpoints of technical experts, exalting them into a kind of aristocracy while marginalizing the opinions and viewpoints of the general public.[44][45]

As major multinational technology corporations (e.g., FAANG) swell market caps and customer counts, critiques of technocratic government in the 21st century see its manifestation in American politics not as an "authoritarian nightmare of oppression and violence" but rather as an éminence grise: a democratic cabal directed by Mark Zuckerberg and the entire cohort of "Big Tech" executives.[46][47] In his 1982 Technology and Culture journal article, "The Technocratic Image and the Theory of Technocracy", John G. Gunnell writes: "...politics is increasingly subject to the influence of technological change", with specific reference to the advent of The Long Boom and the genesis of the Internet, following the 1973–1975 recession.[48][49] Gunnel goes on to add three levels of analysis that delineate technology's political influence:

  1. "Political power tends to gravitate towards technological elites".
  2. "Technology has become autonomous" and thus impenetrable by political structures.
  3. "Technology (and science) constitute a new legitimizing ideology", as well as triumphing over "tribalism, nationalism, the crusading spirit in religion, bigotry, censorship, racism, persecution, immigration and emigration restrictions, tariffs, and chauvinism".[48][50]

In each of the three analytical levels, Gunnell foretells technology's infiltration of political processes and suggests that the entanglement of the two (i.e. technology and politics) will inevitably produce power concentrations around those with advanced technological training, namely the technocrats.[48] Forty years after the publication of Gunnell's writings, technology and government have become, for better or for worse, increasingly intertwined.[51][52][53] Facebook can be considered a technocratic microcosm, a "technocratic nation-state" with a cyberspatial population that surpasses any terrestrial nation.[54] In a broader sense, critics fear that the rise of social media networks (e.g. Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest), coupled with the "decline in mainstream engagement", imperil the "networked young citizen" to inconspicuous coercion and indoctrination by algorithmic mechanisms, and, less insidiously, to the persuasion of particular candidates based predominantly on "Social Media engagement".[55][56][57]

In a 2022 article published in Boston Review, political scientist Matthew Cole highlights two problems with technocracy: that it creates "unjust concentrations of power" and relies on a "flawed theory of knowledge".[58] With respect to the first point, Cole argues that technocracy excludes citizens from policy-making processes while advantaging elites. With respect to the second, he argues that the value of expertise is overestimated in technocratic systems, and points to an alternative concept of "smart democracy" which enlists the knowledge of ordinary citizens.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "What Is Technocracy? Definition, How It Works, and Critiques". Investopedia. Retrieved 2024-01-11.
  2. ^ a b c Berndt, Ernst R. (1982). "From technocracy to net energy analysis: engineers, economists and recurring energy theories of value" (PDF). Studies in Energy and the American Economy, discussion paper 11. Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. hdl:1721.1/2023.
  3. ^ "Questioning of M. King Hubbert, Division of Supply and Resources, before the Board of Economic Warfare" (PDF). 1943-04-14. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-03-31. Retrieved 2008-05-04. p.35 (p.44 of PDF), p.35
  4. ^ a b c "Who, What, Why: What can technocrats achieve that politicians can't?". BBC News. BBC. November 14, 2011. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  5. ^ a b c d "Technocrats: Minds like machines". The Economist. 19 November 2011. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
  6. ^ a b "History and Purpose of Technocracy by Howard Scott". Technocracy.org. Archived from the original on 22 April 2009.
  7. ^ a b c Obar, Jonathan A. (2016). "Closing the Technocratic Divide? Activist Intermediaries, Digital Form Letters, and Public Involvement in FCC Policy Making". International Journal of Communication. 10.
  8. ^ "Who Is A Technocrat? – Wilton Ivie – (1953)". 2001-03-11. Archived from the original on December 30, 2004. Retrieved 2012-05-16.
  9. ^ Barry Jones (1995, fourth edition). Sleepers, Wake! Technology and the Future of Work, Oxford University Press, p. 214.
  10. ^ a b Oxford English Dictionary 3rd edition (Word from 2nd edition 1989)
  11. ^ "Technocracy - Define Technocracy at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.com.
  12. ^ "Technocracy facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Technocracy". www.encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 2017-01-09.
  13. ^ Wickman, Forrest (November 11, 2011). "What's a Technocrat?". Slate. The Slate Group.
  14. ^ McDonnell, Duncan; Valbruzzi, Marco (2014). "Defining and classifying technocrat-led and technocratic governments". European Journal of Political Research. 53 (4): 654–671. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12054.
  15. ^ Peleschuk, Dan (14 June 2017). "If Putin Died Tomorrow, Who Would Take Over? These Technocrats Have a Chance". Ozy.
  16. ^ "The plight of Russia's technocrats". Intersection Project. 2017-08-15. Archived from the original on 2019-04-25. Retrieved 2018-01-07.
  17. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica, Saint Simon; Socialism
  18. ^ a b Bell, Daniel (2008) [1st. Pub. 1976]. The Coming Of Post-industrial Society. Basic Books. p. 76. ISBN 978-0465097135. Retrieved 2014-11-02.
  19. ^ "Bogdanov, technocracy and socialism". worldsocialism.org. Archived from the original on 2007-09-26.
  20. ^ Remington, Thomas F. (1984). Building socialism in Bolshevik Russia: ideology and industrial organization 1917-1921. Pittsburgh, Pa: University of Pittsburgh press. ISBN 0-8229-3809-X.
  21. ^ Njálsson, Gunnar K. A. (2005). "From Autonomous to Socially Conceived Technology: Toward a Causal, Intentional and Systematic Analysis of Interests and Elites in Public Technology Policy". Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory. 52 (108): 56–81. doi:10.3167/th.2005.5210805. JSTOR 41802302.
  22. ^ a b Graham, Loren R. (1993). The Ghost of the Executed Engineer: Technology and the Fall of the Soviet Union. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 73-74. ISBN 9780674354364.
  23. ^ Cheng, Li; White, Lynn (1990). "Elite Transformation and Modern Change in Mainland China and Taiwan: Empirical Data and the Theory of Technocracy". The China Quarterly. 121 (121): 1–35. doi:10.1017/S0305741000013497. JSTOR 654061. S2CID 154544102.
  24. ^ "Why do Chinese leaders have a degree in engineering and American leaders have degrees in law?". Gigazine. 2016-03-01. Retrieved 2018-03-18.
  25. ^ Andreas, Joel (2009). Rise of the Red Engineers: The Cultural Revolution and the Origins of China's New Class. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804760775.
  26. ^ "Why Chinese leader Xi Jinping wants more technocrats in key roles". South China Morning Post. 2022-05-17.
  27. ^ "A new breed of technocratic elites in the Xi era: Countdown to the 20th Party Congress". Think China, Singapore. 2022-09-30.
  28. ^ "Parliament's legislative initiative" (PDF). Library of the European Parliament. 24 Oct 2013. Retrieved 24 May 2019.
  29. ^ Gundle, Stephen; Parker, Simon, eds. (1996) [1st. Pub. 1996]. The new Italian Republic: from the fall of the Berlin Wall to Berlusconi. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-12162-0. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
  30. ^ D'Alimonte, Roberto; Bartolini, Stefano (1997). "'Electoral Transition' and party system change in Italy". In Bull, Martin J; Rhodes, Martin (eds.). In: Crisis and transition in Italian politics. Routledge. p. 226. ISBN 978-0-7146-4366-3.
  31. ^ MacKenzie, James; Moody, Barry (16 November 2011). "Italy gets new technocrat government". Reuters. Retrieved 19 February 2012.
  32. ^ "Italy's new prime minister — The full Monti: Mario Monti holds out for a technocratic government until 2013". The Economist. 19 November 2011. Retrieved 19 February 2012.
  33. ^ "Q&A: Greece's 'technocratic' government". BBC News. 11 November 2011. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
  34. ^ "Tunisia's new prime minister takes office". AlJazeera. Retrieved 17 November 2015.
  35. ^ Sandfort, Sandy (1993). "The Intelligent Island". Wired. Vol. 1, no. 4 (September/October). ISSN 1059-1028.
  36. ^ Haber, Samuel. Efficiency and Uplift Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.
  37. ^ Stabile, Donald R. (1986). "Veblen and the Political Economy of the Engineer". American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 45 (1): 41–52. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.1986.tb01899.x.
  38. ^ Wood, John (1993). The life of Thorstein Veblen and perspectives on his thought. introd. Thorstein Veblen. New York: Routledge. p. 369. ISBN 978-0-415-07487-2. The decisive difference between Marx and Veblen lay in their respective attitudes on socialism. For while Marx regarded socialism as the ultimate goal for civilization, Veblen saw socialism as but one stage in the economic evolution of society.
  39. ^ Bell, Daniel (1963). "Veblen and the New Class". The American Scholar. 32 (4): 616–638. JSTOR 41209141. (cited in Tilman, Rick (1992). Thorstein Veblen and His Critics, 1891-1963: Conservative, Liberal, and Radical Perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 186. ISBN 9781400862863.)
  40. ^ Burris, Beverly H. (1993). Technocracy at Work. State University of New York Press. p. 32. ISBN 9780791414958.
  41. ^ Fischer, Frank (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. SAGE Publications. p. 86. ISBN 9780803933798.
  42. ^ Nelson, Daniel (1978). "Technocratic Abundance. [Reviewed Work: Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900-1941. by William E. Akin]". Reviews in American History. 6 (1): 104–108. doi:10.2307/2701484. JSTOR 2701484.
  43. ^ McNulty, P. J. (1978). "Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900-1941. By William E. Akin [book review]". History of Political Economy. 10 (4): 682–683. doi:10.1215/00182702-10-4-682.
  44. ^ Fisher, W.R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  45. ^ McKenna, Bernard J.; Graham, Philip (2000). "Technocratic Discourse: A Primer". Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 30 (3): 223–251. doi:10.2190/56FY-V5TH-2U3U-MHQK. S2CID 142939905.
  46. ^ Runciman, David (2018-05-01). "Why replacing politicians with experts is a reckless idea". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  47. ^ Blum, Sam (16 January 2020). "How All Our Tech Heroes Turned into Tech Villains". GQ. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  48. ^ a b c Gunnell, John G. (July 1982). "The Technocratic Image and the Theory of Technocracy". Technology and Culture. 23 (3): 392–416. doi:10.2307/3104485. JSTOR 3104485. PMID 11611029. S2CID 41734855.
  49. ^ Peter Schwartz; Peter Leyden (1997-07-01). "The Long Boom: A History of the Future, 1980–2020". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  50. ^ Boorstin, Daniel J. The Republic of Technology (New York, 1978), p. 6, 59.
  51. ^ "Jeff Bezos Says Tech Shouldn't Turn Against the Federal Government". www.govtech.com. 17 October 2018. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  52. ^ Editorial Board. "Opinion | Facebook is looking a lot like a government". Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  53. ^ Leetaru, Kalev. "Facebook As The Ultimate Government Surveillance Tool?". Forbes. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  54. ^ LaFrance, Adrienne (2020-01-25). "Hillary Clinton: Mark Zuckerberg Has 'Authoritarian' Views on Misinformation". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  55. ^ Brian D. Loader, Ariadne Vromen & Michael A. Xenos (2014) The networked young citizen: social media, political participation and civic engagement, Information, Communication & Society, 17:2
  56. ^ Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing democratic activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  57. ^ Effing, Robin; Van Hillegersberg, Jos; Huibers, Theo (2011). "Social Media and Political Participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube Democratizing Our Political Systems?" (PDF). In Efthimios Tambouris; Ann Macintosh; Hans Bruijn (eds.). Human Media Interaction. Electronic Participation: Third IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2011, Delft, The Netherlands, August 29 – September 1, 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 6847. pp. 25–35. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23333-3_3. ISBN 978-3-642-23332-6.
  58. ^ Cole, Matthew. ""What's Wrong with Technocracy"?". Boston Review. Retrieved 12 October 2022.
[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to Technocracy.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Technocracy.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technocracy&oldid=1249936622"