Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:48:43.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three Models of Democratic Expertise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2020

Alfred Moore Open the ORCID record for Alfred Moore [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How can expertise best be integrated within democratic systems? And how can such systems best enable lay judgment of expert claims? These questions are obscured by the common framing of democratic politics against an imagined system of pure and unmixed expert rule or “epistocracy.” Drawing on emerging research that attempts to think critically and institutionally about expertise, I distinguish three ways of democratically organizing relations between experts and non-experts: representative expertise, in which experts are taken to exercise limited and delegated power under the supervision of political representatives; participatory expertise, in which expertise is integrated with publics by means of directly participatory processes; and associative expertise, in which civil society groups, advocacy organizations, and social movements organize expert knowledge around the objectives of a self-organized association. Comparing these models according to the cognitive demands they make on lay citizens, the epistemic value of citizen contributions, and the ways in which they enable public scrutiny and contestation, I go on to explore how they can support and undermine one another, and how they can open up new questions about democracy, trust, and expertise in political science and political theory.

Type
Reflection
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 553 - 563
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For comments on various earlier presentations of this work the author would like to thank Udit Bhatia, Nancy Cartwright, Simone Chambers, Johan Christensen, Katherine Furman, Sean Gray, Cathrine Holst, Silja Aambo Langvatn, Richard Williams, Jack Wright, as well as Daniel O’Neill and the anonymous reviewers at Perspectives on Politics, whose detailed comments were a great help in revising. An earlier version of this paper was presented at a workshop on “The Role of Expertise in Policy-Making: Empirical Scholarship and Normative Analysis,” organized under the research project EUREX and held at the University of Oslo, May 22–23, 2018, and at the Knowledge for Use workshop on deliberative democracy at the University of Durham, June 27, 2018.

References

Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2006. “The Epistemology of Democracy.” Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3(1-2): 8-22.10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2011. “Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony.” Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 8(2): 144-64.10.3366/epi.2011.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, John. 2006. “Masking Disagreement among Experts.” 3(1-2): 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, John, and Moore, Alfred. 2010. “Should We Aim for Consensus?” Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 7(3): 198–214.10.3366/epi.2010.0203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Daniel A. 2015. The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400865505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Christopher, and Accetti, Carlo Invernizzi. 2015. “Populism and Technocracy: Opposites or Complements?” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20(2): 186–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James. 1999. “Democracy as Inquiry, Inquiry as Democratic: Pragmatism, Social Science, and the Cognitive Division of Labor.” American Journal of Political Science 43(2): 590–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James. 2000. “Division of Labor in Democratic Discourse: Media, Experts, and Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberation, Democracy, and the Media, ed. Chambers, Simone and Costain, Anne N., 47–64. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 2006. “Deliberative Democracy and the Epistemic Benefits of Diversity.” Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3(3): 175–91.10.3366/epi.2006.3.3.175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Kathrin, and Schultz, Susanna. 2010. “‘… a certain amount of engineering involved’: Constructing the Public in Participatory Governance Arrangements.” Public Understanding of Science 19(4): 403–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Jason. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, Scott. 1998. “Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process.” Yale Law Journal 107:1535–679.10.2307/797336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, Mark B. 2006. “Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation.” Journal of Political Philosophy 14(2): 203–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262013246.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busby, Mattha. 2019. “Expert Quits Home Office Drug Panel over ‘Political Vetting.” The Guardian, October 6. Retrieved October 31, 2019. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/06/expert-quits-home-office-drug-panel-over-political-vetting).Google Scholar
Callon, Michel, Lascoumes, Pierre, and Barthe, Yannick. 2009. Acting in An Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Caramani, Daniele. 2017. “Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government.” American Political Science Review 111(1): 54–67.10.1017/S0003055416000538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 2012. “Rational Deliberation among Experts and Citizens.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, ed, Parkinson, John and Mansbridge, Jane, 27–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139178914.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Harry, and Evans, Robert. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226113623.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Harry, and Evans, Robert. 2015. “Expertise Revisited, Part I Interactional Expertise.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 54:113–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, Robert. 1985. Controlling Nuclear Weapons: Democracy Versus Guardianship. Syracuse, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. Chicago: The Swallow Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67(4): 559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Estlund, David. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, John, Richards, Robert C., and Knobloch, Katherine R.. 2014. “Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass Elections.” International Journal of Communication 8:62–89.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198238207.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 2006. “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?” In The Philosophy of Expertise, ed. Selinger, Evan and Crease, Robert P., 14–38. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Guston, David H. 2005. “On Consensus and Voting in Science: From Asilomar to the National Toxicology Program.” In The New Political Sociology of Science, edited by Frickel, Scott and Moore, Kelly, 378–404. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 378–404.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: and Oxford: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400826339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. “(No?) Accounting for Expertise.” Science and Public Policy 30(3): 157–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Stephen. 2018. “Epistemic Trust and the Ethics of Science Communication: Against Transparency, Openness, Sincerity and Honesty.” Social Epistemology 32(2): 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, James. 2014. “Models among the Political Theorists.” American Journal of Political Science 58(3): 547–60.10.1111/ajps.12114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 2015. “Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-publics Shape Public Policy?” Journal of Political Philosophy 23(1): 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, Hélène. 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Melissa. 2014. “When the Experts are Uncertain: Scientific Knowledge and the Ethics of Democratic Judgment.” Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 11(1): 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Michael, and Warren, Mark E.. 2012. “Two Trust-based Uses of Minipublics in Democratic Systems.” In Deliberative Systems, ed. Parkinson, John and Mansbridge, Jane, 95–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2009. “A ‘Selection Model’ of Political Representation.” Journal of Political Philosophy 17(4): 369–98.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00337.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1977 [1861]. “Considerations on Representative Government.” In The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIX: Essays on Politics and Society Part 2, ed. Robson, John M., 371–577. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Moore, Alfred. 2014. “Deference in Numbers: Consensus, Dissent and Judgement in Mill’s Account of Authority.” Political Studies 62(S1): 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Alfred. 2017. Critical Elitism: Deliberation, Democracy, and the Politics of Expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ober, Josiah. 2017. Demopolis: Democracy before Liberalism in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108226790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, Onora. 2003. A Question of Trust. The BBC Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Eric. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pamuk, Zeynep. 2018. “Justifying Public Funding for Science.” British Journal of Political Science 49(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pamuk, Zeynep. 2019. Examining the Experts: Science in a Democratic Society. Unpublished manuscript, presented at Manuscript Workshop, St John’s College, Oxford, May 27.Google Scholar
Pellicano, E., Houting, J. Den, Plooy, L. Du, and Lilley, R.. 2019. “Knowing Autism: The Place of Experiential Expertise. Behavioral and Brain Science 42(E107). doi:10.1017/S0140525X18002376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielke, Roger A. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prat, Andrea. 2005. “The Wrong Kind of Transparency.” American Economic Review 95(3): 862–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. 2015. Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2011. Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosén, Guri, and Stie, Anne Elizabeth. 2018. “What Characterises Parliamentary Responses to Expertization? A Study of the European Parliament.” Presented at the EUREX workshop on the role of expertise in policy-making, University of Oslo, May 22-23.Google Scholar
Rowe, Gene, and Frewer, Lynn J.. 2000. “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technology & Human Values 25(1): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabl, Andrew. 2015. “The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide.” Perspectives on Politics 13(2): 345–65.10.1017/S1537592715000079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, Thomas. 1978. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Schudson, Michael. 2006. “The Trouble with Experts⸺and Why Democracies Need Them.” Theory and Society 35(5/6): 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzberg, Melissa. 2019. “Sheep May Safely Graze: On the Instrumental Justification of Democracy.” Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved April 9, 2019. (https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Colloquium_SchwartzbergSheep.pdf).Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 2008. “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 11:497–520.10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Stephen P. 2003. Liberal Democracy 3.0: Civil Society in an Age of Experts. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2002. Mill on Democracy: From the Athenian Polis to Representative Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2010. “Unpolitical Democracy.” Political Theory 38(1): 65–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia, and Warren, Mark E.. 2008. “The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 11:387–412.10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.190533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 1996. “Deliberative Democracy and Authority.” American Political Science Review 90(1): 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2017. “A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 111(1): 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1994. “Suffrage and Democracy in Germany.” In Weber: Political Writings, ed. Lassman, Peter and Speirs, Ronald, 80–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511841095.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilsdon, James, and Willis, Rebecca. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
Wolff, Robert Paul. 1970. In Defense of Anarchism. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Wynne, Brian. 1989. “Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A Case Study in Communicating Scientific Information.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 31(2): 10–39.Google Scholar