IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v8y2020i4p520-532.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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.

    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Geschwind, Stephan & Roesel, Felix, 2022. "Taxation under direct democracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 536-554.
    11. Carlos Rico Motos, 2019. "‘Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 187-197.
    12. Maria Snegovaya, 2020. "Different Strokes for Different Folks: Who Votes for Technocratic Parties?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 556-567.
    13. José Joaquín Brunner, 2018. "Sobre las contradicciones culturales del liberalismo y sus malestares," Estudios Públicos, Centro de Estudios Públicos, vol. 0(150), pages 161-233.
    14. Marion Reiser & Jörg Hebenstreit, 2020. "Populism versus Technocracy? Populist Responses to the Technocratic Nature of the EU," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 568-579.
    15. Kovanic, Martin & Steuer, Max, 2023. "Fighting against COVID-19: With or without politics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 337(C).
    16. Philipp Harms & Claudia Landwehr & Maximilian Lutz & Markus Tepe, 2020. "Deciding how to decide on public goods provision: The role of instrumental vs. intrinsic motives," Working Papers 2018, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    17. Christensen, Henrik Serup, 2019. "How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis," SocArXiv 5t72a, Center for Open Science.
    18. Anna-Sophie Heinze & Manès Weisskircher, 2021. "No Strong Leaders Needed? AfD Party Organisation Between Collective Leadership, Internal Democracy, and “Movement-Party” Strategy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 263-274.
    19. Rodrigo Barrenechea & Eduardo Dargent, 2020. "Populists and Technocrats in Latin America: Conflict, Cohabitation, and Cooperation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 509-519.
    20. Mihaela Constantinescu & Andreea Orîndaru & Ștefan-Claudiu Căescu & Andreea Pachițanu, 2019. "Sustainable Development of Urban Green Areas for Quality of Life Improvement—Argument for Increased Citizen Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-16, September.

    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.