分歧、认知麻痹和技术官僚的合法性

IF 0.4 3区社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Critical Review Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/08913811.2020.1838743

É. Brown, Zoe Williams

{"title":"分歧、认知麻痹和技术官僚的合法性","authors":"É. Brown, Zoe Williams","doi":"10.1080/08913811.2020.1838743","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Jeffrey Friedman convincingly argues that technocrats may often lack the knowledge required to enact public policies that will effectively promote their consequentialist goals. Friedman’s argument is strong enough to produce technocratic paralysis, in many cases, but “epistemic gambles” may present a way out of this problem. His discussion of exitocracy also raises the question of how to square his internal form of technocratic critique with the question of democratic legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":51723,"journal":{"name":"Critical Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"62 - 84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2020.1838743","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disagreement, Epistemic Paralysis, and the Legitimacy of Technocracy\",\"authors\":\"É. Brown, Zoe Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08913811.2020.1838743\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Jeffrey Friedman convincingly argues that technocrats may often lack the knowledge required to enact public policies that will effectively promote their consequentialist goals. Friedman’s argument is strong enough to produce technocratic paralysis, in many cases, but “epistemic gambles” may present a way out of this problem. His discussion of exitocracy also raises the question of how to square his internal form of technocratic critique with the question of democratic legitimacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Review\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"62 - 84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2020.1838743\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2020.1838743\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2020.1838743","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

杰弗里·弗里德曼令人信服地指出，技术官僚可能往往缺乏制定公共政策所需的知识，而这些政策将有效地促进他们的结果主义目标。在许多情况下，弗里德曼的论点足以造成技术官僚的瘫痪，但“认知赌博”可能提供了一条解决这个问题的途径。他对exit - ocracy的讨论也提出了一个问题，即如何将他的技术官僚批判的内部形式与民主合法性的问题结合起来。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Disagreement, Epistemic Paralysis, and the Legitimacy of Technocracy

ABSTRACT Jeffrey Friedman convincingly argues that technocrats may often lack the knowledge required to enact public policies that will effectively promote their consequentialist goals. Friedman’s argument is strong enough to produce technocratic paralysis, in many cases, but “epistemic gambles” may present a way out of this problem. His discussion of exitocracy also raises the question of how to square his internal form of technocratic critique with the question of democratic legitimacy.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Critical Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

12.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society is a political-science journal dedicated to advancing political theory with an epistemological bent. Recurrent questions discussed in our pages include: How can political actors know what they need to know to effect positive social change? What are the sources of political actors’ beliefs? Are these sources reliable? Critical Review is the only journal in which the ideational determinants of political behavior are investigated empirically as well as being assessed for their normative implications. Thus, while normative political theorists are the main contributors to Critical Review, we also publish scholarship on the realities of public opinion, the media, technocratic decision making, ideological reasoning, and other empirical phenomena.