{{Short description|Form of government ruled by experts}} {{About|the form of government}} '''Technocracy''' is an expert-based type of [[governance]]. In its strongest sense, it is a [[form of government]] in which decisions across all sectors and policy domains follow [[evidence]]-based, [[efficiency]]-oriented procedures grounded in [[scientific methods]] and [[instrumental rationality]]. In a weaker sense, the term refers to hybrid models that delegate specific functions to experts or implement expertise-driven decision procedures in areas such as [[central banking]], [[public health]], or [[environmental regulation]].
Technocracy is often regarded as a challenge to [[democracy]] since it grounds [[political legitimacy]] in elite expertise, while democracy justifies itself as the rule of the people. One approach to resolving their tensions suggests that democratically elected officials choose political goals, while technocrats choose the most efficient ways to realize those goals, serving as advisors and implementers. Technocracy is closely related to [[meritocracy]], expertocracy, epistocracy, [[managerialism]], and [[algocracy]]. It contrasts with [[populism]], which frames politics as a struggle between common people and a perceived elite.
Proponents of technocracy argue that scientific expertise and evidence-guided policy produce better outcomes. They hold that its [[Value theory|value]]-neutral approach is best suited to promote the long-term [[Social welfare|welfare of society]] as a whole. Opponents contend that technocracy is [[anti-democratic]] by [[Elitism|excluding large segments of the population]] from politics, that the claim to neutrality masks value-laden choices, and that science alone is insufficient for political decisions.
Early contributions to the idea of technocracy appear in the [[utopian]] visions of [[Plato]], [[Francis Bacon]], and [[Henri de Saint-Simon]]. The notion of science- and rationality-based governance gained prominence during the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] and became increasingly influential as [[Industrial revolution|industrial]] and [[post-industrial]] transformations made societies more complex. Notable examples of technocratic influence are found in the North American [[technocracy movement]] of the 1930s, Soviet and Chinese [[centralized planning]], developmental efforts in Latin America and Singapore, and the institutional architecture of the European Union.
== Definition == Technocracy is a [[form of government]] or an approach to political action that emphasizes [[expertise]], but its precise definition is disputed. One characterization focuses on [[Leader|who makes decisions]], defining technocracy as rule by experts in contrast to [[democracy]] as rule by the people. Another centers on decision procedures rather than rulers, highlighting the role of technical skills, scientific [[evidence]], and instrumental [[rationality]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=3–4}} | {{harvnb|Hakken|2008}} | {{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2020|pp=29–32}} | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=j1raDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 3–4]}} | {{harvnb|Lenk|2005|loc=Lead section, § Types of Technocracy}} }}</ref> More abstractly, technocracy can be defined as the view that the main source of [[political legitimacy]] is expert-driven reasoning and specialized knowledge, rather than popular will or hereditary entitlement.<ref>{{harvnb|Rummens|2024|loc=§ 1. Technocracy as a Thin Ideology}}</ref>
In its strongest sense, technocracy means that all main governmental operations follow technocratic principles. Because pure technocracy is rare, the term is often used in a weaker sense to describe leadership styles or institutions that apply such principles within other forms of government, such as a democratically elected leader who relies heavily on expert advice, or a [[central bank]] in which unelected officials set [[monetary policy]] based on technical criteria.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=j1raDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 3, 53, 64–65]}} | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=4, 12}} }}</ref>
A hallmark of technocracy is its [[science]]-focused approach. It frames policy objectives, resource allocation, and administrative procedures in terms of [[Evidence-based practice|evidence-based]] and efficiency-oriented processes that follow a rigorous [[methodology]] privileging [[Quantitative method|quantifiable outcomes]]. It typically employs [[cost-benefit analysis]] and [[risk management]], intended to improve the long-term prosperity of society as a whole rather than serving the partisan interests of specific groups. Advocates emphasize the method's [[Objectivity (science)|objective]] and [[impartial]] character, but its claims to value-neutrality and freedom from ideology are contested. Technocracy is normally considered a form of [[elitism]] since large parts of the population may lack the technical knowledge and specialized skills required to participate in complex policy decisions. [[Pluralism (political theory)|Anti-pluralism]] is another frequently discussed feature. It reflects the commitment to the singular interest of the long-term social welfare of the whole community in contrast to political processes that mediate among competing interests and preferences of distinct groups.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=j1raDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2 2–4]}} | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|p=4}} | {{harvnb|Bertsou|Caramani|2020|pp=93–94}} }}</ref>
A technocrat is someone who supports technocracy.<ref name="auto1">{{harvnb|Wilson|2008}}</ref>{{efn|The term is sometimes used in a derogatory sense to imply an overemphasis of technology and a lacking awareness of moral and humanistic considerations.<ref name="auto1"/>}} A technotopia is an idealized society or government model in which all major aspects of governance are guided by technical expertise.<ref name="auto4">{{harvnb|Pfaffenberger|2008}}</ref> The term ''technocracy'' comes from the [[Ancient Greek language|ancient Greek]] words {{lang|grc|τέχνη}} ({{translit|grc|tekhne}}), meaning {{gloss|skill}} or {{gloss|craft}}, and {{lang|grc|κράτος}} ({{translit|grc|kratos}}), meaning {{gloss|rule}}.<ref name="auto1"/> Its earliest known use dates to the 1890s.<ref>{{harvnb|OED staff|2026}}</ref> The engineer William H. Smyth is usually credited with coining the modern meaning of the term in 1919. The term's popularity increased in the 1930s as part of the [[technocratic movement]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Visser|2026|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t5mlEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA201 201–202]}} | {{harvnb|Hakken|2008}} }}</ref>
== Areas and approaches == Technocratic principles can be applied to different areas of governance and implemented in several ways. In its broadest form, a pure technocracy would be a society in which decision-making in all sectors and policy domains is guided by experts following empirical evidence. However, this theoretical ideal is not found in real-world conditions, where technocracy usually manifests as a hybrid model integrated with other approaches to governance.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=j1raDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 3, 53, 64–65]}} | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=4, 12}} | {{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2021|pp=25–32}} | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=18}} }}</ref> Some policy areas are more amenable to technocratic management than others, particularly those with clearly defined policy goals, quantifiable metrics, and accessible evidence.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=4, 12–14}} | {{harvnb|Centeno|1993|pp=315–316}} }}</ref>
[[File:Europäische Zentralbank - European Central Bank (19190136328) (cropped).jpg|upright=.7|thumb|alt=Photo of the main seat of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt|[[Central banks]] often rely on financial experts operating relatively insulated from electoral processes, such as the [[European Central Bank]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Centeno|1993|pp=321–322}} | {{harvnb|Habermas|2015|pp=3–8}} }}</ref>]]
One key area is the [[central banking]] system, in which financial experts often operate independently of electoral processes. Central banks are responsible for [[monetary policy]] and [[financial stability]]. For example, they typically control the base [[interest rate]] to promote price stability, high [[employment]], and [[economic growth]]. Their decisions are based on diverse technical indicators, such as [[inflation]] and employment figures, weighing trade-offs among their objectives to achieve a prudent balance.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Centeno|1993|p=321}} | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=j1raDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA47 47, 64–65]}} | {{harvnb|Moenjak|2014|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=dNj1AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA60 60–61, 70]}} }}</ref> Other economy-related aspects of technocratic governance include [[fiscal policy]], [[taxation]], and the management of [[Financial crisis|financial crises]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Valbruzzi|2020|p=124}} | {{harvnb|Friedman|2019|pp=§ I.3 Technocratic Regulation and the Limits of State Autonomy}} | {{harvnb|Bertsou|Caramani|2020|pp=91–92}} | {{harvnb|Sánchez-Cuenca|2020|p=57}} }}</ref>
Technocratic principles are also applied to the area of [[healthcare]]. Expert panels may implement reforms to [[medical training]], increase reliance on [[medical technology]], design and evaluate [[vaccination]] programs, adjust drug policy, and coordinate responses during health crises, such as [[pandemics]]. Technocratic concerns about efficient resource allocation may depersonalize the [[doctor–patient relationship]] and can lead to reductions of [[public health services]] by cutting cost-ineffective interventions to prioritize high-impact treatments.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=120–125}} | {{harvnb|Alexiadou|2020|pp=137, 144–147}} | {{harvnb|Clarence|2002|pp=3, 7–9}} | {{harvnb|Bertsou|2026|pp=483–484}} }}</ref>
In the field of [[education]], the influence of technocracy can take various forms. Experts may revise curricula and propose reforms, often with an emphasis on centralization while reducing the autonomy of local institutions. This approach is usually accompanied by standardization, such as [[standardized testing]] and quantifiable metrics to track educational progress. Another facet is the integration of modern technology into classrooms, including computers, the internet, and [[artificial intelligence]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=130–135}} | {{harvnb|Trifonas|2018|pp=3–5}} | {{harvnb|Clarence|2002|pp=3}} }}</ref> A further intersection is found in educational institutions or programs that prepare elite students for expert roles in governance, such as specialized schools or competitive selection processes that filter candidates for senior civil service careers.<ref name="auto4"/>
In [[environmental policy]], technocratic principles are used to adjust regulations to ecological issues, ranging from [[climate change]] to [[water quality]] and [[biodiversity]] conservation.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Selk|2025|pp=1–5}} | {{harvnb|Olson|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BFzpCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA26 26]}} | {{harvnb|Tacconi|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=OlcPEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA81 81]}} }}</ref> Other relevant areas include [[urban planning]], [[energy infrastructure]], and [[research funding]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Moroni|2017|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=6mBQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA141 141]}} | {{harvnb|Stephens|Allen|2021|p=190}} | {{harvnb|Clarence|2002|pp=3}} | {{harvnb|Silva|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Hll_AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA76 76–77]}} }}</ref>
In addition to the variety of policy areas, there are also different ways of implementing technocratic principles. One model casts technocrats as advisors who collect and interpret empirical evidence, devise policy options, and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages. In this role, technocrats do not hold immediate decision-making powers but wield influence indirectly by shaping how leaders understand and choose among alternatives. This approach contrasts with models in which technocrats have direct authority.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Lenk|2005|loc=§ Types of Technocracy}} | {{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2020|pp=30–31}} }}</ref> Technocracy can also shape governance by implementing decision-making procedures and bureaucratic systems, shifting the emphasis from who holds office to how decisions are made. In this case, technocratic power resides more in administrative mechanisms and organizational arrangements than in individual experts.<ref name="auto6">{{harvnb|Lenk|2005|loc=§ Types of Technocracy}}</ref>
Another approach focuses on [[information technology]] to assist or automate political decisions. For example, [[algocracy]] relies on [[algorithms]] and artificial intelligence to analyze data and devise policies. Proposed models vary in the role of humans, ranging from humans as primary decision-makers assisted by artificial intelligence to fully automated systems.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Danaher|2016|loc=§ 1. Introduction, § 2. What Is Algocracy?}} | {{harvnb|Lenk|2005|loc=§ Types of Technocracy}} }}</ref> [[Cyberocracy]], a similar concept, envisions a future form of government in which information and access to information technology are the primary sources of political power.<ref>{{harvnb|Ronfeldt|1992|pp=243–244, 255–256, 268}}</ref>
Technocrats typically aim for the long-term prosperity of the community as a whole, but this goal can be interpreted in different ways. The [[Keynesian]] model seeks to achieve it through economic growth and fair redistribution, relying on an extensive bureaucracy and comprehensive planning. [[Neoliberal]] approaches, by contrast, seek to promote community well-being through competition among individuals and organizations, centering technocratic policies on competitive frameworks and risk management.<ref>{{harvnb|Rummens|2024|loc=§ 1. Technocracy as a Thin Ideology, § 2. From Welfarist Bureaucracy to Neoliberal Governance}}</ref>
== Relation to other political ideologies == === Democracy === [[File:Habermas10 (14298469242).jpg|thumb|alt=Photo of a man with white hair and glasses wearing a suit|[[Jürgen Habermas]] argued that expert knowledge should be integrated into democratic processes without replacing them.<ref name="auto3">{{harvnb|Baynes|Prattico|2022|pp=107–110}}</ref>]] Various academic discussions of technocracy examine its relation to other political ideologies, such as [[democracy]]. Democracy vests political power in the people. Citizens have the most immediate control in [[direct democracy]], where they participate by voting on laws and policies. In [[indirect democracy]], they elect representatives who decide on the public's behalf.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=1–3}} | {{harvnb|Dargent|2015|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=EDbJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA13 13–14]}} | {{harvnb|Scruton|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA169 169–171]}} }}</ref>
Technocracy is often framed as a challenge or alternative to democracy. This view emphasizes their contrasting principles of [[political legitimacy]] and [[decision-making]]. Technocracy grounds authority in expertise and technical knowledge, resulting in decisions that may not align with popular opinion or the consent of the governed. As a result, democratic [[accountability]] to voter preferences is replaced by the responsibility of pursuing the long-term common good. Similarly, technocratic procedures of evidence-based analysis and expert deliberation bypass democratic decision-making through confrontation and negotiation among competing interest groups and viewpoints. This is typically accompanied by [[depoliticization]], with contentious issues being framed as neutral technical problems, whereas democratic processes acknowledge evaluative differences and seek to mediate among them. Although technocracy does not restrict political participation through rigid hereditary or [[Social class|class systems]], its reliance on specialized expertise often excludes large segments of the population and marginalizes lay perspectives.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=6–11}} | {{harvnb|Bertsou|Caramani|2020|pp=93–94}} | {{harvnb|Centeno|1993|pp=326–237, 239–330}} }}</ref>
A contrasting view rejects the claim that democracy and technocracy are incompatible, seeing them instead as complementary approaches whose tensions can be resolved. One outlook argues that technocracy is primarily about [[instrumental rationality]] or how to choose the means to achieve a given goal. According to this view, the people or elected officials choose political goals while the technocrats choose the most efficient ways to realize those goals, acting as advisors and implementers. Another approach confines technocracy to certain institutions or functions within a government. For example, a democratically elected government may delegate [[monetary policy]] or public health reforms to expert panels.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2020|pp=30–31}} | {{harvnb|Rummens|2024|loc=§ 1. Technocracy as a Thin Ideology}} }}</ref> In this context, one argument holds that every government relies on technocratic principles to some degree by consulting experts and aligning policy to empirical evidence.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Bertsou|Caramani|2020|pp=93–94}} | {{harvnb|Lenk|2005|loc=§ Assessment}} }}</ref>
The compatibility of democracy and technocracy may also depend on social circumstances. Beneficial conditions for technocratic democracies include a broad consensus on the general goals of state policy and a willingness of individuals to accept short-term personal sacrifices for the sake of the long-term prosperity of the community.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Centeno|1993|pp=326–238}} | {{harvnb|Gratton|Edenhofer|2025|pp=1–2}} }}</ref>
=== Populism === Technocracy is commonly contrasted with [[populism]], which seeks to promote the interests of ordinary people. Populism typically frames politics as a struggle between morally pure people and a corrupt, self-serving elite. It usually promotes a personalistic leader who appeals to popular sentiment and is regarded as a direct representative of the will of the people.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Scruton|2007|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA537 537]}} | {{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2021|pp=25–28}} | {{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2015|pp=1–2, 15–16}} }}</ref>
In several respects, populism is directly opposed to technocracy. Its skeptical attitude toward elitism and expert rule challenges the technocratic reliance on expertise and specialized knowledge. This tension is also reflected in the sources of political legitimacy: populism emphasizes [[mass mobilization]] and the representation of popular opinion, whereas technocracy sees evidence-based competence and scientific rationality as primary sources of authority.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Rummens|2024|loc=Lead sectin, § 1. Technocracy as a Thin Ideology}} | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=1–2, 204–205, 222}} | {{harvnb|Scruton|2007|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA537 537]}} }}</ref>
However, there are also aspects in which populism and technocracy overlap. Both are seen as challenges or threats to democracy, in part because of their [[Pluralism (political theory)|anti-pluralistic]] outlooks. In populism, this tendency is expressed in its claim to represent a unified popular will, dismissing dissenting views as betrayals of the people's true interests. In technocracy, dissenting views are often portrayed as irrational or biased positions that do not align with expert opinions on how to promote the long-term prosperity of the community as a whole.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2015|pp=1–2, 15–16}} | {{harvnb|Rummens|2024|loc=Lead sectin, § 1. Technocracy as a Thin Ideology}} | {{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2021|pp=25–32}} | {{harvnb|Centeno|1993|pp=327, }} }}</ref>
[[Technopopulism]] attempts to reconcile these two approaches. It combines the populist appeal to a personalistic leader representing the will of the people with a claim to legitimacy based on the leader's expertise, usually coupled with a technology-focused outlook.<ref>{{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2021|pp=17–19, 24}}</ref>
=== Others === As a form of [[elitism]], technocracy vests political power in a small group of technical experts.<ref>{{harvnb|Bertsou|Caramani|2020|p=94}}</ref> Other types of elitism have different criteria of political inclusion. [[Aristocracy]] has a social class of ruling elites, typically grounded in hereditary birth and inherited titles.<ref>{{harvnb|Scruton|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA36 36–38]}}</ref> [[Plutocracy]] places political authority in the hands of the wealthy.<ref>{{harvnb|Scruton|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA528 528]}}</ref> [[Theocracy]] merges political and religious power, justifying its authority by appeal to a divine command.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Fiala|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=XXApBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA252 252]}} | {{harvnb|Scruton|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA687 687–688]}} }}</ref> Elitism contrasts with [[egalitarianism]], which holds that all individuals should have equal political rights and opportunities.<ref>{{harvnb|Scruton|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA205 205–206]}}</ref>
Technocracy is closely related to [[meritocracy]], which highlights the principle of merit by selecting people based on their ability. It can apply to governmental positions or, more broadly, to any social function or job. The core idea is that everybody has the position they deserve.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Scruton|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA436 436]}} | {{harvnb|Fiala|2015|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=XXApBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA242 242]}} | {{harvnb|Brown|McLean|McMillan|2018|loc=§ Meritocracy}} }}</ref> Expertocracy is sometimes defined as a weaker form of technocracy that seeks to align decision-making processes to expert opinions without transferring power to technical elites.<ref>{{harvnb|Selk|2025|pp=1–3}}</ref>{{efn|In a different sense, expertocracy can also mean that experts seize power from democratically elected officials.<ref name="auto6"/>}} Other related political ideologies include epistocracy, which asserts that the degree of political influence of citizens should correspond to their competence in political decision-making,<ref>{{harvnb|Méndez|2022|pp=153–154}}</ref> and [[managerialism]], which advocates business-like and efficiency-driven management techniques.<ref>{{harvnb|Eagleton-Pierce|Knafo|2020|pp=763–764}}</ref>
Through its emphasis on value neutrality, technocracy contrasts with political ideologies that explicitly advance substantive values or normative goals.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Bertsou|Caramani|2020|p=94}} | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=8, 34, 151}} }}</ref> For example, [[liberalism]] promotes personal [[freedom]], [[individual rights]], [[Toleration|tolerance]], the [[rule of law]], and the protection of [[private property]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Waldron|1998|loc=§ Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Knowles|2006|pp=70–71}} | {{harvnb|Moseley|loc=§ 3a. Liberalism}} | {{harvnb|Scruton|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA394 394–395]}} }}</ref> [[Socialism]] prioritizes [[Economic inequality|economic equality]], [[social welfare]], and [[collective ownership]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Moseley|loc=§ 3c. Socialism}} | {{harvnb|Scruton|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA646 646–648]}} | {{harvnb|Fiala|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=XXApBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA250 250]}} | {{harvnb|Gilabert|O'Neill|2024|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref> [[Nationalism]] values social cohesion grounded in [[national identity]] and shared customs, culture, and language.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Fiala|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=XXApBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA243 243]}} | {{harvnb|Scruton|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA465 465–466]}} | {{harvnb|Hill|Moore|2025|pp=485–486}} }}</ref> Technocracy typically seeks to sideline evaluative and ideological commitments by framing decisions around empirical evidence and cost-benefit analysis rather than pursuing substantive values.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Bertsou|Caramani|2020|p=94}} | {{harvnb|Sadowski|2020|pp=112–113}} }}</ref> However, it may also be combined with certain normative goals, as in [[neoliberal]] technocracy and technocratic socialism.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sánchez-Cuenca|2020|pp=44–46}} | {{harvnb|Hoffmann|Laird|1985|pp=1–5}} }}</ref>
Technocracy is typically contrasted with [[authoritarianism]], which seeks to centralize and monopolize political power in a single leader or party and uses a hierarchical structure to suppress dissent. However, authoritarian regimes may adopt technocratic principles to consolidate control and justify their legitimacy by appealing to efficiency and expertise, giving rise to [[techno-authoritarianism]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Russo|Lalot|Roccato|2025|p=1}} | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=85–86, 95–96}} | {{harvnb|Peron|Almstadter Mattar de Magalhães|Caetano|2025|pp=1–2}} | {{harvnb|Fiala|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=XXApBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA227 227]}} }}</ref>
== Arguments == === For === [[File:Howard Scott 1942 Edit.jpg|thumb|upright=.8|alt=Black-and-white photo of a man wearing a suit|[[Howard Scott (engineer)|Howard Scott]], a leading figure of the Technical Alliance and Technocracy Inc., held that technocratic governance can maximize efficiency and increase abundance.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=34–36}} | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=85–86}} }}</ref>]] [[Political theory|Political theorists]] discuss various arguments for and against technocracy. Advocates emphasize the central role of skill and competence in political decision-making. They argue that political situations are complex, particularly in a [[Globalization|globalized]] world marked by rapid technological advances. These complexities make it difficult to consider all relevant factors, predict outcomes of increasingly interconnected processes, and adjust policies accordingly. This view holds that scientific expertise and evidence-guided inquiry offer a better foundation for effective political decisions than ideology or popular sentiment. Technocrats highlight the rationality and efficiency of their procedures, which seek to avoid contradictory and irrational elements found in approaches that rely on partisan interests and public opinion. Accordingly, they promise better outcomes, benefiting the community as a whole through material progress.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=3–4, 21}} | {{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2020|pp=32–39}} | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=22–24}} | {{harvnb|Bertsou|Caramani|2020|pp=93–94}} }}</ref>
Another line of thought centers on [[Value theory|value]]-neutrality. It asserts that the technocratic focus on objective analysis and scientific solutions promotes the implementation of optimal solutions that prioritize overall welfare. Advocates hold that the ideal of serving the community as a whole helps insulate policy from partisan agendas and lobbying efforts that privilege specific interest groups. Similarly, the emphasis on competence, transparent decision criteria, and quantifiable results constitutes a form of meritocratic fairness that can safeguard against [[corruption]] and [[nepotism]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Bertsou|Caramani|2020|pp=94}} | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=21–22, 29–30}} | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=3–4, 8–9, 17, 21}} | {{harvnb|Radaelli|2017|pp=25–26}} }}</ref>
A different set of arguments focuses on the long-term perspective. It asserts that technocracies are better suited to implement necessary but unpopular reforms that benefit the community in the long run. This view maintains that expert-driven political legitimacy sidelines short-term electoral pressures or incentives to maximize popular approval through immediate benefits. Supporters further highlight technocracy's openness to innovation and flexibility to adapt policy in response to emerging challenges or new data.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=3–4}} | {{harvnb|Bertsou|Caramani|2020|pp=93–94}} | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=9, 17–19}} }}</ref>
=== Against === Critics of technocracy often focus on its [[anti-democratic]] tendencies, viewing it as a form of elitism that excludes large segments of the population from [[political participation]]. They argue that governance should align with public consent and reflect a diversity of opinions and preferences. In their view, technocracy alienates ordinary people from politics by framing policy choices as purely technical problems. A related concern is that technocratic decision-makers are not directly [[Accountability|accountable]] to the electorate, raising questions about their political legitimacy and the risk of a technology-justified authoritarianism.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=15–16, 21–22}} | {{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2020|pp=39–42}} | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=9–10, 13}} }}</ref>
Another criticism rejects the claim that technocracy is value-neutral. It argues that the reliance on [[scientific methods]], quantitative metrics, and efficiency carries implicit evaluative biases, meaning that ideological commitments and value conflicts are not removed but merely hidden under the guise of objective analysis.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=3–4, 8–9}} | {{harvnb|Clarence|2002|pp=2–6}} }}</ref> A related objection holds that a technocratic focus on [[instrumental rationality]] reduces political decisions to problems of optimization and neglects the [[Intrinsic value (ethics)|intrinsic worth]] of individuals. It contends that instrumental rationality about the best means to achieve a goal needs to be accompanied by normative rationality about which goals are worth pursuing. This view asserts that there are diverse normative goals and that politics should consider different options and negotiate value trade-offs instead of adopting a narrow perspective that disregards alternative outlooks. Similarly, claims to neutrality can hide partisan agendas, such as attempts by corporate [[Lobbying|lobbies]] to influence policy under the guise of impartial optimization.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=3–4, 8–9}} | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=40–49}} | {{harvnb|Gunnell|1982|pp=394–395, 397–398}} }}</ref>
Critics also target the strong focus on science and the claim that technocracies achieve better outcomes. They argue that technocracy adopts [[scientism]] and falsely assumes that science can solve all political problems. In response, they assert that the scientific method is limited and cannot reliably predict social outcomes, specifically in complex and interconnected systems of human behavior. Many aspects of social life are difficult to quantify, and efforts to do so can result in misleading metrics that ignore key factors. This can produce implementation gaps in which idealized models fail in real-world conditions. Unique local contexts pose further challenges, as attempts to impose uniform solutions can lead to unexpected results.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Friedman|2019|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=gtnBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 1–4, 25–26]}} | {{harvnb|Selk|2025|pp=5, 15–17}} | {{harvnb|Clarence|2002|pp=4}} | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=7, 173}} }}</ref> Additionally, there are expert disagreements in which competing theories predict divergent outcomes without providing clear guidance for policymakers on which theory to follow.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Riess|2022|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=gpYIEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA218 218, 230]}} | {{harvnb|Friedman|2019|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=gtnBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA25 25]}} }}</ref> On a conceptual level, critics hold that technocracy is a poorly defined notion that can denote a wide spectrum of approaches to governance depending on the context.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Cole|2022|loc=Lead section, § The Concept of Technocracy}} | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=17–18}} | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=1–4}} }}</ref>
== History == === Intellectual and cultural developments === [[File:Portrait of Francis Bacon (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=.8|alt=Photo of a bearded man with a black hat|In his book ''[[New Atlantis]]'', Francis Bacon envisioned a technocratic utopia ruled by scientists.<ref name="auto5">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=21–22}} | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=66–67}} | {{harvnb|Radaelli|2017|pp=14}} }}</ref>]] [[File:Portrait de Claude-Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=.8|alt=Painting of man with white hair in formal attire|[[Henri de Saint-Simon]] is sometimes regarded as the "father of technocracy" because of his idea of a new kind of society based on scientific rationality.<ref name="auto2">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=22–24}} | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=67–70}} | {{harvnb|Radaelli|2017|pp=14–15}} }}</ref>]] [[File:Portrait of Tench Coxe (NYPL NYPG97-F82-422266) (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=.8|alt=Black-and-white portrait of a man with light-colored hair|[[Tench Coxe]] promoted a technocratic outlook that seeks to solve political problems with machine-based manufacturing.<ref>{{multiref| {{harvnb|Smith|1994|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=WWztFfsA-QEC&pg=PA1 1, 4]}} | {{harvnb|Cooke|1978|pp=xi, 103–106}}}}</ref>]]
Some precursors to technocratic thought are found in [[ancient philosophy]]. In [[ancient Greece]], [[Plato]] ({{circa|427|347 BCE}}) characterized politics as a {{lang|grc|[[techne]]}}{{em dash}}an art or craft with a specific goal, comparable to other expert practices such as medicine. He argued that political skill and knowledge of [[human nature]] are essential to just and prudent leadership. He regarded rule by wise [[philosopher-kings]] as the ideal form of governance.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Bickerton|Accetti|2020|pp=32–34}} | {{harvnb|Radaelli|2017|pp=12–13}} }}</ref> In [[ancient China]], some technocratic principles are reflected in [[Confucianism]], which arose in the 6th or 5th century BCE. They include the elitist view that the most virtuous and capable should rule.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Liu|Lan|Zhu|2021|pp=119–120}} | {{harvnb|DK staff|2018|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=8rqpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA76 76]}} }}</ref> Beginning in the 7th century CE, this tradition also saw the emergence of a rigorous, merit-based [[Imperial examination|examination system]] designed to select the most competent candidates for government service.<ref name="auto4"/>
In the 16th and 17th centuries, the [[Scientific Revolution]] established a new paradigm of rational inquiry in which truth is not passively revealed but actively discovered by following the [[scientific method]] and seeking [[empirical evidence]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=66–69}} | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|p=21}} | {{harvnb|Paterson|2012|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZzXsCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA65 65]}} }}</ref> During the subsequent [[Age of Enlightenment]] in the late 17th and 18th centuries, Enlightenment thinkers emphasized [[reason]], science, and technical rationality. They promoted the pursuit of knowledge and challenged traditional authorities.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=21–22}} | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=66–69}} | {{harvnb|Radaelli|2017|p=13}} }}</ref> This cultural and intellectual movement shaped the [[French Revolution]], which introduced several technocratic principles into governance. It advanced programs of social engineering and recast political authority around meritocratic expertise.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=21–24}} | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=67–68}} }}</ref>{{efn|A further development in France was the establishment of elite schools, the [[Grande école]]s, which served to train state administrators, engineers, and scientists, preparing a technocratic elite.<ref>{{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=21–24}}</ref>}} The growing economic complexity during the [[Industrial Revolution]] in the late 18th and 19th centuries further accelerated the demand for specialized knowledge and expert-led management.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=20–21}} | {{harvnb|Caramani|2020|pp=1–5}} }}</ref>
These developments also influenced political thought. [[Francis Bacon]] (1561–1626) envisioned a technocratic [[utopia]] in his ''[[New Atlantis]]''. Unlike Plato, he argued that empirical scientists, rather than philosopher-kings, should rule. For Bacon, politics should take the form of scientific administration, with scientific elites as benevolent rulers promoting the general interest of the whole.<ref name="auto5"/> Building on Bacon's vision, [[Henri de Saint-Simon]] (1760–1825) conceived a new kind of society based on scientific rationality. He held that a society led by scientists, artists, and industrialists would prosper, with a merit-based hierarchy and an elite class made up of the most educated and productive members of society. Saint-Simon is sometimes regarded as the "father of technocracy".<ref name="auto2"/> His student [[Auguste Comte]] (1798–1857) formulated [[positivism]], arguing that scientific understanding based on empirical evidence is the highest form of knowledge.<ref>{{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=70–72}}</ref>
[[Jeremy Bentham]]'s (1748–1832) [[utilitarianism]] also influenced technocratic thought, particularly the idea that governance should maximize overall welfare, laying the groundwork for [[cost-benefit analysis]] in public administration.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=72–73}} | {{harvnb|Crimmins|2026|loc=Lead section, § 6. Civil Law and Political Economy, § 10. Influence}} }}</ref> [[Tench Coxe]] (1755—1824) advanced a technocratic vision that regards machine-driven manufacturing as the main solution to political problems, seeing it as "the means of our political salvation".<ref>{{multiref| {{harvnb|Smith|1994|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=WWztFfsA-QEC&pg=PA1 1, 4]}} | {{harvnb|Cooke|1978|pp=xi, 103–106}}}}</ref> In his novel ''[[Looking Backward]]'', [[Edward Bellamy]] (1850–1898) reached a mass audience with his utopian vision of technocracy in which technology is harnessed to ensure abundance, leisure, and peace for all citizens.<ref name="auto4"/>
[[Frederick Winslow Taylor]] (1856–1915) developed and popularized the application of scientific management and efficiency-focused organization to industrial manufacturing and labor processes.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=13–15}} | {{harvnb|Olson|2015|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BFzpCgAAQBAJ&pg=PR9 ix, 1–2 ]}} | {{harvnb|Radaelli|2017|pp=16}} }}</ref>{{efn|Influenced by this approach, [[Henry Ford]] (1863–1947) translated scientific management into standardized [[mass production]] using [[assembly lines]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=8, 18}} | {{harvnb|Curcio|2013|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=HvJoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA72 72–73]}} }}</ref>}} [[Henry Gantt]] (1861–1919), an associate of Taylor, sought to extend these ideas into the political realm. He proposed a "new democracy" that grounds governance in scientific facts. For him, the degree of an individual's political authority should correspond to their ability and willingness to advance the common good.<ref>{{harvnb|Olson|2015|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BFzpCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22 22–23]}}</ref> His outlook was also influenced by [[Thorstein Veblen]] (1857–1929), who criticized [[capitalism]] for introducing conflicts of interest that hinder the public good. He argued that a system run by engineers and technicians could better serve common prosperity.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=25–28}} | {{harvnb|Olson|2015|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BFzpCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22 22–23]}} | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=29–30}} }}</ref>
[[Max Weber]] (1864–1920) explored the role of [[instrumental rationality]] in modern society. He argued that the pervasiveness of scientific and technical reason is a key feature of [[modernity]], emphasizing the importance of mathematical and scientific knowledge and the increasing reliance on trained experts and managers to organize social life.<ref>{{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=61–63}}</ref>
During the two [[World Wars]], technocratic principles were implemented to gain military and economic advantages by increasing productivity and efficiency. This happened in several fields, including the [[weapons industry]], [[logistics]], and mobilization of the workforce.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Fischer|1990|pp=91–92}} | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=19–20, 37, 177}} }}</ref>
In the book ''[[The Managerial Revolution]]'', [[James Burnham]] (1905–1987) grounded technocratic principles in a sociological analysis of the growing role of managers and technical experts in modern [[industrial societies]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=33–36}} | {{harvnb|Radaelli|2017|pp=20–21}} }}</ref> [[John Kenneth Galbraith]] (1908–2006) further explored these ideas in his book ''[[The New Industrial State]]'', arguing that advanced technology requires large corporations, long-term planning, and an extensive network of technical experts.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=36–37}} | {{harvnb|Radaelli|2017|pp=21–22}} }}</ref> In the book ''The Coming of Post-Industrial Society'', [[Daniel Bell]] (1919–2011) shifted the focus from industrial to [[post-industrial society]]. He highlighted the importance of technocratic principles as knowledge, science, and [[information technologies]] become the primary drivers of economic growth.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=37–39}} | {{harvnb|Radaelli|2017|pp=22}} }}</ref>
[[Postmodern philosophy|Postmodern thinkers]] examined the increasing centrality of expert knowledge in modern society. [[Michel Foucault]] (1926–1984) explored how knowledge is used to wield [[Biopower|power over populations]] through indirect mechanisms embedded in [[Correctional institution|correctional]], medical, and educational institutions.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=44–47}} | {{harvnb|Gutting|Oksala|2025|loc=§ 3.1 Histories of Madness and Medicine, § 3.4 History of the Prison}} }}</ref> [[Jean-François Lyotard]] (1924–1998) warned of the totalizing and dehumanizing tendencies of technocratic rationality.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=47–50, 175}} | {{harvnb|Gratton|2018|loc=§ 3.2 Justice in light of the Postmodern Condition, § 3.4 The Inhuman and the Event}} }}</ref> A different criticism was formulated by the [[Frankfurt School]] theorist [[Jürgen Habermas]] (1929–2026), who regarded technocracy as a threat to democracy, proposing that expert knowledge should be integrated into democratic processes without replacing them.<ref name="auto3"/>
=== In different regions === [[File:TechnocracyMonad.svg|thumb|alt=Circular symbol with two curved sections, one white and one red|Symbol of Technocracy Inc.]] [[File:Leonid Brezjnev, leider van de Sovjet-Unie (3x4 cropped).jpg|thumb|alt=Black-and-white photo of a man wearing a suit|Various aspects of technocratic governance were present in the [[Soviet Union]], particularly during the leadership of [[Leonid Brezhnev]].<ref name="auto">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hoffmann|Laird|1985|pp=1–8, 170–172}} | {{harvnb|Hinshaw|Stearns|2013|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=DuTNEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA468 468–469]}} | {{harvnb|Graham|1993|pp=[https://archive.org/details/ghostofexecutede00grah/page/73 73–74]}} }}</ref>]] In the 1930s in North America, the [[technocracy movement]] emerged from the [[Technical Alliance]], which had been founded in 1919 by [[Howard Scott (engineer)|Howard Scott]] (1890–1970). Followers of the technocracy movement applied Veblen's ideas to the [[Great Depression]]{{em dash}}a deep economic crisis that had started in 1929. They argued that this crisis was a symptom of capitalism and proposed a technocratic reorganization of society to overcome it. In addition to the political governance by engineers, scientists, and technical managers, this program aimed to replace the price-based economy with one that organizes distribution and consumption based on energy costs. It sought to increase abundance while reducing average workload through centralized planning, integrating North America into a self-sufficient unit called a ''technate''.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=34–36}} | {{harvnb|Günel|2019|pp=115–116}} | {{harvnb|Burris|1993|pp=28–32}} }}</ref>{{efn|The movement later split into two rival groups, the Continental Committee on Technocracy led by [[Harold Loeb]] and Technocracy Inc. led by Scott, but its influence declined in the following years.<ref>{{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=36–37}}</ref>}} In the post-World War II decades, technocracy influenced U.S. politics by shaping institutional frameworks, particularly in economic and military spheres. Links to politics happened through regulatory and advisory bodies such as the [[United States Atomic Energy Commission|Atomic Energy Commission]], the [[National Science Foundation]], the [[Council of Economic Advisers]], and the [[RAND Corporation]].<ref>{{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=37–47}}</ref>
Various aspects of technocratic governance were also present in the [[Soviet Union]], such as the centralized economic planning by experts under the [[Gosplan|State Planning Committee]], established in 1921. These tendencies were particularly prominent during the leadership of [[Leonid Brezhnev]] (1906–1982), who promoted a scientific-technological revolution with an increased reliance on engineers as political leaders.<ref name="auto"/>
In the 1950s and early 1960s, China implemented technocratic elements as engineers from elite universities rose to political power to engage in central planning and implement communist-style industrialization. This trend saw a significant backlash during the [[Cultural Revolution]] (1966–1976), marked by anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism. Since the late 1970s, the technocratic influence has been restored and expanded, with leadership often characterized by a synthesis of technical expertise and [[Socialism|socialist ideology]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Andreas|2009|pp=1–14}} | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|pp=3}} }}</ref>
Technocratic tendencies were prominent in Latin America starting in the 1960s and 1970s, both in democratic and authoritarian regimes. They typically took the form of state-led development efforts in sectors such as agriculture, industry, and health, exemplified by the expert-guided reforms in Colombia under the [[National Front (Colombia)|National Front]] governments. In subsequent decades, the technocratic agenda in Latin America increasingly centered on the economy.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dargent|2020|pp=216–219}} | {{harvnb|Dargent|2015|pp=2–4}} }}</ref>
Since the 1970s and 1980s, Singapore saw the establishment of an administrative state focused on rational organization, technical skill, and meritocratic egalitarianism while seeking to avoid ideological polarization and partisan interests. Because of its economic success in the form of rapid development and growth, it is often regarded as a leading exemplar of the advantages of technocracy.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Tan|2016|pp=15–16}} | {{harvnb|Esmark|2020|p=3}} | {{harvnb|Liu|Lan|Zhu|2021|p=120}} }}</ref> Other Asian examples of the implementation of technocratic principles are found in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.<ref>{{harvnb|Centeno|1993|pp=314–316}}</ref>
Beginning in the second half of the 20th century, the formation of the European Union introduced various forms of technocratic governance, such as the establishment of expert-led institutions with little democratic control, including the [[European Central Bank]].<ref>{{harvnb|Habermas|2015|pp=3–8}}</ref> Starting in the 1990s, [[Evidence-based policy|evidence-based policy making]] has become an influential approach in the United Kingdom, seeking to align governance with robust empirical evidence and rigorous scientific evaluation.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Clarence|2002|pp=1–3}} | {{harvnb|Monaghan|2011|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=RyVck_q6f0YC&pg=PA21 21–22]}} | {{harvnb|Hoornbeek|2011|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=wr91AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA861 861]}} }}</ref> In the 2000s and 2010s, several EU countries adopted technocratic measures in response to political or economic turmoil, such as technocratic cabinets in Italy and Greece during the [[Euro area crisis|European financial crisis]].<ref>{{harvnb|Bertsou|Caramani|2020|pp=91–92}}</ref>
==See also==<!-- PLEASE RESPECT ALPHABETICAL ORDER --> * {{Annotated link|Bright green environmentalism}} * {{Annotated link|Player Piano (novel)|Player Piano}} * {{Annotated link|Post-politics}} * {{Annotated link|Post-scarcity economy}} * {{Annotated link|Project Cybersyn}} * {{Annotated link|Redressement Français}} * {{Annotated link|Scientocracy}}
== References == === Notes === {{notelist|30em}}
=== Citations === {{reflist|30em}}
=== Sources === {{refbegin|30em}} * {{cite book |last1=Alexiadou |first1=Despina |chapter=Technocrats in Cabinets and their Policy Effects |pages=131–147 |editor1-last=Bertsou |editor1-first=Eri |editor2-last=Caramani |editor2-first=Daniele |title=The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-04360-0 |language=en |date=2020 }} * {{cite book |last1=Andreas |first1=Joel |title=Rise of the Red Engineers: The Cultural Revolution and the Origins of China's New Class |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-0-8047-7110-8 |language=en |date=2009 }} * {{cite book |last1=Baynes |first1=Kenneth |last2=Prattico |first2=Emilie |chapter=Can Democracy Survive Without the Voice of Experts |pages=100–119 |editor-last1=Prattico |editor-first1=Emilie |title=Habermas and the Crisis of Democracy: Interviews with Leading Thinkers |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-59699-1 |language=en |date=2022 }} * {{cite journal |last1=Bertsou |first1=Eri |title=Technocratic Attitudes During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe and the US |journal=West European Politics |volume=49 |issue=2 |doi=10.1080/01402382.2025.2463272 |date=2026 |pages=483–513}} * {{cite book |last1=Bertsou |first1=Eri |last2=Caramani |first2=Daniele |chapter=Measuring Technocracy |pages=91–110 |editor1-last=Bertsou |editor1-first=Eri |editor2-last=Caramani |editor2-first=Daniele |title=The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-04360-0 |language=en |date=2020 }} * {{cite journal |last1=Bickerton |first1=Christopher |last2=Accetti |first2=Carlo Invernizzi |title=Populism and Technocracy: Opposites or Complements? |journal=Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy |volume=20 |issue=2 |doi=10.1080/13698230.2014.995504 |date=2015 |pages=1–21}} * {{cite book |last1=Bickerton |first1=Christopher |last2=Accetti |first2=Carlo Invernizzi |chapter=Technocracy and Political Theory |pages=29–43 |editor1-last=Bertsou |editor1-first=Eri |editor2-last=Caramani |editor2-first=Daniele |title=The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-04360-0 |language=en |date=2020 }} * {{cite book |last1=Bickerton |first1=Christopher J. |last2=Accetti |first2=Carlo Invernizzi |title=Technopopulism: The New Logic of Democratic Politics |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-880776-6 |language=en |date=2021 }} * {{cite book |last1=Brown |first1=Garrett Wallace |last2=McLean |first2=Iain |last3=McMillan |first3=Alistair |title=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-967084-0 |language=en |date=2018 }} * {{cite book |last1=Burris |first1=Beverly H. |title=Technocracy at Work |publisher=State University of New York Press |isbn=978-0-7914-1495-8 |language=en |date=1993 }} * {{cite book |last1=Caramani |first1=Daniele |chapter=Introduction |pages=1–26 |editor1-last=Bertsou |editor1-first=Eri |editor2-last=Caramani |editor2-first=Daniele |title=The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-04360-0 |language=en |date=2020 }} * {{cite journal |last1=Centeno |first1=Miguel Angel |title=The New Leviathan: The Dynamics and Limits of Technocracy |journal=Theory and Society |volume=22 |issue=3 |doi=10.1007/BF00993531 |date=1993 |pages=307–335}} * {{cite journal |last1=Clarence |first1=Emma |title=Technocracy Reinvented: The New Evidence Based Policy Movement |journal=Public Policy and Administration |volume=17 |issue=3 |doi=10.1177/095207670201700301 |date=2002 |pages=1–11}} * {{cite web |last1=Cole |first1=Matthew |title=What’s Wrong with Technocracy? |url=https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/whats-wrong-with-technocracy/ |website=Boston Review |publisher=MIT Press |access-date=15 February 2026 |date=2022}} * {{cite book |last=Cooke |first=Jacob E. |title=Tench Coxe and the Early Republic |publisher=Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture and University of North Carolina Press |year=1978 |isbn=9780807813089}} * {{cite web |last1=Crimmins |first1=James E. |title=Jeremy Bentham |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=19 February 2026 |date=2026 }} * {{cite book |last1=Curcio |first1=Vincent |title=Henry Ford |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-971789-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HvJoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA72 |language=en |date=2013 }} * {{cite journal |last1=Danaher |first1=John |title=The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation |journal=Philosophy & Technology |volume=29 |issue=3 |doi=10.1007/s13347-015-0211-1 |date=2016 |pages=245–268}} * {{cite book |last1=Dargent |first1=Eduardo |title=Technocracy and Democracy in Latin America: The Experts Running Government |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-05987-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EDbJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 |language=en |date=2015 }} * {{cite book |last1=Dargent |first1=Eduardo |chapter=Technocracy in Latin America: Between Stability and Democratic Deficit |pages=216–231 |editor1-last=Bertsou |editor1-first=Eri |editor2-last=Caramani |editor2-first=Daniele |title=The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-04360-0 |language=en |date=2020 }} * {{cite book |author1=DK staff |title=Timelines of Everything: From Woolly Mammoths to World Wars |publisher=Dorling Kindersley Limited |isbn=978-0-241-42807-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8rqpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA76 |language=en |date=2018 }} * {{cite journal |last1=Eagleton-Pierce |first1=Matthew |last2=Knafo |first2=Samuel |title=Introduction: The Political Economy of Managerialism |journal=Review of International Political Economy |volume=27 |issue=4 |doi=10.1080/09692290.2020.1735478 |date=2020 |pages=763–779 }} * {{cite book |last1=Esmark |first1=Anders |title=The New Technocracy |publisher=Policy Press |isbn=978-1-5292-0088-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j1raDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 |language=en |date=2020 }} * {{cite book |last1=Fiala |first1=Andrew |editor1-last=Fiala |editor1-first=Andrew |title=The Bloomsbury Companion to Political Philosophy |publisher=Bloomsbury |isbn=978-1-4411-1434-1 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XXApBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA238 |language=en |chapter=Glossary |date=2015 |pages=227–254}} * {{cite book |last1=Fischer |first1=Frank |title=Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise |publisher=SAGE |isbn=978-0-8039-3379-8 |language=en |date=1990 }} * {{cite book |last1=Friedman |first1=Jeffrey |title=Power Without Knowledge: A Critique of Technocracy |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-087717-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gtnBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 |language=en |date=2019 }} * {{cite web |last1=Gilabert |first1=Pablo |last2=O'Neill |first2=Martin |title=Socialism |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=19 April 2025 |date=2024 }} * {{cite book |last1=Graham |first1=Loren |title=The Ghost of the Executed Engineer: Technology and the Fall of the Soviet Union |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-35436-4 |url=https://archive.org/details/ghostofexecutede00grah/page/73 |language=en |date=1993 }} * {{cite web |last1=Gratton |first1=Peter |title=Jean François Lyotard |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lyotard/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=21 February 2026 |date=2018 }} * {{cite journal |last1=Gratton |first1=Gabriele |last2=Edenhofer |first2=Jacob |title=The Rise and Fall of Technocratic Democracies: Unstable Majorities and Delegation to Technocrats |journal=Journal of European Public Policy |doi=10.1080/13501763.2025.2576160 |date=2025 |pages=1–30}} * {{cite book |last1=Günel |first1=Gökçe |title=Spaceship in the Desert: Energy, Climate Change, and Urban Design in Abu Dhabi |publisher=Duke University Press |isbn=978-1-4780-0240-6 |language=en |date=2019 }} * {{cite journal |last1=Gunnell |first1=John G. |title=The Technocratic Image and the Theory of Technocracy |journal=Technology and Culture |volume=23 |issue=3 |doi=10.2307/3104485 |date=1982 |pages=392–416}} * {{cite web |last1=Gutting |first1=Gary |last2=Oksala |first2=Johanna |title=Michel Foucault |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=21 February 2026 |date=2025 }} * {{cite book |last1=Habermas |first1=Jürgen |title=The Lure of Technocracy |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-0-7456-8685-1 |language=en |date=2015 }} * {{cite book |last1=Hakken |first1=David |title=International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences |publisher=Macmillan Reference |isbn=978-0-02-866117-9 |edition=2nd |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/technocracy |chapter=Technocracy |date=2008 }} * {{cite book |last1=Hill |first1=Arthur |last2=Moore |first2=Margaret |editor1-last=Gaus |editor1-first=Gerald F. |editor2-last=D'Agostino |editor2-first=Fred |editor3-last=Muldoon |editor3-first=Ryan |title=The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy |edition=2nd |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-00-341159-8 |language=en |date=2025 |chapter=Nationalism |pages=485–495 }} * {{cite book |last1=Hinshaw |first1=John |last2=Stearns |first2=Peter N. |title=Industrialization in the Modern World: From the Industrial Revolution to the Internet [2 volumes] |publisher=Bloomsbury |isbn=978-1-61069-088-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DuTNEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA468 |language=en |date=2013 }} * {{cite book |last1=Hoffmann |first1=Erik P. |last2=Laird |first2=Robbin Frederick |title=Technocratic Socialism: The Soviet Union in the Advanced Industrial Era |publisher=Duke University Press |isbn=978-0-8223-0692-4 |language=en |date=1985 }} * {{cite book |last1=Hoornbeek |first1=John A. |editor1-last=Badie |editor1-first=Bertrand |editor2-last=Berg-Schlosser |editor2-first=Dirk |editor3-last=Morlino |editor3-first=Leonardo |title=International Encyclopedia of Political Science |publisher=SAGE |isbn=978-1-4522-6649-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wr91AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA861 |language=en |chapter=Evidence-Based Policy |date=2011 |pages=860–862 }} * {{cite book |last1=Knowles |first1=Dudley |title=Political Philosophy |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-135-36086-3 |language=en |date=2006 }} * {{cite book |last1=Lenk |first1=Hans |editor1-last=Mitcham |editor1-first=Carl |title=Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics |publisher=Macmillan Reference |isbn=978-0-02-865834-6 |date=2005 |chapter=Technocracy }} * {{cite book |last1=Liu |first1=Yongmou |last2=Lan |first2=Lishan |last3=Zhu |first3=Qin |editor1-last=Grunwald |editor1-first=Armin |editor2-last=Hillerbrand |editor2-first=Rafaela |title=Handbuch Technikethik |publisher=J.B. Metzler |isbn=978-3-476-04900-1 |doi=10.1007/978-3-476-04901-8_22 |chapter=Technocracy |date=2021 |pages=119–122}} * {{cite journal |last1=Méndez |first1=María Pía |title=An Epistemic Problem for Epistocracy |journal=Social Epistemology |volume=36 |issue=2 |doi=10.1080/02691728.2021.1992531 |date=2022 |pages=153–166}} * {{cite book |last1=Moenjak |first1=Thammarak |title=Central Banking: Theory and Practice in Sustaining Monetary and Financial Stability |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-1-118-83257-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dNj1AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA60 |language=en |date=2014 }} * {{cite book |last1=Monaghan |first1=Mark |title=Evidence Versus Politics: Exploiting Research in UK Drug Policy Making? |publisher=Policy Press |isbn=978-1-84742-697-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RyVck_q6f0YC&pg=PA21 |language=en |date=2011 }} * {{cite book |last1=Moroni |first1=Stefano |editor1-last=Iossifova |editor1-first=Deljana |editor2-last=Doll |editor2-first=Christopher N. H. |editor3-last=Gasparatos |editor3-first=Alexandros |title=Defining the Urban: Interdisciplinary and Professional Perspectives |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-317-15349-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6mBQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA141 |language=en |chapter=12. Urban Planning |date=2017 |pages=141–152}} * {{cite web |last1=Moseley |first1=Alexander |title=Political Philosophy: Methodology |url=https://iep.utm.edu/polphil/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=6 April 2025}} * {{cite web |url=https://www.oed.com/dictionary/technocracy_n?tl=true |website=Oxford English Dictionary |date=2026 |publisher=Oxford University Press |title=Technocracy, n. |author=OED staff}} * {{cite book |last1=Olson |first1=Richard G. |title=Scientism and Technocracy in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Scientific Management |publisher=Lexington Books |isbn=978-1-4985-2571-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BFzpCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 |language=en |date=2015 }} * {{cite book |last1=Paterson |first1=J. |editor1-last=Beer |editor1-first=Tom |editor2-last=Ismail-Zadeh |editor2-first=Alik |title=Risk Science and Sustainability: Science for Reduction of Risk and Sustainable Development of Society |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |isbn=978-94-010-0167-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZzXsCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA65 |language=en |chapter=Science for Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development: The Role of Law |date=2012 |pages=63–76}} * {{cite journal |last1=Peron |first1=Alcides Eduardo dos Reis |last2=Almstadter Mattar de Magalhães |first2=David |last3=Caetano |first3=Gabriel Fernandes |title=Beyond Digital Repression: Techno-authoritarianism in Radical Right Governments |journal=Cogent Social Sciences |volume=11 |issue=1 |doi=10.1080/23311886.2025.2528457 |date=2025 }} * {{cite book |last1=Pfaffenberger |first1=Bryan |title=International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences |publisher=Macmillan Reference |isbn=978-0-02-866117-9 |edition=2nd |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/technotopia |chapter=Technotopia |date=2008 }} * {{cite book |last1=Radaelli |first1=Claudio M. |title=Technocracy in the European Union |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-317-88435-4 |language=en |date=2017 }} * {{cite book |last1=Riess |first1=Julian |editor1-last=Gunn |editor1-first=Paul |title=Technocracy and the Epistemology of Human Behavior: The Debate over Power Without Knowledge |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-1-000-78405-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gpYIEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA230 |language=en |chapter=Why Do Experts Disagree? |date=2022 |pages=218–241}} * {{cite journal |last1=Ronfeldt |first1=David |title=Cyberocracy is Coming |journal=The Information Society |volume=8 |issue=4 |doi=10.1080/01972243.1992.9960123 |date=1992 |pages=243–296}} * {{cite journal |last1=Rummens |first1=Stefan |title=Technocracy as a Thin Ideology |journal=Constellations |volume=31 |issue=2 |doi=10.1111/1467-8675.12676 |date=2024 |pages=174–188}} * {{cite journal |last1=Russo |first1=Silvia |last2=Lalot |first2=Fanny |last3=Roccato |first3=Michele |title=Support for Technocratic and Authoritarian Governance in Times of Crisis: The Role of Trust and COVID-19 Concerns |journal=International Journal of Public Opinion Research |volume=37 |issue=3 |doi=10.1093/ijpor/edaf042 |date=2025 }} * {{cite journal |last1=Sadowski |first1=Jathan |title=Rediscovering a Risky Ideology: Technocracy and Its Effects on Technology Governance |journal=Journal of Responsible Innovation |volume=7 |issue=sup1 |doi=10.1080/23299460.2020.1816345 |date=2020 |pages=112–116}} * {{cite book |last1=Sánchez-Cuenca |first1=Ignacio |chapter=Neoliberal Technocracy: The Challenge to Democratic Self-government |pages=44–60 |editor1-last=Bertsou |editor1-first=Eri |editor2-last=Caramani |editor2-first=Daniele |title=The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-04360-0 |language=en |date=2020 }} * {{cite book |last1=Scruton |first1=Roger |title=The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |isbn=978-0-230-62509-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t9uGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 |language=en |date=2007 }} * {{cite journal |last1=Selk |first1=Veith |title=Expertocracy as Thin-centered Ideology: Theoretical Concepts and Empirical Illustrations |journal=Political Research Exchange |volume=7 |issue=1 |doi=10.1080/2474736X.2025.2575772 |date=2025 }} * {{cite book |last1=Silva |first1=Patricio |editor1-last=Boyd |editor1-first=Richard |editor2-last=Benno |editor2-first=Galjart |editor3-last=Ngo |editor3-first=Tak-Wing |title=Political Conflict and Development in East Asia and Latin America |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-134-22859-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Hll_AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA76 |language=en |chapter=Government-Business Relations and Economic Performance in SOuth Korea and Chile: A Political Perspective |date=2007 |pages=74–117}} * {{cite book |last1=Smith |first1=Merritt Roe |editor1-last=Smith |editor1-first=Merritt Roe |editor2-last=Marx |editor2-first=Leo |title=Does Technology Drive History?: The Dilemma of Technological Determinism |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-69167-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WWztFfsA-QEC&pg=PA1 |language=en |chapter=1. Technological Determinism in American Culture |date=1994 |pages=1–36 }} * {{cite book |last1=Stephens |first1=Jennie C. |last2=Allen |first2=Elizabeth |editor1-last=Feldpausch-Parker |editor1-first=Andrea M. |editor2-last=Endres |editor2-first=Danielle |editor3-last=Peterson |editor3-first=Tarla Rai |editor4-last=Gomez |editor4-first=Stephanie L. |title=Routledge Handbook of Energy Democracy |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-68856-0 |language=en |chapter=A Feminist Lens on Energy Democracy: Redistributing Power and Resisting Oppression Through Renewable Transformation |date=2021 |pages=187–199}} * {{cite book |last1=Tacconi |first1=Luca |title=Biodiversity and Ecological Economics: Participatory Approaches to Resource Management |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-351-57370-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OlcPEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA81 |language=en |date=2017 }} * {{cite book |last1=Tan |first1=Kenneth Paul |title=Governing Global-City Singapore: Legacies and Futures After Lee Kuan Yew |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-317-22443-3 |language=en |date=2016 }} * {{cite book |last1=Trifonas |first1=Peter Pericles |editor1-last=Carr |editor1-first=Paul R. |editor2-last=Hoechsmann |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Thésée |editor3-first=Gina |title=Democracy 2.0: Media, Political Literacy and Critical Engagement |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-94-6351-230-5 |language=en |chapter=Technocracy, Education, and the Global Imperative |date=2018 |pages=3–12}} * {{cite book |last1=Valbruzzi |first1=Marco |chapter=Technocratic Cabinets |pages=113–130 |editor1-last=Bertsou |editor1-first=Eri |editor2-last=Caramani |editor2-first=Daniele |title=The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-04360-0 |language=en |date=2020 }} * {{cite book |last1=Visser |first1=Eva |editor1-last=Veen |editor1-first=Adriejan van |editor2-last=Jung |editor2-first=Theo |title=Depoliticisation before Neoliberalism: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political in Modern Europe |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-031-74101-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t5mlEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA202 |language=en |chapter=Planning the Technate: The Apolitical Politics of the 1930s' Technocratic Movement in North America and Europe |date=2026 |pages=201–228}} * {{cite book |last1=Waldron |first1=Jeremy |editor-last=Craig |editor-first1=Edward |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Routledge |doi=10.4324/9780415249126-S035-1 |url=https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/liberalism/v-1 |chapter=Liberalism |date=1998 |isbn=978-0-415-07310-3}} * {{cite book |last1=Wilson |first1=Harlan |title=International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences |publisher=Macmillan Reference |isbn=978-0-02-866117-9 |edition=2nd |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/technocracy |chapter=Technocrat |date=2008 }} {{refend}}
==External links== {{Wikiquote}} {{Commons category}} * {{librivox book |stitle=Technocracy |dtitle=''Technocracy'' by William Henry Smyth | author=William Henry Smyth}} * {{YouTube|id=I9ps5vJrIxM|title=Technocracy: An Alternative Social System – Arvid Peterson – (1980)}} * Technocracy: An Interpretation [https://archive.org/details/TechnocracyStuartChase Technocracy: An Interpretation] by [[Stuart Chase]] * [https://archive.org/details/TechnocracyAndSocialism ''Technocracy and Socialism''], by [[Paul Blanshard]]. * [https://archive.org/details/technocracyworki00smytrich Technocracy Parts I-IV., Working Explosively, A Protest Against Mechanistic Efficiency. Working Explosively Versus Working Efficiently] by William Henry Smyth. * [https://archive.org/details/TechnocracyStudyCourseUnabridged Technocracy Study Course Unabridged] by Marion King Hubbert, Howard Scott, Technocracy Inc.,
{{Political philosophy}} {{Authority control}}
[[Category:Political philosophy]] [[Category:Politics and technology]] [[Category:Technocracy movement]]