Who wants technocrats? A comparative study of citizen attitudes in nine young and consolidated democracies
| Author | Mihail Chiru,Zsolt Enyedi |
| Published date | 01 February 2022 |
| Date | 01 February 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211018311 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211018311
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2022, Vol. 24(1) 95 –112
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13691481211018311
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Who wants technocrats?
A comparative study of citizen
attitudes in nine young and
consolidated democracies
Mihail Chiru1 and Zsolt Enyedi2
Abstract
Technocratic cabinets and expert, non-political ministers appointed in otherwise partisan cabinets
have become a common reality in recent decades in young and older democracies, but we know
little about how citizens see this change and what values, perceptions and experiences drive their
attitudes towards technocratic government. The article explores the latter topic by drawing on
recent comparative survey data from nine countries, both young and consolidated democracies
from Europe and Latin America. Two individual-level characteristics trigger particularly strong
support for the replacement of politicians with experts: low political efficacy and authoritarian
values. They are complemented by a third, somewhat weaker factor: corruption perception. At
the macro level, technocracy appeals to citizens of countries where the quality of democracy is
deficient and where technocratic cabinets are a part of historical legacy. Surprisingly, civic activism
and, partially, satisfaction with democracy enhance technocratic orientation, indicating such
attitudes are not expressions of alienation or depoliticisation.
Keywords
authoritarianism, cabinets, corruption, political efficacy, public opinion, technocracy
Introduction
Technocratic cabinets and independent, expert, ministers appointed to otherwise partisan
cabinets, have become more frequent in recent decades in Europe and Latin America, in
both young and old democracies (Pinto et al., 2018: 7; Wratil and Pastorella, 2018). In the
aftermath of the global financial crisis, several countries showed their commitment to
sound fiscal policies by appointing technocratic ministers or full technocratic cabinets,
trying to regain the confidence of financial markets (Alexiadou, 2018). Although political
parties are still the central actors of political representation (Enyedi, 2014), the weaken-
ing of legislatures and the growing relevance of the executive branch increases further the
1Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
2 Department of Political Science, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary and Leverhulme Visiting
Professor, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Corresponding author:
Mihail Chiru, Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, 11 Bevington Road, Oxford, OX2 6LH, UK.
Email: mihail.chiru@area.ox.ac.uk
1018311BPI0010.1177/13691481211018311The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsChiru and Enyedi
research-article2021
Original Article
96 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 24(1)
distance between the citizens and the actual decisions. In Europe, these developments are
further amplified by the bureaucratic–technocratic tendencies characterising the European
Union (EU; Habermas, 2015).
The debates about the normative dangers and opportunities at stake polarise analysts
(Fischer, 1990; Schudson, 2006), but we know relatively little of how citizens think about
this matter. We know even less about what individual values, social characteristics, per-
ceptions and what country-level features structure the citizens’ attitudes.
Drawing on recent comparative survey data from nine countries, both young and con-
solidated democracies from Europe and Latin America, this article shows that low politi-
cal efficacy and authoritarian values play a major role in explaining why some citizens
support the idea of replacing partisan ministers with government by non-political experts.
In addition, perceptions of corruption as one of the most important societal problems also
increase the support for technocratic rule. At a macro level, positive attitudes towards
technocracy are more common in countries with an authoritarian past and in countries
that experimented more with technocrat-led or full technocratic cabinets (McDonnell and
Valbruzzi, 2014). Signs of social anomie, like lack of participation or education, are not
among the factors behind such attitudes, contrary to various theoretical expectations.
We build and expand on recent research, which investigated the drivers of citizens’
attitudes towards technocracy. According to the pioneering study of Bertsou and Pastorella
(2017), the idea of a technocratic mode of governance is popular among the politically
less involved and younger citizens, who are sceptical about democracy and who distrust
representative institutions. At the country level, they find weak effects concerning eco-
nomic development and corruption, stronger effects stemming from Communist legacy,
but no influence of past technocratic governments.
Overall, these findings cast a dark shadow over technocratic attitudes, showing them
to be part of an anti-democratic orientation. A more recent study qualifies this picture.
Bertsou and Caramani (2020) showed, based on survey data from nine European coun-
tries, that pro-technocracy citizens are more educated and more urban than those who
subscribe to either the principles of party democracy or of populism. Furthermore, they
are more interested in politics, have higher political trust and are less attracted by ideo-
logical extremes than the populists, although they are less trusting and somewhat less
politically involved than the supporters of traditional party democracy.
Citizens’ preferences for expert decision-making were also explored in the context of
the ‘stealth democracy’ literature, but this research lacked an empirical comparative
dimension, as it invariably adopted a country case study design (Bengtsson and Mattila,
2009; Coffé and Michels, 2014; Font et al., 2015; Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, 2002;
Lavezzolo and Ramiro, 2018; Webb, 2013). According to this body of work initiated by
Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, (American) citizens would prefer to be even less involved in
politics than they currently are, provided that decisions are made in an efficient, non-
partisan manner by neutral decision-makers who are not influenced by special interests.
Such independence would result either from technical expertise or from a successful busi-
ness record. Thus, the replacement of elected politicians with their propensity to simulta-
neously fight needlessly and compromise on essential principles would allow a more
efficient identification of solutions for the general welfare.
The stealth democracy studies conducted in Western European countries such as
Finland (Bengtsson and Mattila, 2009), Netherlands (Coffé and Michels, 2014) and the
United Kingdom (Webb, 2013) revealed that lower educated citizens and those lacking
political efficacy are more like to favour this alternative form of decision-making.
To continue reading
Request your trial