Author:
Holst Cathrine,Christensen Johan
Abstract
AbstractThe ubiquity of experts in contemporary policy-making has been met with enthusiasm in some quarters, but has also faced severe criticism. Beyond the democratic concerns regarding expert power, critics have raised worries about whether experts actually contribute to increasing the epistemic quality of policies, in line with normative expectations. Yet, so far, limited attention has been paid to the specific conditions under which experts involved in policy-making are likely to live up to such expectations. The article outlines a set of such conditions and empirically examines their fulfillment in the case of a real-world expert body. The article contributes theoretically to normative political theory about the proper role of expertise in policy-making; methodologically by linking normative theorizing and empirical analysis; and empirically through a longitudinal analysis based on large-n data of the extent to which the expert body under scrutiny satisfies a set of quantifiable empirical indicators of the proposed conditions.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Political Science and International Relations
Reference74 articles.
1. Adcock, R., and D. Collier. 2001. Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review 95 (3): 529–546.
2. Arendt, H. 1968. Truth and politics. In Between Past and futuRe. Eights Exercises in Political Thought, ed. H. Arendt. New York: The Viking Press.
3. Boswell, C. 2008. The Political Functions of Expert Knowledge. Journal of European Public Policy 15 (4): 471–488.
4. Bovens, M., R.E. Goodin, and T. Schillemans. 2014. Public accountability. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–19.
5. Brennan, J. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献