All
 
|
 
 


Technocracy: Hopes and Risks
 
PIIS013216250004959-7-1
DOI10.31857/S013216250004959-7
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Midkhat Kh. Farukshin 
Affiliation: Kazan (Volga region) Federal University
Address: Tatarstan, Kazan
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 5
Pages76-86
Abstract

The article is devoted to analysis of the main tenets of technocratic conception, which appeared as result of industrial and scientific/technological development. The aim of study is to consider the above tenets taking into account the real technocracy’s activity. There are discovered the main signs of technocracy and its role in elaboration and realization of scientific-technical and industrial projects. It is difficult to overestimate the role of technocrats in strategic planning. Russia needs in these people and relies on them as a force able to put up the country to advanced positions in the world. There is pointed out that domination of technocrats can create some risks for society. In view of the supporters of technocracy the latter implies a rejection of democracy. The author substantiates the idea that domination of technocrats contradicts not democracy as such but the direct one. Technocratic governance doesn’t exclude important institutes of democracy such as elections, political competition, separation of powers, political opposition and political parties, freedom of speech and presence of alternative sources of information, rights and freedoms of individual and others but restricts the role of mass political participation in solving complex social and economic problems. There are suggested some variants for combination of professionalism and democratic participation. Attitudes of technocrats to politics, ideology and social policy are discussed. Contrary to the view that technocrats are alienated from politics author suggests that technocrats are not apolitical actors. There is no wall between technocrats and politicians. Technocrats cannot be free from politics. They work in the definite political and ideological environment that determinates requirements for governance apparat and character and goals of governance system. Technocrats act in framework of social and political priorities arranged by politicians.

Keywordstechnocracy, technocrat, ruling group, governance, democracy, mass political participation, politics, ideology, social policy
Received05.06.2019
Publication date05.06.2019
Number of characters31356
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 2, views: 2209

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Abraham J., Sheppard J. (1997) Democracy, Technocracy and the Secret State of Medicine Control: Expert and None-expert Perspective. Science, Technology & Human Values. Vol. 22(2): 139–167.
2. Azrael J. R. (1966) Managerial Power and Soviet Politics. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
3. Beckwith B.P. (1972) Government by Experts. The Next Stage in Political Evolution. New York: Exposition Press.
4. Bell D. (1971) The Post-Industrial Society. The Evolution of an Idea.  Survey. Vol. 17(2): 102–168.
5. Bertsou E. and Pastorella G. (2017) Technocratic attitudes: a citizens’ perspective of expert decision-making. West European Politics. Vol.40(2): 430–458.
6. Bocharova S. (2019) Two thirds of the regions became less stable under the governors-technocrats. Vedomosti. March 10.
7. Bucchi M. (2009) Beyond Technocracy. Science, Politics and Citizens. New York: Springer-Verlag.
8. Caramani D. (2017) Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government. American Political Science Review. Vol. 111(1): 54–67.
9. Centeno M.A. (1993) The new Leviathan: The dynamics and limits of technocracy. Theory and society. Vol. 22(3): 307–335.
10. Corrias L. (2017) The empty place of European power: Contested democracy and the technocratic Threat. European Law Journal. Vol. 23(6): 482–494.
11. Costa Pinto A et al. (2018) Beyond Party Government? Technocratic Trends in Society and in the Executive. In: Technocratic Ministers and Political Leadership in European Democracies. Ed. by Costa A. et al. Cham: Springer Nature.
12. Covin J.G. et al. (2001) Strategic decision making in an intuitive vs technocratic mode: structural and environmental considerations. Journal of Business Research. Vol.  52(1): 51–67.
13. Esmark A. (2017) Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Technocracy? An Old Framework for a New Analysis of Administrative Reforms in the Governance Era. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: 501–516.
14. Gilley B. (2017) Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy. Policy Sciences. Vol. 50(1): 9–22.
15. Kickbusch I. (2016) Politics or Technocracy – What Next for Global Health?  International Journal of Health Policy and Management. Vol. 5(3): 201–204.
16. Lumer H. (1973) On «Postindustrial Society». Political Affairs. Vol. 52(1).
17. Olson R.G. (2016) Scientism and Technocracy in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Scientific Management. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington book.
18. Putnam R.D. (1977) Elite Transformation in Advanced Industrial Societies. Empirical Assessment of the Theory of Technocracy. Comparative political Studies. Vol. 10(3): 383–412.
19. Ribbhagen C. (2011) What Makes a Technocrat? Explaining Variation in Technocratic Thinking among Elite Bureaucrats. Public Policy and Administration. Vol. 26(1): 21–44.
20. Ryan Ph. (2018) «Technocracy», democracy … and corruption and trust. Policy Science. Vol. 51(1): 131–139.
21. Sanchez-Cuenca I. (2017) From a Deficit of Democracy to a Technocratic Order The Postcrisis Debate on Europe. Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 20: 351–369.
22. Sawyer S. W., Feldman S. L. (1981) Technocracy Versus Reality: Perceptions in Solar Policy. Policy Sciences. Vol. 13(4): 459–472.
23. Williams M.E. (2002) Market Reform, Technocrats and Institutional Innovation. World Development. Vol. 30(3): 395–412.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up