Technocracy

35 min read Original article ↗

Form of government ruled by experts

A technocracy is a model of governance where decision-makers are chosen for office based on their technical expertise and background. A technocracy differs from a traditional democracy in that individuals selected to a leadership role are chosen through a process that emphasizes their relevant skills and proven performance, as opposed to whether or not they fit the majority interests of a popular vote.

This system is sometimes presented as explicitly contrasting with representative democracy, the notion that elected representatives should be the primary decision-makers in government,[1] despite the fact that technocracy does not imply eliminating elected representatives. In a technocracy, decision-makers rely on individuals and institutions possessing specialized knowledge and data-based evidence rather than advisors with political affiliations or loyalty.

The term technocracy was initially used to signify the application of the scientific method to solving social problems. In its most extreme form, technocracy is an entire government running as a technical or engineering problem and is mostly hypothetical. In more practical use, technocracy is any portion of a bureaucracy run by technologists. A government in which elected officials appoint experts and professionals to administer individual government functions, and recommend legislation, can be considered technocratic.[2][3] Some uses of the word refer to a form of meritocracy, where the most suitable are placed in charge, ostensibly without the influence of special interest groups.[4] Critics have suggested that a "technocratic divide" challenges more participatory models of democracy, describing these divides as "efficacy gaps that persist between governing bodies employing technocratic principles and members of the general public aiming to contribute to government decision making".[5]

Technocracy is a form of government or an approach to political action that emphasizes expertise, but its precise definition is disputed. One characterization focuses on who makes decisions, defining technocracy as rule by experts in contrast to democracy as rule by the people. Another centers on decision procedures rather than rulers, highlighting the role of technical skills, scientific evidence, and instrumental rationality.[6] More abstractly, technocracy can be defined as the view that the main source of political legitimacy is expert-driven reasoning and specialized knowledge, rather than popular will or hereditary entitlement.[7]

In its strongest sense, technocracy means that all main governmental operations follow technocratic principles. Because pure technocracy is rare, the term is often used in a weaker sense to describe leadership styles or institutions that apply such principles within other forms of government, such as a democratically elected leader who relies heavily on expert advice, or a central bank in which unelected officials set monetary policy based on technical criteria.[8]

A hallmark of technocracy is its science-focused approach. It frames policy objectives, resource allocation, and administrative procedures in terms of evidence-based and efficiency-oriented processes that follow a rigorous methodology privileging quantifiable outcomes. It typically employs cost-benefit analysis and risk management, intended to improve long-term prosperity of society as a whole rather than serving the partisan interests of specific groups. Advocates emphasize the method's objective and impartial character, but its claims to value-neutrality and freedom from ideology are contested. Technocracy is normally considered a form of elitism since large parts of the population may lack the technical knowledge and specialized skills required to participate in complex policy decisions. Anti-pluralism is another frequently discussed feature. It reflects the commitment to the singular interest of the long-term social welfare of the whole community in contrast to political processes that mediate among competing interests and preferences of distinct groups.[9]

A technocrat is someone who supports technocracy.[10][a] A technotopia is an idealized society or government model in which all major aspects of governance are guided by technical expertise.[12] The term technocracy comes from the ancient Greek words τέχνη (tekhne), meaning 'skill' or 'craft', and κράτος (kratos), meaning 'rule'.[13] Its earliest known use dates to the 1890s.[14] The engineer William H. Smyth is usually credited with coining the modern meaning of the term in 1919. The term's popularity increased in the 1930s as part of the technocratic movement.[15]

Before the term technocracy was coined, technocratic or quasi-technocratic ideas involving governance by technical experts were promoted by various individuals, most notably early socialist theorists such as Henri de Saint-Simon. This was expressed by the belief in state ownership over the economy, with the state's function being transformed from pure philosophical rule over men into a scientific administration of things and a direction of production processes under scientific management.[16] According to Daniel Bell:

"St.-Simon's vision of industrial society, a vision of pure technocracy, was a system of planning and rational order in which society would specify its needs and organize the factors of production to achieve them."[17]

Citing the ideas of St.-Simon, Bell concludes that the "administration of things" by rational judgment is the hallmark of technocracy.[17]

Alexander Bogdanov, a Russian scientist and social theorist, also anticipated a conception of technocratic process. Both Bogdanov's fiction and his political writings, which were highly influential, suggest that he was concerned that a coming revolution against capitalism could lead to a technocratic society.[18]: 114 

From 1913 until 1922, Bogdanov immersed himself in writing a lengthy philosophical treatise of original ideas, Tectology: Universal Organization Science. Tectology anticipated many basic ideas of systems analysis, later explored by cybernetics. In Tectology, Bogdanov proposed unifying all social, biological, and physical sciences by considering them as systems of relationships and seeking organizational principles that underlie all systems.

The Platonic idea of philosopher-kings has been viewed as a sort of technocracy in which the state is run by those with specialist knowledge, in this case, knowledge of the Good rather than scientific knowledge.[20] The Platonic claim is that those who best understand goodness should be empowered to lead the state, as they would lead it toward the path of happiness. Whilst knowledge of the Good differs from knowledge of science, rulers are here appointed based on a certain grasp of technical skill rather than democratic mandate.

Technocrats are individuals with technical training and occupations who perceive many important societal problems as being solvable with the applied use of technology and related applications. 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.[21]

The former government of the Soviet Union has been referred to as a technocracy.[22] Soviet leaders like Leonid Brezhnev often had a technical background. In 1986, 89% of Politburo members were engineers.[22]

Many previous leaders of the Chinese Communist Party had backgrounds in engineering and practical sciences. According to surveys of municipal governments of cities with a population of 1 million or more in China, it has been found that over 80% of government personnel had a technical education.[23][24] Under the five-year plans of the People's Republic of China, projects such as the National Trunk Highway System, the China high-speed rail system, and the Three Gorges Dam have been completed.[25][page needed] During China's 20th National Congress, a class of technocrats in finance and economics were replaced in favor of high-expertise technocrats.[26][27]

In 2013, a European Union library briefing on its legislative structure referred to the Commission as a "technocratic authority", holding a "legislative monopoly" over the EU lawmaking process.[28] The briefing suggests that this system, which elevates the European Parliament to a vetoing and amending body, was "originally rooted in the mistrust of the political process in post-war Europe". This system is unusual since the Commission's sole right of legislative initiative is a power usually associated with Parliaments.

Several governments in European parliamentary democracies have been labelled 'technocratic' based on the participation of unelected experts ('technocrats') in prominent positions.[2] Since the 1990s, Italy has had several such governments (in Italian, governo tecnico) in times of economic or political crisis,[29][30] including the formation in which economist Mario Monti presided over a cabinet of unelected professionals.[31][32] The term 'technocratic' has been applied to governments where a cabinet of elected professional politicians is led by an unelected prime minister, such as in the cases of the 2011-2012 Greek government led by economist Lucas Papademos and the Czech Republic's 2009–2010 caretaker government presided over by the state's chief statistician, Jan Fischer.[3][33] In December 2013, in the framework of the national dialogue facilitated by the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, political parties in Tunisia agreed to install a technocratic government led by Mehdi Jomaa.[34]

The Syrian Salvation Government, the predecessor to the Syrian transitional government,[35] was characterized by observers as an authoritarian technocracy.[36][37][38][39]: 34 

The article "Technocrats: Minds Like Machines"[3] states that Singapore is perhaps the best advertisement for technocracy: the political and expert components of the governing system there seem to have merged completely. This was underlined in a 1993 article in Wired by Sandy Sandfort,[40] where he describes the information technology system of the island as highly effective even during the early days.

Relation to other political ideologies

[edit]

Various academic discussions of technocracy examine its relation to other political ideologies, such as democracy. Democracy vests political power in the people. Citizens have the most immediate control in direct democracy, where they participate by voting on laws and policies. In indirect democracy, they elect representatives who decide on the public's behalf.[41]

Technocracy is often framed as a challenge or alternative to democracy. This view emphasizes their contrasting principles of political legitimacy and decision-making. Technocracy grounds authority in expertise and technical knowledge, resulting in decisions that may not align with popular opinion or the consent of the governed. As a result, democratic accountability to voter preferences is replaced by the responsibility of pursuing the long-term common good. Similarly, technocratic procedures of evidence-based analysis and expert deliberation bypass democratic decision-making through confrontation and negotiation among competing interest groups and viewpoints. This is typically accompanied by depoliticization, with contentious issues being framed as neutral technical problems, whereas democratic processes acknowledge evaluative differences and seek to mediate among them. Although technocracy does not restrict political participation through rigid hereditary or class systems, its reliance on specialized expertise often excludes large segments of the population and marginalizes lay perspectives.[42]

A contrasting view rejects the claim that democracy and technocracy are incompatible, seeing them instead as complementary approaches whose tensions can be resolved. One outlook argues that technocracy is primarily about instrumental rationality or how to choose the means to achieve a given goal. According to this view, the people or elected officials choose political goals while the technocrats choose the most efficient ways to realize those goals, acting as advisors and implementers. Another approach confines technocracy to certain institutions or functions within a government. For example, a democratically elected government may delegate monetary policy or public health reforms to expert panels.[43] In this context, one argument holds that every government relies on technocratic principles to some degree by consulting experts and aligning policy to empirical evidence.[44]

The compatibility of democracy and technocracy may also depend on social circumstances. Beneficial conditions for technocratic democracies include a broad consensus on the general goals of state policy and a willingness of individuals to accept short-term personal sacrifices for the sake of the long-term prosperity of the community.[45]

Technocracy is commonly contrasted with populism, which seeks to promote the interests of ordinary people. Populism typically frames politics as a struggle between morally pure people and a corrupt, self-serving elite. It usually promotes a personalistic leader who appeals to popular sentiment and is regarded as a direct representative of the will of the people.[46]

In several respects, populism is directly opposed to technocracy. Its skeptical attitude toward elitism and expert rule challenges the technocratic reliance on expertise and specialized knowledge. This tension is also reflected in the sources of political legitimacy: populism emphasizes mass mobilization and the representation of popular opinion, whereas technocracy sees evidence-based competence and scientific rationality as primary sources of authority.[47]

However, there are also aspects in which populism and technocracy overlap. Both are seen as challenges or threats to democracy, in part because of their anti-pluralistic outlooks. In populism, this tendency is expressed in its claim to represent a unified popular will, dismissing dissenting views as betrayals of the people's true interests. In technocracy, dissenting views are often portrayed as irrational or biased positions that do not align with expert opinions on how to promote the long-term prosperity of the community as a whole.[48]

Technopopulism attempts to reconcile these two approaches. It combines the populist appeal to a personalistic leader representing the will of the people with a claim to legitimacy based on the leader's expertise, usually coupled with a technology-focused outlook.[49]

As a form of elitism, technocracy vests political power in a small group of technical experts.[50] Other types of elitism have different criteria of political inclusion. Aristocracy has a social class of ruling elites, typically grounded in hereditary birth and inherited titles.[51] Plutocracy places political authority in the hands of the wealthy.[52] Theocracy merges political and religious power, justifying its authority by appeal to a divine command.[53] Elitism contrasts with egalitarianism, which holds that all individuals should have equal political rights and opportunities.[54]

Technocracy is closely related to meritocracy, which highlights the principle of merit by selecting people based on their ability. It can apply to governmental positions or, more broadly, to any social function or job. The core idea is that everybody has the position they deserve.[55] Expertocracy is sometimes defined as a weaker form of technocracy that seeks to align decision-making processes to expert opinions without transferring power to technical elites.[56][b] Other related political ideologies include epistocracy, which asserts that the degree of political influence of citizens should correspond to their competence in political decision-making,[58] and managerialism, which advocates business-like and efficiency-driven management techniques.[59]

Through its emphasis on value neutrality, technocracy contrasts with political ideologies that explicitly advance substantive values or normative goals.[60] For example, liberalism promotes personal freedom, individual rights, tolerance, the rule of law, and the protection of private property.[61] Socialism prioritizes economic equality, social welfare, and collective ownership.[62] Nationalism values social cohesion grounded in national identity and shared customs, culture, and language.[63] Technocracy typically seeks to sideline evaluative and ideological commitments by framing decisions around empirical evidence and cost-benefit analysis rather than pursuing substantive values.[64] However, it may also be combined with certain normative goals, as in neoliberal technocracy and technocratic socialism.[65]

Technocracy is typically contrasted with authoritarianism, which seeks to centralize and monopolize political power in a single leader or party and uses a hierarchical structure to suppress dissent. However, authoritarian regimes may adopt technocratic principles to consolidate control and justify their legitimacy by appealing to efficiency and expertise, giving rise to techno-authoritarianism.[66]

Areas and approaches

[edit]

Technocratic principles can be applied to different areas of governance and implemented in several ways. In its broadest form, a pure technocracy would be a society in which decision-making in all sectors and policy domains is guided by experts following empirical evidence. However, this theoretical ideal is not found in real-world conditions, where technocracy usually manifests as a hybrid model integrated with other approaches to governance.[67] Some policy areas are more amenable to technocratic management than others, particularly those with clearly defined policy goals, quantifiable metrics, and accessible evidence.[68]

One key area is the central banking system, in which financial experts often operate independently of electoral processes. Central banks are responsible for monetary policy and financial stability. For example, they typically control the base interest rate to promote price stability, high employment, and economic growth. Their decisions are based on diverse technical indicators, such as inflation and employment figures, weighing trade-offs among their objectives to achieve a prudent balance.[69]

Technocratic principles are also applied to the area of healthcare. Expert panels may implement reforms to medical training, increase reliance on medical technology, design and evaluate vaccination programs, adjust drug policy, and coordinate responses during health crises, such as pandemics. Technocrat concerns about efficient resource allocation may depersonalize the doctor–patient relationship and can lead to reductions of public health services to prioritize high-impact treatments and cut cost-ineffective interventions.[70]

In the field of education, the influence of technocracy can take various forms. Experts may revise curricula and propose reforms, often with an emphasis on centralization while reducing the autonomy of local institutions. This approach is usually accompanied by standardization, such as standardized testing and quantifiable metrics to track educational progress. Another facet is the integration of modern technology into classrooms, including computers, the internet, and artificial intelligence.[71] A further intersection is found in educational institutions or programs that prepare elite students for expert roles in governance, such as specialized schools or competitive selection processes that filter candidates for senior civil service careers.[72]

In environmental policy, technocratic principles are used to adjust regulations to ecological issues, ranging from climate change to water quality and biodiversity conservation.[73] Other relevant areas include urban planning, energy infrastructure, and research funding.[74]

In addition to the variety of policy areas, there are also different ways of implementing technocratic principles. One model casts technocrats as advisors who collect and interpret empirical evidence, devise policy options, and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages. In this role, technocrats do not hold immediate decision-making powers but wield influence indirectly by shaping how leaders understand and choose among alternatives. This approach contrasts with models in which technocrats have direct authority.[75] Technocracy can also shape governance by implementing decision-making procedures and bureaucratic systems, shifting the emphasis from who holds office to how decisions are made. In this case, technocratic power resides more in administrative mechanisms and organizational arrangements than in individual experts.[76]

Another approach focuses on information technology to assist or automate political decisions. For example, algocracy relies on algorithms and artificial intelligence to analyze data and devise policies. Proposed models vary in the role of humans, ranging from humans as primary decision-makers assisted by artificial intelligence to fully automated systems.[77] Cyberocracy, a similar concept, envisions a future form of government in which information and access to information technology are the primary sources of political power.[78]

Technocrats typically aim for the long-term prosperity of the community as a whole, but this goal can be interpreted in different ways. The Keynesian model seeks to achieve it through economic growth and fair redistribution, relying on an extensive bureaucracy and comprehensive planning. Neoliberal approaches, by contrast, seek to promote community well-being through competition among individuals and organizations, centering technocratic policies on competitive frameworks and risk management.[79]

Technocracy movement

[edit]

The American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen was an early advocate of technocracy and was involved in the Technical Alliance, as were Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert (the latter of whom later developed the theory of peak oil). Veblen believed technological developments would eventually lead to a socialistic reorganization of economic affairs. Veblen saw socialism as one intermediate phase in an ongoing evolutionary process in society that would be brought about by the natural decay of the business enterprise system and the rise of the engineers.[80] Daniel Bell sees an affinity between Veblen and the Technocracy movement.[81]

In 1932, Howard Scott and Marion King Hubbert founded Technocracy Incorporated and proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates. The group argued that apolitical, rational engineers should be vested with the authority to guide an economy into a thermodynamically balanced load of production and consumption, thereby doing away with unemployment and debt.[1]

The technocracy movement was briefly popular in the US in the early 1930s during the Great Depression. By the mid-1930s, interest in the movement was declining. Some historians have attributed the decline to the rise of Roosevelt's New Deal.[82][83]

Historian William E. Akin rejects this conclusion. Instead, Akin argues that the movement declined in the mid-1930s due to the technocrats' failure to devise a 'viable political theory for achieving change'.[84] Akin postulates that many technocrats remained vocal, dissatisfied, and often sympathetic to anti-New Deal third-party efforts.[85]

Political theorists discuss various arguments for and against technocracy. Advocates emphasize the central role of skill and competence in political decision-making. They argue that political situations are complex, particularly in a globalized world marked by rapid technological advances. These complexities make it difficult to consider all relevant factors, predict outcomes of increasingly interconnected processes, and adjust policies accordingly. This view holds that scientific expertise and evidence-guided inquiry offer a better foundation for effective political decisions than ideology or popular sentiment. Technocrats highlight the rationality and efficiency of their procedures, which seek to avoid contradictory and irrational elements found in approaches that rely on partisan interests and public opinion. Accordingly, they promise better outcomes, benefiting the community as a whole through material progress.[86]

Another line of thought centers on value-neutrality. It asserts that the technocratic focus on objective analysis and scientific solutions promotes the implementation of optimal solutions that prioritize overall welfare. Advocates hold that the ideal of serving the community as a whole helps insulate policy from partisan agendas and lobbying efforts that privilege specific interest groups. Similarly, the emphasis on competence, transparent decision criteria, and quantifiable results constitutes a form of meritocratic fairness that can safeguard against corruption and nepotism.[87]

A different set of arguments focuses on the long-term perspective. It asserts that technocracies are better suited to implement necessary but unpopular reforms that benefit the community in the long run. This view maintains that expert-driven political legitimacy sidelines short-term electoral pressures or incentives to maximize popular approval through immediate benefits. Supporters further highlight technocracy's openness to innovation and flexibility to adapt policy in response to emerging challenges or new data.[88]

Critics of technocracy often focus on its anti-democratic tendencies, viewing it as a form of elitism that excludes large segments of the population from political participation. They argue that governance should align with public consent and reflect a diversity of opinions and preferences. In their view, technocracy alienates ordinary people from politics by framing policy choices as purely technical problems. A related concern is that technocratic decision makers are not directly accountable to the electorate, raising questions about their political legitimacy and the risk of a technology-justified authoritarianism.[89]

Another criticism rejects the claim that technocracy is value-neutral. It argues that the reliance on scientific methods, quantitative metrics, and efficiency carries implicit evaluative biases, meaning that ideological commitments and value conflicts are not removed but merely hidden under the guise of objective analysis.[90] A related objection holds that a technocratic focus on instrumental rationality reduces political decisions to problems of optimization and neglects the intrinsic worth of individuals. It contends that instrumental rationality about the best means to achieve a goal needs to be accompanied by normative rationality about which goals are worth pursuing. This view asserts that there are diverse normative goals and that politics should consider different options and negotiate value trade-offs instead of adopting a narrow perspective that disregards alternative outlooks. Similarly, claims to neutrality can hide partisan agendas, such as attempts by corporate lobbies to influence policy under the guise of impartial optimization.[91]

Critics also target the strong focus on science and the claim that technocracies achieve better outcomes. They argue that technocracy adopts scientism and falsely assumes that science can solve all political problems. In response, they assert that the scientific method is limited and cannot reliably predict social outcomes, specifically in complex and interconnected systems of human behavior. Many aspects of social life are difficult to quantify, and efforts to do so can result in misleading metrics that ignore key factors. This can produce implementation gaps in which idealized models fail in real-world conditions. Unique local contexts pose further challenges, as attempts to impose uniform solutions can lead to unexpected results.[92] Additionally, there are expert disagreements in which competing theories predict divergent outcomes without providing clear guidance for policymakers on which theory to follow.[93] On a conceptual level, critics hold that technocracy is a poorly defined notion that can denote a wide spectrum of approaches to governance depending on the context.[94]

  1. ^ The term is sometimes used in a derogatory sense to imply an overemphasis of technology and a lacking awareness of moral and humanistic considerations.[11]
  2. ^ In a different sense, expertocracy can also mean that experts seize power from democratically elected officials.[57]
  1. ^ a b Berndt, Ernst R. (1982). "From technocracy to net energy analysis: engineers, economists and recurring energy theories of value" (PDF). Studies in Energy and the American Economy, discussion paper 11. Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. hdl:1721.1/2023.
  2. ^ a b "Who, What, Why: What can technocrats achieve that politicians can't?". BBC News. BBC. November 14, 2011. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  3. ^ a b c "Technocrats: Minds like machines". The Economist. 19 November 2011. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
  4. ^ "History and Purpose of Technocracy by Howard Scott". Technocracy.org. Archived from the original on 22 April 2009.
  5. ^ Obar, Jonathan A. (2016). "Closing the Technocratic Divide? Activist Intermediaries, Digital Form Letters, and Public Involvement in FCC Policy Making". International Journal of Communication. 10.
  6. ^
  7. ^ Rummens 2024, § 1. Technocracy as a Thin Ideology
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^ Wilson 2008
  11. ^ Wilson 2008
  12. ^ Pfaffenberger 2008
  13. ^ Wilson 2008
  14. ^ OED staff 2026
  15. ^
  16. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica, Saint Simon; Socialism
  17. ^ a b Bell, Daniel (2008) [1st. Pub. 1976]. The Coming Of Post-industrial Society. Basic Books. p. 76. ISBN 978-0465097135. Retrieved 2014-11-02.
  18. ^ "Bogdanov, technocracy and socialism". worldsocialism.org. Archived from the original on 2007-09-26.
  19. ^ Henwood, Kenneth (June 1979). "Of Philosophers, Kings and Technocrats". Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 9 (2): 299–314. doi:10.1080/00455091.1979.10716251. JSTOR 40231096 – via JSTOR.
  20. ^ Njálsson, Gunnar K. A. (2005). "From Autonomous to Socially Conceived Technology: Toward a Causal, Intentional and Systematic Analysis of Interests and Elites in Public Technology Policy". Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory. 52 (108): 56–81. doi:10.3167/th.2005.5210805. JSTOR 41802302.
  21. ^ a b Graham, Loren R. (1993). The Ghost of the Executed Engineer: Technology and the Fall of the Soviet Union. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 73-74. ISBN 9780674354364.
  22. ^ Cheng, Li; White, Lynn (1990). "Elite Transformation and Modern Change in Mainland China and Taiwan: Empirical Data and the Theory of Technocracy". The China Quarterly. 121 (121): 1–35. doi:10.1017/S0305741000013497. JSTOR 654061. S2CID 154544102.
  23. ^ "Why do Chinese leaders have a degree in engineering and American leaders have degrees in law?". Gigazine. 2016-03-01. Retrieved 2018-03-18.
  24. ^ Andreas, Joel (2009). Rise of the Red Engineers: The Cultural Revolution and the Origins of China's New Class. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804760775.
  25. ^ "Why Chinese leader Xi Jinping wants more technocrats in key roles". South China Morning Post. 2022-05-17.
  26. ^ "A new breed of technocratic elites in the Xi era: Countdown to the 20th Party Congress". Thinkchina - Big Reads, Opinion & Columns on China. 2022-09-30.
  27. ^ "Parliament's legislative initiative" (PDF). Library of the European Parliament. 24 Oct 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 March 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2019.
  28. ^ Gundle, Stephen; Parker, Simon, eds. (1996) [1st. Pub. 1996]. The new Italian Republic: from the fall of the Berlin Wall to Berlusconi. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-12162-0. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
  29. ^ D'Alimonte, Roberto; Bartolini, Stefano (1997). "'Electoral Transition' and party system change in Italy". In Bull, Martin J; Rhodes, Martin (eds.). In: Crisis and transition in Italian politics. Routledge. p. 226. ISBN 978-0-7146-4366-3.
  30. ^ MacKenzie, James; Moody, Barry (16 November 2011). "Italy gets new technocrat government". Reuters. Retrieved 19 February 2012.
  31. ^ "Italy's new prime minister — The full Monti: Mario Monti holds out for a technocratic government until 2013". The Economist. 19 November 2011. Retrieved 19 February 2012.
  32. ^ "Q&A: Greece's 'technocratic' government". BBC News. 11 November 2011. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
  33. ^ "Tunisia's new prime minister takes office". AlJazeera. Retrieved 17 November 2015.
  34. ^ "Mohammed al-Bashir officially the head of the transitional government in Syria until March 2025". Independent Arabia. 10 December 2024. Retrieved 10 December 2024.
  35. ^ Drevon, Jerome (2020-10-27). "The consolidation of a (post-jihadi) technocratic state-let in Idlib". Project on Middle East Political Science. Retrieved 2024-12-03.
  36. ^ Zelin, Aaron Y. (10 July 2024). Jihadist Governance and Statecraft (PDF). The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. pp. 18–19.
  37. ^ Zelin, Aaron Y. (2024-12-03). "The Patient Efforts Behind Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's Success in Aleppo". War on the Rocks. Retrieved 2024-12-03.
  38. ^ Zelin, Aaron Y. (9 May 2022). The Age of Political Jihadism: A Study of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (PDF). The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. ISBN 9798985447446.
  39. ^ Sandfort, Sandy (1993). "The Intelligent Island". Wired. Vol. 1, no. 4 (September/October). ISSN 1059-1028.
  40. ^
  41. ^
  42. ^
  43. ^
  44. ^
  45. ^
  46. ^
  47. ^
  48. ^ Bickerton & Accetti 2021, pp. 17–19, 24
  49. ^ Bertsou & Caramani 2020, p. 94
  50. ^ Scruton 2007, pp. 36–38
  51. ^ Scruton 2007, pp. 528
  52. ^
  53. ^ Scruton 2007, pp. 205–206
  54. ^
  55. ^ Selk 2025, pp. 1–3
  56. ^ Lenk 2005, § Types of Technocracy
  57. ^ Méndez 2022, pp. 153–154
  58. ^ Eagleton-Pierce & Knafo 2020, pp. 763–764
  59. ^
  60. ^
  61. ^
  62. ^
  63. ^
  64. ^
  65. ^
  66. ^
  67. ^
  68. ^
  69. ^
  70. ^
  71. ^ Pfaffenberger 2008
  72. ^
  73. ^
  74. ^
  75. ^ Lenk 2005, § Types of Technocracy
  76. ^
  77. ^ Ronfeldt 1992, pp. 243–244, 255–256, 268
  78. ^ Rummens 2024, § 1. Technocracy as a Thin Ideology, § 2. From Welfarist Bureaucracy to Neoliberal Governance
  79. ^ Wood, John (1993). The life of Thorstein Veblen and perspectives on his thought. introd. Thorstein Veblen. New York: Routledge. p. 369. ISBN 978-0-415-07487-2. The decisive difference between Marx and Veblen lay in their respective attitudes on socialism. For while Marx regarded socialism as the ultimate goal for civilization, Veblen saw socialism as but one stage in the economic evolution of society.
  80. ^ Bell, Daniel (1963). "Veblen and the New Class". The American Scholar. 32 (4): 616–638. JSTOR 41209141. (cited in Tilman, Rick (1992). Thorstein Veblen and His Critics, 1891-1963: Conservative, Liberal, and Radical Perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 186. ISBN 9781400862863.)
  81. ^ Burris 1993, p. 32.
  82. ^ Fischer 1990, p. 86.
  83. ^ Nelson, Daniel (1978). "Technocratic Abundance. [Reviewed Work: Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900-1941. by William E. Akin]". Reviews in American History. 6 (1): 104–108. doi:10.2307/2701484. JSTOR 2701484.
  84. ^ McNulty, P. J. (1978). "Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900-1941. By William E. Akin [book review]". History of Political Economy. 10 (4): 682–683. doi:10.1215/00182702-10-4-682.
  85. ^
  86. ^
  87. ^
  88. ^
  89. ^
  90. ^
  91. ^
  92. ^
  93. ^