Technocratic managerialism

Technocratic leadership
Machine technocracy
Organized cult of machinery
Technicism
Inappropriate technocratic shortcuts
Technocratic futurism
Techno-utopias
Technological fixes
Technophilia
Technocratic elite
Managerial elitism
Managerial liberalism

Nature

A tendency towards the transfer of management and control of production and society from the people and politicians to an intelligentsia of engineers and technicians, and to management specialists allegedly acting as the chief driving forces of progress. The clash between democratic and technocratic methods and priorities is not just a matter of style. It is at the root of the nature of self-government. Too little attention to particular interests is incompatible with democracy, whereas too much is incompatible with reform. Technocrats tend to favour centralized planning over the incrementalism characteristic of democratic decision-making.

When faced with an apparently intractable human problem, the habitual technocratic response is to seek the building of a technological system or artefact. The superficiality of this thinking in the information age limits solutions to the level of gadgetry rather than allowing the more fundamental nature of the problem to be confronted, acknowledging its complexity and difficulty, recognizing the need for progress at a more human level. Yet, not only are such solutions attractive to policy makers, by virtue of their superficiality, but this very quality also leads them to de-emphasize their associated costs.

Background

Technocratic managerialism emerged as a global concern in the mid-20th century, when postwar reconstruction and rapid industrialization highlighted the growing influence of technical experts in governance. Its significance was first debated in the 1960s, as scholars and policymakers observed the displacement of democratic deliberation by managerial decision-making. Subsequent decades saw increased scrutiny, particularly amid globalization and digitalization, as critics linked technocratic dominance to diminished public accountability and the erosion of participatory institutions.

Incidence

Technocratic managerialism has become increasingly prevalent in both public and private sectors worldwide, with decision-making processes often dominated by technical experts and professional managers rather than elected representatives or community stakeholders. This trend is evident in international organizations, national governments, and large corporations, where complex policy areas such as healthcare, education, and environmental regulation are frequently managed by technocrats. The global scale of this phenomenon raises concerns about democratic accountability and the marginalization of local knowledge and public participation.
In 2022, the European Union’s response to the energy crisis was widely criticized for its reliance on technocratic managerialism. Key decisions regarding energy rationing and market interventions were shaped primarily by expert panels and bureaucratic agencies, with limited input from national parliaments or civil society groups.

Claim

The range of problems that technology once proved so powerful in overcoming is diminishing in terms of its importance. The problems against which technology has proved relatively unsuccessful are those that have a fundamental human basis making it difficult for technology to address directly. A reflexive resort to technocratic thinking in these circumstances is especially dangerous and tends to be symptomatic of conceptual displacement activity.

People in many countries are offended by a sense that IMF's technocrats believe they know what is best for others. Responsible technocrats do not of course claim to know people's ultimate best interests better than the people themselves. They claim expertise in means rather than ends. But the distinction is not always easy to see. The technocrats' habit of relying on abstract principles to deal with concrete problems breeds impatience with local detail and indifference toward the particular interests that are critical for elected officeholders.

The radical technophile is incorrect, since there is nothing intrinsic to technology as a human activity and a means to ends that on balance guarantees use towards beneficial purposes.

Technological fixes for environmental problems have a mixed record, just as do fixes for food problems. They often work locally or temporarily but prove unworkable on regional or global scales or over the long term.

What is technically and economically feasible is often sociopolitically impossible. People consider many technological "solutions" (the widespread use of nuclear power, for example) to be unacceptable, often because they do not trust the political entities that propose to manage the technologies safely for the benefit of all.

The mission of a managerial system is always an expansion of managerialism.

Counter-claim

The concern over technocratic managerialism is vastly overstated. In reality, relying on experts and data-driven decision-making leads to more effective governance, not less. The fear that technocrats undermine democracy is exaggerated; elected officials still set priorities. Focusing on this supposed problem distracts from real issues like inequality and climate change. Technocratic managerialism is simply not a pressing concern and does not deserve the attention it receives in contemporary debates.