Facing Complexity: Democracy, Expertise and the Discovery Process
| Author | Dan Greenwood |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00851.x |
| Published date | 01 October 2010 |
| Date | 01 October 2010 |
FacingComplexity:Democracy,Expertiseandthe
DiscoveryProcesspost_851769..788
DanGreenwood
UniversityofWestminster
Aspoliticscontinuestobeintertwinedwithcomplex,rapidlyadvancingbodiesofknowledge,thequestionarisesof
howwearetounderstandtherelationshipbetweendemocracyandexpertise.Recentdiscussionshavefocusedonthe
capacityfordemocraticpoliticalinstitutionstoaddresscomplextechnicalandscientificissues.Thesediscussionshave
apost-positiviststartingpoint,emphasisingthecontested,variedanddispersednatureoftechnical-scientificknow-
ledgeandexpertise.Yet,asthisarticleexploreswithparticularreferencetotheworkofHayek,thesourcesoftension
betweendemocracy,complexityandexpertiseinvolvecomplexeconomicaswellastechnical-scientificdimensions.
Startingfromasimilarly‘post-positivist’viewofeconomicknowledge,Hayekfamouslyconcludesthatover-reliance
uponpoliticalexpertisecarriesthedangerofauthoritarianism.Helookstothemarketasthemostsuitableinstitutional
processforaddressingcomplexeconomicchoices,reflectingthevariousgoalsofindividualsacrosssociety.Asmore
recentwritershaveshown,thisradicallypro-marketconclusionoverlookstheprofoundsocialandenvironmental
implicationsofmarketfailure.YetitisarguedherethatwecandrawfromtheHayekianunderstandingofcomplexity
anditsimplicationstoenrichourunderstandingofhownon-market,democraticinstitutionsmighthandlethose
dimensionsofcomplexitythatcannotbeadequatelyaddressedthroughmarketsalone.HenceHayekianinsightscan
serveasanaidtore-conceptualisingtheconceptofexpertiseasperformingapotentiallyenablingroleonbehalfof
politicaldemocracy.
Thearrayofobjectivesandvaluesheldbyindividualsacrosssocietyisoftenemphasisedto
beintertwinedwithcomplex,rapidlydevelopingbodiesofknowledgethatareoften
understoodonlybyarelativelysmallnumberofspecialists.Theimplicationsofcomplexity
forpoliticaldemocracyhavelongbeenamatterofinterestandconcern.Reflectinginthe
1920sontheimplicationsofcomplexity,WalterLippmanndescribedtheideaofthepublic
beingableto‘acquireacompetentopinionaboutallpublicaffairs’asan‘intolerableand
unworkablefiction’(Lippmann,1922,p.31).Hisproposalsfortheestablishmentof‘intel-
ligencebureaux’,consistingofexpertswhocouldcounterposecertainfactstogovernment,
causingthemtoquestionandrevisetheirconclusions,anticipatedtheemergenceof
modern-day‘thinktanks’(Schudson,2006,p.492).Morerecently,thepotentialfor
increasedinteractionbetweenexpertsandthegeneralpublichasbeenexploredinpolitical
theoryandpolicy-orientatedpractice,particularlyinrelationtocomplex,recentlyemerg-
ingtechnical-scientificissuessuchasmedicaladvancements,geneticallymodifiedcropsand
energysupply(e.g.Burgessetal.,2007;Cooketal.,2004;Stirling,2010).Yetconcern
remains,asexpressedbyNicoStehr,thatdemocraticprocesses‘increasinglyrequireacertain
levelofscientificliteracy’,causing‘largesegmentsofthepublic[to]becomedisenfranchised
anddisabledfromeffectiveinvolvement’(Stehr,2006,p.8).HerethereareechoesofRobert
Dahl’searliercommentthatthecomplexityoftheissues‘threatenstocutthepolicyelites
loosefromeffectivecontrolbythedemos’(Dahl,1989,p.335).
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00851.x
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2010 VOL 58, 769–788
© 2010The Author.Political Studies © 2010 Political Studies Association
There is a need to consider how different institutional arrangements can draw from the
knowledge of experts,while ensuring that decision-making processes take into account
the values of the public. These issues are discussed here through a focus upon the
theoretical contribution of F. A. Hayek and the Austrian tradition in political economy of
which he was a part.Whereas contemporary discussions focus on technical-scientific
issues, Hayek’s work highlights the challenges involved in addressing complex economic
issues through the political sphere.His well-known thesis is that the decentralised market
mechanism is an indispensable means of enabling individuals to acquire and utilise the
knowledge required for attaining their various objectives. The essentially normative char-
acter of economic decisions, he emphasises,means that they cannot be made on the basis
of purely technical knowledge. Attempts to attain particular end states through political
intervention in the market,Hayek argues, fail to reflect the plurality of ends held by
individuals across society.
Hayek’s pro-market thesis underestimates the scale and normative significance of problems
of the market such as inequality and environmental degradation,famously referred to by his
contemporary Karl Polanyi as the‘ravages of the market’(Polanyi,1957, p. 40). This is
emphasised by some recent commentators on Hayek (Gamble, 1996;O’Neill, 1998),who
favour a more substantive role for non-market, political institutions than is envisaged by
Hayek himself,while recognising that Hayekian theory offers important insights into the
challenge of complexity facing the political sphere.Here,an analytical approach is proposed
which draws fromAustrian insights, as well as contemporary discussions of expertise and
democracy, in assessing how different democratic, institutional designs utilise the various
forms of expertise and knowledge that exist across society.
This article begins by introducing, in the next section,the distinction in Hayek’s work
between technical and economic complexity. This distinction is the foundation for his
critique of political democracy and his case for markets as an indispensable process for
acquiring the knowledge needed to address complexity. However,as the third section
argues, Hayek’s own constitutional proposals assign a significant role to technical,legal
experts. He overlooks the subjective,contestable character of the decisions that these
experts would be required to make about the design and scope of markets. As the fourth
section discusses, this is a reflection of Hayek’s failure to apply his pluralist, epistemologically
sensitive understanding of economic knowledge to the technical-scientific sphere as far as
he might have done.Recent discussions about the relationship between science and politics
suggest that, given such a post-positivist view,there is cause for considering the values of the
public in addressing technical-scientific complexity. The fifth section explores some con-
temporary discussions about the kinds of political institution that are most suitable for
facilitating interaction between different publics and experts in the context of such a
pluralist understanding of technical-scientific knowledge. The sixth section considers the
potential to draw fromAustrian theory in analysing the capacity of democratic processes to
address economic as well as technical-scientific complexity. The seventh section then
reflects on how various other kinds of expertise can also be understood as performing an
enabling role on behalf of democracy. Hayekian insights, it is argued,can serve as an aid to
re-conceptualising expertise in this way.
770 DAN GREENWOOD
© 2010The Author.Political Studies © 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2010, 58(4)
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting