The Experts below are selected from a list of 3213 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Carlo Invernizzi Accetti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Populism and Technocracy
Oxford Handbooks Online, 2017Co-Authors: Christopher J. Bickerton, Carlo Invernizzi AccettiAbstract:This chapter studies populism’s relationship to another phenomenon central to contemporary political life, Technocracy. Populism and Technocracy are generally understood as opposite trends, one a reaction against the other. The chapter contests this view, arguing that populism and Technocracy have a complementary relationship insofar as they share an opposition to two key features of party democracy: political mediation and procedural legitimacy. Having identified shared hostility to party democracy as a point of complementarity between populism and Technocracy, the chapter turns to explanations for the rise of populism and Technocracy. The chapter finds these explanations in long-term structural transformations in modern party democracy, namely the cartelization of the party political system. The conclusion takes up the policy implications of this analysis. Far from being useful correctives to one another, populism and Technocracy should be tackled together as parallel expressions of the same underlying crisis of party democracy.
-
Populism and Technocracy: opposites or complements?
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2015Co-Authors: Christopher Bickerton, Carlo Invernizzi AccettiAbstract:Although populism and Technocracy increasingly appear as the two organising poles of politics in contemporary Western democracies, the exact nature of their relationship has not been the focus of systematic attention. This article argues that whilst these two terms – and the political realities they refer to – are usually assumed to be irreducibly opposed to one another, there is also an important element of complementarity between them. This complementarity consists in the fact that both populism and Technocracy are predicated upon an implicit critique of a specific political form, referred to in this article as ‘party democracy’. This is defined as a political regime based on two key features: the mediation of political conflicts through the institution of political parties and a procedural conception of political legitimacy according to which political outcomes are legitimate to the extent that they are the product of a set of democratic procedures revolving around the principles of parliamentary delib...
Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Rise and Fall of Virata's Network: Technocracy and the Politics of Economic Decision Making in the Philippines
Southeast Asian Studies, 2016Co-Authors: Teresa S. Encarnacion TademAbstract:An important network that has emerged in the Philippines is that of Technocracy. It was seen in the 1960s during the pre-martial law period (1960-72), but its significance rose rapidly during the martial law period (1972-86), when Technocracy was thrust into the forefront of the country's economic policy making. In general, the attraction of Technocracy to government leaders generally emanates from the system the latter represent, "in which technically trained experts rule by virtue of their specialized knowledge and position in dominant political and economic institutions" (Glassman et al. 1993). This paper argues that the politico-economic clout of the Technocracy is based also on the strength of its network(s) in connecting with the important centers of power in society. I use Albert-Laszlo Barabasi's (2002) definition of network:not just a simple interconnection between two objects, but one which comprises of a complex series of links, nodes, hubs, and clusters, all in varying configurations and density, and differing in strength in terms of their linkages with each other or within themselves.My article will look into how Barabasi's concept has been appliedto the study of politics . . . and how these concepts help us understand the dynamics of coalition, compromise or contention among and between actors, parties, movements, and institutions. (Abinales and Onimaru 2010, 1)I will apply the concept of networks in looking at factors that have strengthened as well as hindered a particular Technocracy network in the Philippines, i.e., the network of Cesar E. A. Virata, who during the martial law period was viewed as the "chief technocrat." He was President Ferdinand Marcos's minister of finance, and later on prime minister. The paper aims to trace the evolution of the political and economic clout of Virata's Technocracy network as well as the factors that caused the collapse of the network. In particular, it will highlight how Virata's Technocracy network was thrust into power by a threedimensional politico-economic relationship among the following networks: Virata's relationship with the leadership, i.e., Ferdinand Marcos; his relationship with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank; and Marcos's relationship with the United States. These relationships intertwined with each other and highlighted the success as well as the collapse of the Virata Technocracy network.This paper hopes to contribute to the writings on Philippine Technocracy as well as the networks approach in Philippine politics. As I write this article, I have not come across any writings on the Philippine Technocracy using the political networks approach. This may be understandable, as writings on Philippine Technocracy have been sparse and have generally used the political economy framework1) or the social/cultural approach.2) This article, therefore, seeks to contribute to the literature on the networks approach in the following manner: (1) it applies this approach to the study of Technocracy; (2) it uses political network analysis as opposed to the general trend of major analytical studies in the fields of sociology, anthropology, and communications; (3) it seeks to introduce a Philippine perspective in particular, and a Southeast Asian perspective in general, to the study of network analysis vis-a-vis the more dominant Western-oriented approach; and (4) the article's study of network analysis is applied also to politics in stable situations, i.e., "normal politics" under the authoritarian Marcos regime from a technocrat network perspective.I Defining the Technocracy and Their Network(s)Technocrats are situated in a crucial network in society, which is the middle class. The middle class is also referred to as the "intermediate class" in the development process and politics. This network is crucial in the Third World because "middle class personnel occupy the niches of the state apparatus" (Johnson 1985, 15). …
-
Technocracy and the Politics of Economic Decision Making during the Pre–Martial Law Period (1965–1972)
Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints, 2015Co-Authors: Teresa S. Encarnacion TademAbstract:Philippine Technocracy during the martial law period (1972–1986) has been depicted in most of the literature as “apolitical.” This article argues that this depiction was not applicable to the pre–martial law period (1965–1972) when the Marcos administration’s technocrats, who went on to become the chief economic planners during the martial law period, exhibited “political sensitiveness” in economic policy making. This sensitivity helped pave the way for them to become part of the policy-making elite in the country and the Marcos leadership’s appendage in confronting intraelite squabbles. Keywords: Technocracy • policy making • Marcos presidency •Cesar Virata • Placido Mapa Jr.
-
Philippine Technocracy and the Politics of Economic Decision-Making: A Comparison of the Martial Law and Post-Martial Law Periods
Southeast Asian Studies, 2014Co-Authors: Teresa S. Encarnacion TademAbstract:IntroductionDespite their being banished to the "Hall of Shame" during the 1986 People Power Revolution in the Philippines, Technocracy has continued to persist in the country's transition from authoritarian rule to democracy and up to the present. Instead, however, of being called "technocrats," they are now referred to as "economic managers." The change in "name" is quite understandable because during the martial law period (1972- 86), Technocracy became synonymous with the repression which occurred during that era foremost of which was economic development at all costs, e.g., dislocation, militariza- tion, and elimination of communities which got in the way of development projects. This reputation, therefore, earned the technocrats the "(dis)honor" of being referred to as the third leg of the stool which propped up the authoritarian regime, the other two of which were the military and Marcos' relatives/cronies. Thus, the administrations which fol- lowed that of the Marcos government were conscious not to "hire" any of these techno- crats, particularly, those who came from the World Bank (hereinafter referred to as WB) and the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter referred to as IMF). But the post- martial technocrats, however, continued their predecessors' policies of liberalization, free competition, and free trade but now under a neoliberal economic dispensation. The question which emerges is why this is the case when Technocracy in the Philippines is not able to sustain the economic growth which was seen in the 1950s when the country was second to Japan as having the best economy in Asia and then left-behind in the 1970s by its East Asian counterparts as among the newly industrializing countries in the region. In the 1980s, on the other hand, Philippine economic policies failed to bring it at par with its Southeast Asian neighbors, i.e., Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, which all became New Asian Tigers. The latest blow to the country is that socialist Vietnam, a late comer to the capitalist world, has economically overtaken the Philippines.This article, therefore, explores the factors which have strengthened as well as weakened Philippine Technocracy during the martial law and post-martial law periods. It shows that in general the political leverage of the technocrats came from the support they have received from the leadership who shares their economic vision and the coun- try's major international lending creditors, the IMF and the WB. The weakening of their political clout, on the other hand, is brought about by the inability of the leadership to address the political and economic crisis. The first section of this article will discuss the rise of Philippine Technocracy during the pre-martial law period (1960s-72) and the eco- nomic debates which ensued during that period concerning the trajectory of Philippine development. This establishes the very foundation of the strength of Philippine tech- nocracy. The second section, on the other hand, examines the crucial role they played during the martial law period, particularly the economic perspectives they espoused and the challenges these confronted. And lastly, the third section will discuss where Philip- pine Technocracy is headed in a period of "elite democracy" as it confronts challenges to its neoliberal development paradigm and massive corruption.Defining the Technocracy and Their Development Vision1)Technocracy is a rule by experts, a temporary form of rule that sometimes emerges after a period of poor governance. The term implies rule by specialists with expertise in non-political subjects, often economics and engineering.2) These "engineers" com- prised a "critical new stratum in the industrial production process."3) They are also referred to as "the scientists, including physicists, mathematicians, chemists, engi- neers, computer program and others who work in varying degrees of applied or pure research" (Glassman et al. 1993, 84). …
-
Philippine Technocracy and the Politics of Economic Decision Making during the Martial Law Period (1972-1986)
Social Science Diliman, 2013Co-Authors: Teresa S. Encarnacion TademAbstract:This paper seeks to elucidate the Philippine Technocracy’s rise into the power elite as well as its fall from position during the martial law period (1972- 1986). It aims to bring in the insights of the technocrats concerning their role in President Ferdinand E. Marcos’s authoritarian regime and their views of the nature of the politics, which facilitated as well as impeded the economic decision-making process. The paper argues that the Technocracy’s technical expertise and shared development vision with the leadership and the country’s major donors, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, provided their power base.This was, however, continually challenged by the other economic power blocs which consisted mainly of factions within the Technocracy, the Marcos cronies, and that of the First Lady Mrs. Imelda Marcos. For as long as the Technocracy could access the needed IMF/World Bank loans for the country, the leadership gave it substantive bargaining leverage. This, however, would deteriorate with the country’s economic and political instability as brought about by failed technocratic policies and worldwide economic recession in 1981 and the burgeoning antidictatorship movement spawned further by the 1983 assassination of ex-Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. The Technocracy’s loss of power was further aggravated by Marcos’s failing health giving more clout to Mrs. Marcos’s power bloc. What contributed to the Technocracy’s ultimate demise was their alienation from the general public as brought about by their vast differing perceptions of the causes of corruption, underdevelopment, and human rights abuses of the regime. Keywords: Philippine Technocracy, economic decision making, Ferdinand E. Marcos, IMF/World Bank, antidictatorship movement
-
Philippine Technocracy as a Bulwark Against Corruption: The Promise and the Pitfall
Philippine Social Sciences Review, 2012Co-Authors: Teresa S. Encarnacion TademAbstract:Although Technocracy in general is associated with economic decision-making rather than the politics of governance, the Philippine experience has shown that much hope has also been pinned on the country’s economic technocrats to counter-act corruption in the country. This was seen during the martial law (1972 to 1986) and post-martial law periods (1986-onwards). A reason for this is that technocrats are regarded as professionals and experts in their fields, and more importantly, “apolitical”. Their main concern, therefore, is to make sure that their economic policies are to be implemented. They are, therefore, expected to confront obstacles to this including corruption. Thus, during the martial law period, they were looked upon, particularly by the Philippine business community as well as by the country’s major lending institutions, i.e., the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (IMF/World Bank) as a bulwark against corruption. The same perspective is also shared during the post-martial law period where the technocrats continue to be viewed as an obstacle to crony capitalism and patronage politics which persists to pervade Philippine society. This paper, therefore, argues that there are factors which facilitate as well as hinder the role of Technocracy in this aspect. One is the nature of the political leadership, i.e., whether the president is corrupt or not; second is the role of the IMF/World Bank and/or external donors in asserting the need for good governance; third is the degree of the “politicization” of Technocracy, e.g. the nature of their political mass base, and fourth is the degree to which Philippine society is willing to tolerate corruption in government. All these aspects to a certain extent are affected by the state of the country’s political and economic stability. By doing so, the paper hopes to address the conditions under which Technocracy is able to provide a leverage against corruption as well as its limitations. It will reveal that although Philippine experts have failed to achieve their final goals to eliminate corruption, the increments have been gained and lessons have been learned in confronting patronage politics and crony capitalism.
Anders Esmark - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The New Technocracy - The Technocratic Regime: Technocracy, Bureaucracy and Democracy
The New Technocracy, 2020Co-Authors: Anders EsmarkAbstract:Technocracy is discussed as a distinct type of regime and form of statecraft. The chapter clears up the considerable confusion surrounding the relationship between Technocracy, bureaucracy and democracy, which provides the foundation for the empirical analysis of the anti-bureaucratic and pro-democratic nature of contemporary Technocracy. The relationship of Technocracy to political ideology is discussed, leading to the suggestion that Technocracy consistently pursues a position ‘beyond ideology’ while also remaining fully capable of working in lockstep with socialism, liberalism and anything in between. Finally, the chapter moves from the regime level and provides an overall model of the constitutive and intersecting policy paradigms of the New Technocracy: connective governance, risk management and performance management.
-
Rediscovering Technocracy
The New Technocracy, 2020Co-Authors: Anders EsmarkAbstract:The introduction provides a starting definition of Technocracy as a form of government based on a vision of politics as a form of (post-) industrial management, technological progressivism, social engineering, scientism and the politics of depoliticization. The transition from industrial Technocracy to the anti-bureaucratic and pro-democratic form of new Technocracy is introduced and situated in relation to key debates. Also includes an overview of the book.
-
The New Technocracy - Reining Technocracy Back In
The New Technocracy, 2020Co-Authors: Anders EsmarkAbstract:The chapter discusses the possible contributions of this analysis to the broader quest for responses to the new populist challenge. This question is rephrased as a matter of how to rein Technocracy back in in order to break out of the vicious circle in which the interplay of Technocracy and populism is currently caught. Lack of attention to this problem is likely to exacerbate this problem and reinforce the current tendency to reinforce Technocracy and fight fire with fire. Two general approaches to the question of reining Technocracy back in are discussed: a short term cordon sanitaire and a more long-term normative reinforcement of the decisionistic model of parliamentary democracy infused with elements of a pragmatic deliberative model.
-
The New Technocracy
2020Co-Authors: Anders EsmarkAbstract:Setting a new benchmark for studies of Technocracy, the book shows that a solution to the challenge of populism will depend as much on a technocratic retreat as democratic innovation. Esmark examines the development since the 1980s of a new 'post-industrial' technocratic regime and its complicity in the populist backlash against politics and political elites that is visible today. The new Technocracy – a combination of network governance, risk management and performance management – has, the author argues, abandoned the overtly anti-democratic sentiments of its industrial predecessor and proclaimed a new partnership with democracy. The rise of populism, however, is a clear sign that the inherent problems of this partnership have been exposed and that Technocracy posing as democracy will only serve to exacerbate existing problems.
-
The New Technocracy - New Populism vs New Technocracy
The New Technocracy, 2020Co-Authors: Anders EsmarkAbstract:Explores the link between Technocracy and the rise of populist movements and parties in established democracies during the last two decades. Among the various attempt to find the causes of this populist challenge, the chapter singles out the interplay of technocratic depoliticization and populist repoliticization as the key dynamic. Building on existing observations of this logic in the debates on populism and anti- politics, the chapter explores how the new technocratic preoccupation with network organization, reflexive risk regulation and experimental performance calculation have all contributed in particular ways to depoliticization, which in turn has led to populist counter- reactions and attempts at repoliticization.
Evan Selinger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Creating a taxonomic tool for Technocracy and applying it to Silicon Valley
Technology in Society, 2014Co-Authors: Jathan Sadowski, Evan SelingerAbstract:Abstract Although much criticism has been leveled against Technocracy, the multi-layered problem has been analyzed in piecemeal fashion and has yet to be subject to robust classification. Consequently, it can be difficult to determine when allegations of Technocracy are true, and the extent to which new instances of Technocracy perpetuate longstanding problems. To close this gap in scholarship, we have created a taxonomy of Technocracy that identifies three things: 1) the central domains where Technocracy emerges, 2) the basic means by which technocratic power is instantiated, and 3) the quintessential types of harms technocratic discipline engenders. To demonstrate the explanatory power of the taxonomy, we apply it to Silicon Valley and clarify how this contemporary example of Technocracy relates to past instances.
-
Creating a taxonomic tool for Technocracy and applying it to
2014Co-Authors: Jathan Sadowski, Evan SelingerAbstract:Although much criticism has been leveled against Technocracy, the multi-layered problem has been analyzed in piecemeal fashion and has yet to be subject to robust classification. Consequently, it can be difficult to determine when allegations of Technocracy are true, and the extent to which new instances of Technocracy perpetuate longstanding problems. To close this gap in scholarship, we have created a taxonomy of Technocracy that identifies three things: 1) the central domains where Technocracy emerges, 2) the basic means by which technocratic power is instantiated, and 3) the quintessential types of harms technocratic discipline engenders. To demonstrate the explanatory power of the taxonomy, we apply it to Silicon Valley and clarify how this contemporary example of Technocracy relates to past instances.
Christopher Bickerton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Populism and Technocracy: opposites or complements?
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2015Co-Authors: Christopher Bickerton, Carlo Invernizzi AccettiAbstract:Although populism and Technocracy increasingly appear as the two organising poles of politics in contemporary Western democracies, the exact nature of their relationship has not been the focus of systematic attention. This article argues that whilst these two terms – and the political realities they refer to – are usually assumed to be irreducibly opposed to one another, there is also an important element of complementarity between them. This complementarity consists in the fact that both populism and Technocracy are predicated upon an implicit critique of a specific political form, referred to in this article as ‘party democracy’. This is defined as a political regime based on two key features: the mediation of political conflicts through the institution of political parties and a procedural conception of political legitimacy according to which political outcomes are legitimate to the extent that they are the product of a set of democratic procedures revolving around the principles of parliamentary delib...
