From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2007) Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Technocracy ("techno" from the Greek tekhne for skill, "cracy" from the Greek kratos for "power") is a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly skilled and qualified they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.

Technocrats are individuals with technical training and occupations who perceive many important societal problems as being solvable, often while proposing technology-focused solutions. The administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson theorizes that technocrats are primarily driven by their cognitive "problem-solution mindsets" and only in part by particular occupational group interests. Their activities and the increasing success of their ideas are thought to be a crucial factor behind the modern spread of technology and the largely ideological concept of the "Information Society." Technocrats may be distinguished from "econocrats" and "bureaucrats" whose problem-solution mindsets differ from those of the technocrats.^[1]

A technocracy is a form of de facto elitism, whereby the "most qualified" and the ruling elite tend to be the same. These elite are selected through bureaucratic processes on the basis of specialized knowledge, rather than through purely democratic elections or other processes.

Contents 1 Development of term 2 Governmental form 3 Criticism of technocracy 4 Derogatory usage of Technocrat 5 Technocracy and democracy 6 Technocracy and socialism 7 System of governance 8 Footnotes 9 See also

The term "technocracy' was used in the United States as early as 1919 by engineer William H. Smyth in a book Industrial Management. It came into common usage through management theorist James Burnham's 1941 work Managerial Revolution.

A technocratic government is a government by experts designed to ensure administrative functions are carried out efficiently. Technocracy can, in theory, take many forms and incorporate many systems of government. Technocracy may come about as a provisional form of oligarchy, in which the economy is regulated by economists, social policy is decided by political scientists, the health care system is run by medical professionals, with the branches of the government working together and sharing knowledge to maximize the performance of each in as equal a way as is feasible.

Technocracy is often thought of as 'rule by scientists and engineers,' or bringing these groups into power, though this is only one form of Technocracy.

Governmental decisions are not only technical, but are often also political. A correct technical decision may be reached by experts using rational arguments. A correct political decision reflects subjective choices, regarding human values, or an uncertain future. At times the correct political decision may not be rational from a non-political standpoint, while the most technically rational decision may be disastrous for an office from a political standpoint. However, this criticism is blunted if political efficacy is included as an element in the technocratic decision-making process.

Socialists sometimes charge that neo-liberal structural adjustment policies represent technocrats (such as in the IMF) setting policies in the name of macroeconomic growth without considering how cutting subsidies in developing countries might affect the poor. Inversely, many technocratic socialists suggest that without the proper application of technical expertise and technology, poverty is unavoidable. Many technocratic socialists suggest that economic socialism on a large scale requires both expert governance and efficient technologically advanced production and distribution systems. Many megalithic arcology city models favor technocratic socialism.

A technocrat seeks to optimize efficiency in their particular field of expertise, whereas governmental decisions often have to approach matters from different points of view. Technocracy is also varied and diverse, and disputes of interest between technocrats are common. A technocratic environmentalist may seek to limit pollutants and popularize green technology, while a technocratic industrialist may seek fewer restrictions on pollutant emissions.

Technocracy primarily emerges from corporate entities and thus often lacks popular sovereignty. While this may be good for a particular corporation it can also be undemocratic, harmful to employees, and stifle free expression by liquidating competition.

Technocracy is not inherently democratic, and even democratic forms of technocracy often limit eligibility for office to those with "proper credentials and expertise". It is easy to envision a Technocracy devolving into little more than old world oligarchy without proper checks and balances in place. Technocratic activist often counter that democracy can just as easily devolve into monarchy without term limits, a separation of powers, and other such checks and balances. To press the point many argue that western democracies aren't fully democratic, and that eligibility for office is actually limited to those with sufficient wealth and media attention.

Calling someone a "technocrat" sometimes implies that they are a part of, or support, a bureaucracy where decisions are handed down by officials chosen according to their real or supposed technical knowledge.

Technocracy can be democratic, but because it typically forms within corporate entities that are unconcerned with democracy, it often lacks democratic legitimacy. Rhetoric to justify this often reinforces it as a derogatory term, as a few technocratic spokespersons have openly alleged that democracy is inherently deficient, often referring to it as mob rule. It's note worthy that this opinion is not mainstream among technocrats.

It has been argued by individuals such as Dr. James Hughes that a constant progression to a more technocratic society is inevitable, as many issues have become too complex for most people to easily grasp. Thus, as a theory of civics, it may be suggested by some that technocracy opposes democracy, which assumes that almost no issues are in fact too complex for most people to grasp. Often for both supporters of democracy and supporters of technocracy, the increasing complexity of the modern world requires the introduction of increasingly better forms of public education in order to keep the population informed and able to deal with complex issues. An educated population is considered to be the basis of both an effective technocracy and an effective democracy.

While in a democracy any citizen without a criminal conviction is allowed to vote or run for office, in a technocratic democracy registration for office might be limited to only those who hold the "proper credentials" or meet a minimum intelligence quota. While hypothetically anyone could attempt to obtain the credentials for an office, critics allege that a system containing any tests for public office is undemocratic, or at least easily abused.

One form of government that combines elements of both democracy and technocracy is anticipatory democracy, which relies on prediction markets and other somewhat inclusive means to find the most accurate predictors of scientific and technological trends.

Many self-identified technocrats are also self-identified socialists. Socialism calls for an economic system based on production for the needs of all of society, with the goal of advancing quality of life for all in an environment of social equality and respect for workers. From this standpoint, opinions are split among socialists as to whether or not it would be possible for technocracy and socialism to fully work in concert with each other. Those who believe that technocracy and socialism can facilitate each other argue that a body of highly skilled scientists and engineers would be best able to plan and manage the society and economy for the benefit of all. Many socialists, however, take a more skeptical view and argue that no matter how skilled technocrats may be, they will always serve their own interests rather than the interests of society as long as they are not placed under democratic control.

Though democratic technocracies have been tested and proven functional on small levels, they have only done so among groups sharing similar interests. Opponents of technocracy as a system of government are often quick to point out that no wide-scale democratic technocracy has ever been tested. Many socialists question the practicality of a democratic technocracy, especially when facing the obstacles regional governments often face. Socialists often observe that just because it works when applied as a hobby or experiment to only a few hundred like-minded people, doesn't mean it could fit the needs of a county or nation.

Technocratic activists might often counter that Socialism was at one time just a political experiment shared by a few hundred like-minded individuals, and that socialism has had mixed results for various reasons. Technocratic socialists suggest that socialism without technocracy can never meet its own ideals, and that only by the proper application of technology and expertise can food, shelter, electricity, and clean water be afforded to everyone.

Technocracy can also refer to a system of governance in which laws are enforced by designing the system such that it is impossible to break them. For instance, to prevent people from riding a tram without paying, the carriage's doors could be designed in such a way that a payment was required to open the doors.

The same idea can be applied on much larger scales, with automated public surveillance by semi-intelligent systems that automatically control or limit the actions of individuals to prevent illegal activity. This is called the carceral state, in which the whole state is effectively a Panopticon - a prison with strict rules, where all individuals are supervised to ensure compliance. Author Charles Stross called this a Panopticon Singularity. In this way, the bureaucratic form of technocracy may be an authoritarian system of governance.

The principles of anticipatory design, wayfinding, and B. F. Skinner's vision Walden Two similarly concern authoritarian systems of governance but are based on psychology and conditioning exclusively and not on any intrusive technology to enforce the rules.

Many technocrats would suggest that fear of technology and social change often assume the most oppressive and dystopian of scenarios, pointing to popular media and propaganda in which socialism, democracy, and communism have all been portrayed in an equally dystopian and cautionary light.

• Groupe X-Crise, formed by French former students of the Ecole Polytechnique engineer school in the 1930s
• Technocracy movement, a US group formed in the 1930s
• Redressement Français, a French technocratic movement founded by Ernest Mercier in 1925q
• New class
• The Revolt of the Masses a book containing a critique of technocracy

v • d • e Forms and Styles of Leadership: see also Form of government
Anarchy · Democracy · Geniocracy · Gerontocracy · Meritocracy · Matriarchy · Ochlocracy · Panarchism · Patriarchy · Plutocracy · Theocracy · Technocracy