Hubbry Logo
TechnocracyTechnocracyMain
Open search
Technocracy
Community hub
Technocracy
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Technocracy
Technocracy
Technocracy
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government
List of forms · List of countries
Source of power
Democracy (rule by many)
Oligarchy (rule by few)
Autocracy (rule by one)
Anarchy (rule by none)
Power ideology
(socio-political ideologies)
(socio-economic ideologies)
  • Religious
  • Secular
(geo-cultural ideologies)
Power structure
Unitarism
Client state
Federalism
International relations
Related
icon Politics portal

A technocracy is a model of governance wherein 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]

History of the term

[edit]

The term technocracy is derived from the Greek words τέχνη, tekhne meaning skill and κράτος, kratos meaning power, as in governance, or rule. William Henry Smyth, a California engineer, is usually credited with inventing the word technocracy in 1919 to describe "the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers", although the word had been used before on several occasions.[4][6][7] Smyth used the term Technocracy in his 1919 article "'Technocracy'—Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy" in the journal Industrial Management (57).[8] Smyth's usage referred to Industrial democracy: a movement to integrate workers into decision-making through existing firms or revolution.[8]

In the 1930s, through the influence of Howard Scott and the technocracy movement he founded, the term technocracy came to mean 'government by technical decision making', using an energy metric of value. It was based on organising and directing economic activity within a geographical region nearly self-sufficient in resources and with a highly developed technology. Scott proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates denominated in units such as ergs or joules, equivalent in total amount to an appropriate national net energy budget, and then distributed equally among the North American population, according to resource availability.[9][1]

The derivative term technocrat is found in common usage. The word technocrat can refer to someone exercising governmental authority because of their knowledge,[10] "a member of a powerful technical elite", or "someone who advocates the supremacy of technical experts".[11][2][3] McDonnell and Valbruzzi define a prime minister or minister as a technocrat if "at the time of their appointment to government, they: have never held public office under the banner of a political party; are not a formal member of any party; and are said to possess recognized non-party political expertise which is directly relevant to the role occupied in government".[12] In Russia, the President of Russia often nominates individuals with technical expertise and no prior political experience as core ministers, such appointees are termed as "technocrats".[13][14]

Precursors

[edit]

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.[15] 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."[16]

Citing the ideas of St.-Simon, Bell concludes that the "administration of things" by rational judgment is the hallmark of technocracy.[16]

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.[17][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.[19] 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.

Characteristics

[edit]

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.[20]

Examples

[edit]

The former government of the Soviet Union has been referred to as a technocracy.[21] Soviet leaders like Leonid Brezhnev often had a technical background. In 1986, 89% of Politburo members were engineers.[21]

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.[22][23] 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.[24][page needed] During China's 20th National Congress, a class of technocrats in finance and economics were replaced in favor of high-expertise technocrats.[25][26]

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.[27] 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,[28][29] including the formation in which economist Mario Monti presided over a cabinet of unelected professionals.[30][31] 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][32] 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.[33]

The Syrian Salvation Government, the predecessor to the Syrian transitional government,[34] was characterized by observers as an authoritarian technocracy.[35][36][37][38]: 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,[39] where he describes the information technology system of the island highly effective even during the early days.

Engineering

[edit]

Following Samuel Haber,[40] Donald Stabile argues that engineers were faced with a conflict between physical efficiency and cost efficiency in the new corporate capitalist enterprises of the late nineteenth-century United States. Because of their perceptions of market demand, the profit-conscious, non-technical managers of firms where the engineers work often impose limits on the projects that engineers desire to undertake.

The prices of all inputs vary with market forces, thereby upsetting the engineer's careful calculations. As a result, the engineer loses control over projects and must continually revise plans. To maintain control over projects, the engineer must attempt to control these outside variables and transform them into constant factors.[41]

Technocracy movement

[edit]
Main article: Technocracy movement

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.[42] Daniel Bell sees an affinity between Veblen and the Technocracy movement.[43]

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.[44][45]

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'.[46] Akin postulates that many technocrats remained vocal, dissatisfied, and often sympathetic to anti-New Deal third-party efforts.[47]

Critiques

[edit]

Critics have suggested that a "technocratic divide" exists between a governing body controlled to varying extents by technocrats and members of the general public.[5] Technocratic divides are "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 privileges the opinions and viewpoints of technical experts, exalting them into a kind of aristocracy while marginalizing the opinions and viewpoints of the general public.[48][49]

As major multinational technology corporations (e.g., FAANG) swell market caps and customer counts, critiques of technocratic government in the 21st century see its manifestation in American politics not as an "authoritarian nightmare of oppression and violence" but rather as an éminence grise: a democratic cabal directed by Mark Zuckerberg and the entire cohort of "Big Tech" executives.[50][51] In his 1982 Technology and Culture journal article, "The Technocratic Image and the Theory of Technocracy", John G. Gunnell writes: "...politics is increasingly subject to the influence of technological change", with specific reference to the advent of The Long Boom and the genesis of the Internet, following the 1973–1975 recession.[52][53] Gunnel goes on to add three levels of analysis that delineate technology's political influence:

  1. "Political power tends to gravitate towards technological elites".
  2. "Technology has become autonomous" and thus impenetrable by political structures.
  3. "Technology (and science) constitute a new legitimizing ideology", as well as triumphing over "tribalism, nationalism, the crusading spirit in religion, bigotry, censorship, racism, persecution, immigration and emigration restrictions, tariffs, and chauvinism".[52][54]

In each of the three analytical levels, Gunnell foretells technology's infiltration of political processes and suggests that the entanglement of the two (i.e. technology and politics) will inevitably produce power concentrations around those with advanced technological training, namely the technocrats.[52] Forty years after the publication of Gunnell's writings, technology and government have become, for better or for worse, increasingly intertwined.[55][56][57] Facebook can be considered a technocratic microcosm, a "technocratic nation-state" with a cyberspatial population that surpasses any terrestrial nation.[58] In a broader sense, critics fear that the rise of social media networks (e.g. Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest), coupled with the "decline in mainstream engagement", imperil the "networked young citizen" to inconspicuous coercion and indoctrination by algorithmic mechanisms, and, less insidiously, to the persuasion of particular candidates based predominantly on "Social Media engagement".[59][60][61]

In a 2022 article published in Boston Review, political scientist Matthew Cole highlights two problems with technocracy: that it creates "unjust concentrations of power" and that the concept itself is poorly defined.[62] With respect to the first point, Cole argues that technocracy excludes citizens from policy-making processes while advantaging elites. With respect to the second, he argues that the value of expertise is overestimated in technocratic systems, and points to an alternative concept of "smart democracy" which enlists the knowledge of ordinary citizens.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Technocracy

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Technocracy is a proposed system of and societal in which technical experts—such as , engineers, and specialists—hold authority based on their specialized and demonstrated competence, rather than through electoral or popular vote, with the aim of applying scientific methods to optimize and social outcomes. Originating in early 20th-century ideas of , the concept was formalized by American engineer Howard Scott, who founded the Technical Alliance in 1919 to study energy flows in North American industry and later launched the in the early 1930s amid the as a response to perceived failures of the price-based monetary system. Core principles included abolishing money in favor of energy certificates as a mechanism, eliminating and elections in favor of expert-led functional sequences, and envisioning a continental "Technate" spanning the , , and parts of and to achieve technological abundance without waste or scarcity. The movement briefly surged in popularity, attracting hundreds of thousands of adherents through gray-uniformed advocates and promises of efficiency, but waned after internal schisms, government scrutiny, and critiques of its authoritarian structure and dismissal of democratic accountability, leaving a legacy as a radical critique of and rather than a realized model.

Definition and Core Principles

Etymology and Conceptual Foundations

The term "technocracy" derives from the Greek roots technē (τέχνη), denoting skill, art, or craft, and kratos (κράτος), signifying power or rule, thus literally implying "rule by skill" or governance by those possessing technical expertise. It was first coined in 1919 by American engineer William Henry Smyth in his article "Industrial Management," where he proposed it as a system for managing society and the economy through technical specialists rather than elected politicians or business leaders. This neologism emerged amid early 20th-century industrialization, reflecting a shift toward applying engineering principles to social organization. Conceptually, technocracy posits that complex modern societies, characterized by intricate technological and economic systems, require decision-making by individuals with specialized scientific and technical knowledge to optimize and efficiency. This foundation draws from Frederick Winslow Taylor's principles of , introduced in 1911, which advocated measuring and streamlining through empirical and expert oversight to eliminate and maximize productivity. Proponents argued that political often led to suboptimal outcomes due to uninformed voter preferences and short-term electoral incentives, whereas technocratic rule would prioritize evidence-based policies grounded in measurable inputs like and material throughput. At its core, technocracy rejects ideological or partisan governance in favor of a functionalist approach, where stems from competence in domains such as , and natural sciences, aiming to treat as an engineered subject to rational control. This framework assumes that human welfare correlates directly with technological advancement and efficient resource use, with experts empowered to override democratic processes when technical imperatives demand it, as seen in early formulations linking societal health to balanced energy accounting rather than monetary profit. While precursors exist in ancient calls for rule by the wise, such as Plato's guardians in The Republic (circa 375 BCE), modern technocracy uniquely emphasizes industrial-era tools like and for holistic societal management.

Fundamental Mechanisms of Governance

In technocracy, governance operates through the selection of decision-makers based on demonstrated technical expertise in fields such as , , and , rather than through electoral processes or political affiliation. This meritocratic approach prioritizes competence in applying scientific methods to societal problems, aiming to eliminate inefficiencies arising from ideological or partisan influences. Proponents, including the founders of Technocracy Inc., argue that such experts can more effectively manage complex systems like production and distribution by relying on empirical data and systematic analysis, as opposed to subjective human deliberation. Decision-making in a technocratic emphasizes data-driven processes grounded in quantifiable metrics, particularly and resource flows, to allocate societal outputs efficiently. Howard Scott, director-in-chief of Technocracy Inc. since its incorporation in New York on August 18, 1932, outlined a framework where decisions occur at the "speed of energy transmission," bypassing traditional political negotiation in favor of and . This involves replacing monetary price systems with energy certificates, which distribute goods based on balanced load factors—measuring energy use against total production capacity—to ensure abundance without scarcity-induced competition. Such mechanisms seek causal efficiency by aligning governance with physical laws of production, though critics note the assumption that technical optimization inherently resolves social values without broader input. Organizational structure in technocracy adopts a functional , dividing society into specialized sequences—such as production, transportation, and distribution—each overseen by compartmented experts reporting to higher coordination boards. In the proposed North American Technate, this forms a non-geopolitical network with continental directors and area boards ensuring synchronized operations across vast regions, from the U.S. to parts of and the Pacific, as mapped by Technocracy Inc. in 1940. Leadership emerges from proven technical proficiency within these domains, fostering a "functional " where stems from performance metrics rather than popular vote, though this risks insulating from diverse societal feedback. Overall, these mechanisms prioritize operational realism over representational politics, positing that expert stewardship of technology yields superior outcomes in resource stewardship and societal stability.

Historical Origins

Precursors in Philosophy and Early Modern Thought

Plato's Republic, composed around 375 BCE, articulated an ideal polity governed by philosopher-kings, individuals rigorously trained in and to apprehend the eternal Forms and thereby possess superior knowledge for ruling justly. This vision subordinated political power to epistemic expertise, with guardians selected not by birth or but by demonstrated intellectual virtue, prefiguring technocratic emphasis on merit-based authority derived from specialized knowledge. Plato argued that such rulers, unswayed by opinion or appetite, would direct society toward the , contrasting democratic rule by the uninformed multitude, which he deemed prone to error. In early modern thought, (1561–1626) advanced precursors to technocracy through his advocacy for empirical as the foundation of progress and governance. In (1620), Bacon outlined an inductive method to conquer nature via organized inquiry, positioning knowledge production as a collective enterprise under expert direction rather than scholastic tradition or divine revelation. His utopian (published posthumously in 1627) depicted Bensalem, a society steered by , an institution of scientific adepts who amassed inventions and directed policy for societal benefit, embodying rule by technical elites to maximize utility and abundance. Bacon's framework, equating truth with productive power, influenced later technocratic ideals by prioritizing scientific mastery over hereditary or electoral legitimacy.

19th and Early 20th Century Developments

In the early 19th century, French thinker articulated proto-technocratic ideas, advocating for a merit-based society led by scientists, engineers, and industrialists rather than traditional aristocrats or clergy. In his 1819 parable L'Industrie, Saint-Simon envisioned a council of leading scientists—such as , , and —directing the to oversee national industrial production, bypassing political authorities to prioritize efficient and technological progress. This framework emphasized empirical knowledge and technical expertise as the basis for , predicting that industrialization would elevate producers over consumers and necessitate expert coordination to harness for societal advancement. Saint-Simon's disciple, , extended these concepts through , positing that society should progress via the application of verifiable scientific laws to social phenomena, culminating in a "positive" stage of governance informed by expert observation and . In works like Cours de philosophie positive (1830–1842), Comte proposed a secular priesthood of intellectuals trained in positive sciences to administer , though he critiqued unchecked technical rule in favor of and sociological oversight. These ideas influenced European technocratic internationalism, where technical elites were seen as drivers of and progress, as evidenced in Saint-Simon's calls for a of by 1825. By the late , American author Edward Bellamy's utopian novel (1888) popularized similar notions, depicting a future of 2000 where an "industrial " under expert administrators allocates resources scientifically, eliminating monetary competition in favor of technocratic planning. Bellamy's vision, selling over 200,000 copies in its first year, reflected growing faith in industrial efficiency amid rapid and technological expansion. Entering the early 20th century, Frederick Winslow Taylor's (1911) formalized expert-led optimization of labor and production, using time-motion studies to replace rule-of-thumb methods with data-driven processes, achieving productivity gains of up to 200–300% in tested factories like . Taylorism extended technocratic logic to enterprise , influencing broader calls for applying such methods to national economies, though critics noted its potential to deskill workers and prioritize output over human factors. Economist Thorstein Veblen advanced these trends in The Engineers and the Price System (1921), arguing that engineers possessed superior knowledge of industrial processes compared to businessmen, whose profit motives induced "sabotage"—deliberate underproduction to maintain scarcity. Veblen proposed a transitional "Soviet of Technicians" to seize control from financial interests, enabling full mechanized production without price mechanisms, drawing on post-World War I disruptions and the 1919–1920 steel strikes where engineers aligned with labor against owners. His analysis, rooted in empirical observation of industrial waste, positioned technical experts as rational stewards capable of resolving capitalism's inefficiencies through associative control. These developments, amid Progressive Era reforms and the 1920s' technological optimism, set the stage for formalized technocratic advocacy by highlighting expertise's causal role in mitigating economic irrationality.

The Technocracy Movement

Origins and Key Figures

The Technocracy Movement originated in the United States amid the economic turmoil of the , tracing its immediate roots to the Technical Alliance, a research group assembled by Howard Scott around 1919 at with the intellectual support of economist . This alliance, comprising engineers and scientists, aimed to conduct a comprehensive energy survey of North American industry to assess resource distribution and production efficiency, but it disbanded by 1921 due to lack of funding and institutional backing. The ideas resurfaced in 1932 when Scott, collaborating with Columbia professors and Walter Rautenstrauch, revived the energy survey concept, proposing a rational reorganization of society based on scientific measurement of production in energy units like joules rather than monetary prices. Public awareness surged that winter through magazine articles and radio broadcasts, culminating in Scott's nationally aired speech on January 13, 1933, at New York's Hotel Pierre, which propelled the formation of Technocracy clubs across the country and swelled membership to approximately 250,000 by early 1933. The movement formalized as Technocracy Incorporated shortly thereafter, advocating for a continental "Technate" governed by technical experts to supplant traditional political and economic systems. Howard Scott (1890–1970) served as the movement's founder, chief ideologue, and charismatic leader, positioning himself as an engineer capable of engineering societal transformation despite a background marked by limited formal education and prior professional setbacks. During , Scott worked on the Muscle Shoals nitrates project, but a postwar government inquiry criticized his efforts for gross waste, inefficiency, and shoddy workmanship, casting early doubt on his technical credentials. By the , based in , he developed core tenets like an energy certificate system to distribute resources equally without profit motives, drawing from influences such as Veblen's advocacy for engineer-led production and Frederick Taylor's principles. Scott's 1933 speech, which outlined abrupt societal overhaul including the abolition of and money, initially galvanized followers but invited ridicule for its utopian fervor and led to disavow association, contributing to the movement's rapid decline after its peak. Geophysicist Marion King Hubbert (1903–1989) emerged as a pivotal co-founder and second-in-command, providing intellectual rigor to the movement's framework through his authorship of the Technocracy Study Course in 1934, which served as its educational manifesto and emphasized empirical analysis of resources and energy flows. Hubbert, who later gained renown for predicting U.S. oil production peaks in , focused on the movement's research and dissemination efforts during , aligning with Scott's vision of expert governance while grounding proposals in quantifiable data like continental energy balances. His involvement drew scrutiny during , including a 1943 investigation by his employer, the Board of Economic Warfare, over technocratic affiliations perceived as potentially subversive. Collaborators like Loeb, who published The Chart of Plenty in 1933 detailing energy , supplemented the core duo but lacked Scott and Hubbert's enduring prominence in defining the movement's origins.

Core Proposals and Organizational Structure

The core proposals of the Technocracy movement, as articulated by Howard Scott, centered on replacing the with an energy-based mechanism to allocate resources scientifically. Proponents advocated for energy certificates, denominated in units such as joules, distributed equally to all citizens over age 25 on a periodic basis, with certificates being non-transferable, non-accumulable beyond the accounting period, and expiring to prevent or capital concentration. This system aimed to value all according to the expended in their production, derived from comprehensive "energy surveys" of and industries, thereby eliminating profit motives, market speculation, and monetary . Governance under these proposals would vest authority in a cadre of technical experts, including engineers and scientists, organized into a "Soviet of Experts" or a Continental Board comprising approximately 100 specialists responsible for planning production, distribution, and consumption to achieve material abundance and . The board would select a continental director to oversee operations, excluding elected politicians and interests in favor of data-driven focused on physical laws and efficiency metrics. Societal reorganization envisioned a Technate—a vast, integrated resource-management unit spanning the North American continent (from northward, potentially including , , and )—with of all property, natural resources, and production means, mandatory consumption registration for individuals, and reduced labor requirements such as a 16- to 20-hour workweek, 78 days of annual vacation, work commencing at age 25, and retirement at 45. Technocracy Inc., formalized in 1933 under Howard Scott's leadership (which continued until his death in 1970), adopted a hierarchical structure with a , specialized divisions, and sections to propagate these ideas through educational and advocacy efforts rather than political campaigning. The organization, originating from the earlier Technical Alliance (active 1919–1921 at ), expanded to include hundreds of thousands of adherents across the , , and the by the mid-1930s, utilizing lectures, publications, and local chapters to conduct energy audits and promote the Technate model. Scott positioned the group as non-partisan and research-oriented, though it incorporated elements of centralized control to enforce its vision of rational societal management.

Theoretical and Practical Characteristics

Engineering and Scientific Management Influences

The principles of , pioneered by in his 1911 treatise , profoundly shaped technocratic thought by emphasizing the application of empirical observation, time-motion studies, and standardization to industrial processes for optimal efficiency. Taylor's methodology involved dissecting tasks into elemental components, selecting and training workers scientifically, and cooperating with management to eliminate inefficiency, yielding measurable gains such as a reported 200-300% increase in output at through shovel redesign and incentive pay. Technocrats extended this paradigm beyond factories, viewing societal governance as an engineering problem amenable to similar systematic analysis, where waste in —analogous to idle machinery—could be eradicated via data-driven protocols rather than market prices or political discretion. Thorstein Veblen's 1921 work The Engineers and the Price System further bridged engineering discipline with technocratic models, positing that industrial sabotage arose from the price system's misalignment with technological potential, as businessmen prioritized profits over full production capacity. Veblen advocated for a "Soviet of Technicians"—a of engineers to supplant vested interests and direct industry through rational , drawing on the engineer's purported detachment from pecuniary motives and expertise in causal processes like material flows and energy conversion. This vision resonated in technocracy's core tenet of expert rule, where technical knowledge supplants democratic or capitalist , as evidenced by Veblen's influence on early technocrats who cited his of institutional drag on , such as deliberate underproduction to maintain . Howard Scott, founder of the Technocracy movement, operationalized these influences through the Technical Alliance (established 1919), which conducted energy surveys of North American industry to quantify inputs and outputs in physical units, mirroring Taylor's empirical benchmarking but scaled to continental resource systems. Scott's proposals, formalized in Technocracy Inc.'s 1930s literature, rejected monetary economics for an "energy certificate" rationing mechanism, allocating goods based on engineered assessments of sustainable throughput—e.g., pricing via joules expended rather than dollars—to achieve full utilization of plant capacity, estimated at 25% idle during the Great Depression due to price-system constraints. This approach embodied scientific management's functional control, prioritizing verifiable metrics like kilowatt-hours over subjective valuation, though it presupposed engineers' ability to model complex human behaviors as mere variables in systemic optimization.

Economic Systems and Resource Allocation Models

Technocracy's economic framework fundamentally rejects both market-driven and state-controlled , advocating instead for a model grounded in scientific measurement of physical production capacities, particularly throughput. Proponents, led by Howard Scott of Technocracy Inc., critiqued the ""—defined as any exchange mechanism reliant on commodities or as value units—for distorting resource distribution through , accumulation, and profit motives rather than reflecting true energetic costs. In its place, they proposed "energy accounting," a non-monetary system where goods and services are valued according to the joules of energy required for their production, extraction, and distribution, enabling direct tracking of societal throughput without monetary intermediaries. Under energy accounting, would operate via a centralized "continental control board" of technical experts, who register and balance the net energy conversion across production sequences on a 24-hour basis. This model envisions a "Technate"—a self-contained geopolitical unit like —where raw materials, labor, and outputs are inventoried scientifically to eliminate waste and achieve abundance, with citizens receiving energy certificates redeemable for a fixed share of , decoupled from work hours or market fluctuations. Allocation prioritizes functional needs over individual preferences, using data from industrial sensors and to optimize distribution chains, such as freight by energy efficiency rather than cost. Howard Scott emphasized that this system liberates production from debt-based national income cycles, where under the , annual income derives from prior claims rather than physical output. Critics of the model, including economists from the Austrian school, argue it overlooks subjective human valuations and incentives inherent in decentralized exchange, potentially leading to bureaucratic rigidity despite claims of empirical precision. Nonetheless, technocratic proposals influenced mid-20th-century discussions on input-output , as seen in later works by figures like , though without adopting the full energy-unit valuation. Empirical tests remain limited, confined to small-scale simulations by Technocracy Inc. in , which demonstrated feasibility in tracking industrial energy flows but not scalability to economies. The system's causal logic rests on the premise that , as the universal physical constraint, provides a more objective metric for than signals, aligning allocation with thermodynamic realities over social constructs.

Implementations and Case Studies

Historical Experiments

The early Soviet Union represented one of the earliest large-scale experiments in applying technocratic principles to economic governance, emphasizing scientific management and expert-led planning over political or market mechanisms. In May 1918, Vladimir Lenin endorsed Frederick Taylor's system of scientific management—known as Taylorism—for socialist production, arguing it could eliminate inefficiency when divorced from capitalist exploitation, stating that "the Soviet Republic must adopt all that is valuable and practical in Taylorism." This led to initial trials in factories, where engineers and technical specialists were tasked with optimizing workflows, time studies, and resource allocation, often under the guidance of the Supreme Council of National Economy (VSNKh), established in December 1917. By 1921, the State Planning Committee (Gosplan) was formed to coordinate a unified national economic plan, relying on data from technical experts to forecast production and distribution, marking a shift toward centralized, expertise-driven resource management amid the New Economic Policy's partial market retreats. These efforts achieved measurable industrialization gains, such as rapid factory electrification, but faltered due to bureaucratic rigidities and political purges that subordinated experts to ideological directives. In , the regime under integrated technocratic elements into , experimenting with expert oversight of industry to achieve and efficiency during the . The Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (IRI), created in January 1933 via government acquisition of failing banks' assets, delegated control of key sectors like , shipping, and to teams of engineers and economists, who applied rationalization techniques inspired by to streamline operations and boost output. Influential technocrats such as Alberto Beneduce, who directed the National Fascist Institute for Social Welfare and influenced credit policy, exemplified this approach, wielding de facto authority over economic levers while publicly aligning with fascist goals; Beneduce's networks managed over 20% of Italy's industrial capital by the late 1930s. IRI's model demonstrated short-term successes, including stabilizing employment and modernizing infrastructure, yet it entrenched state monopolies and served militaristic aims, revealing risks of expert decisions co-opted by authoritarian politics. Other interwar experiments were more localized and ephemeral, such as Belgium's push for governmental planning under figures like Hendrik de Man, who advocated engineer-led economic coordination to combat through technical councils and predictive modeling, influencing temporary policy shifts before political fragmentation dissolved the initiative. These cases highlight technocracy's appeal in crises but underscore empirical challenges: expert systems often required coercive enforcement, leading to accountability gaps and inefficiencies when divorced from iterative feedback, as evidenced by Soviet Gosplan's chronic shortages despite data abundance.

Modern Technocratic Regimes

Singapore's governance exemplifies a hybrid model blending technocratic with electoral democracy, where technical expertise drives policy implementation. The (PAP) has dominated since 1959, recruiting civil servants and ministers through rigorous merit-based processes emphasizing competence in administration, , and engineering. The operates with high autonomy and is ranked globally highest for , enabling data-driven decisions on , trade, and development. This approach prioritizes empirical outcomes over ideological appeals, as seen in sustained averaging 7% annually from 1965 to 2010, attributed to pragmatic resource allocation by expert-led committees. China's political system incorporates technocratic elements originating in the post-Cultural Revolution period under Deng Xiaoping's 1978 reforms, which emphasized selecting cadres with technical expertise alongside political loyalty and recruited engineers en masse to rebuild the economy; this built on the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), which elevated "red engineers" combining engineering backgrounds with revolutionary credentials. The trend accelerated in the 1980s with cadre "four transformations" (revolutionary, younger, more educated, professional), leading to technocrats dominating by the 1990s under Jiang Zemin (engineer, 1989-2002) and Hu Jintao (engineer, 2002-2012). It continues under Xi Jinping, prioritizing technical skills for governance amid modernization. The Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) emphasis on leaders with STEM backgrounds, particularly , manages complex industrialization and . Paramount leaders including , , and hold engineering degrees, reflecting a tradition where technical training informs elite selection. Over half of the State Council's ministries are led by officials with engineering expertise, facilitating initiatives like expansion—reaching 42,000 km by 2023—and poverty reduction targets met in 2020 via quantified metrics. However, advancement requires alignment with CCP , limiting pure and introducing risks of policy rigidity, as evidenced by the one-child policy's demographic distortions persisting into the 2020s. These regimes demonstrate technocracy's application in large-scale administration but remain embedded in authoritarian or semi-authoritarian structures, diverging from the movement's original vision of apolitical rule. Empirical assessments highlight gains, such as Singapore's top rankings in global competitiveness indices and China's GDP growth from $1.2 trillion in 2000 to $17.7 trillion in 2023, yet underscore tensions between expertise and . No fully realized technocratic regimes exist today, with these cases representing partial implementations adapted to national contexts.

Empirical Strengths and Evidence

Efficiency Gains and Measurable Outcomes

Singapore's governance model, incorporating technocratic elements such as a merit-based dominated by engineers and experts, has demonstrated in and execution. From 1965 to 1990, the achieved average annual GDP growth of over 9%, rising from a of approximately $500 to more than $12,000, driven by targeted investments in , , and without reliance on ideological . This rapid development enabled near-universal coverage, with over 80% of residents in state-provided units by the 1980s, minimizing urban slums and optimizing land use in a resource-scarce environment. In , technocratic features in post-1978 economic management—evident in the prevalence of engineering-trained leaders and centralized, data-informed planning—facilitated measurable and infrastructural gains. Between 1978 and 2020, over 800 million individuals were lifted out of , accounting for about 75% of global reductions in that period, alongside average annual GDP growth of around 9.5%. Key outcomes include the construction of over 40,000 kilometers of by 2023, completed in under 15 years through expert-led that prioritized technical feasibility over electoral cycles, reducing travel times and boosting regional connectivity. These cases illustrate potential efficiency advantages of technocratic approaches, such as reduced decision-making delays and alignment with empirical metrics like , though outcomes depend on contextual factors including initial institutional capacity. In , total factor productivity contributions to growth were sustained through technocratic oversight of state-linked enterprises, contrasting with less interventionist models. Empirical analyses attribute such gains to depoliticized expertise, enabling adaptive responses to economic shocks, as seen in 's holistic containment measures that preserved growth amid global disruptions.

Comparative Advantages Over Democratic Systems

Technocratic systems emphasize governance by individuals with domain-specific expertise, enabling decisions grounded in empirical analysis rather than electoral incentives, which proponents argue yields superior outcomes in complex policy arenas compared to democratic mechanisms prone to voter misinformation and short-termism. Empirical evidence from delegated technocratic institutions, such as independent central banks, supports this: cross-country analyses from 1955 to 1988 reveal that advanced economies with higher central bank independence maintained average inflation rates approximately 4 percentage points lower than those with lower independence, attributing the difference to insulation from political pressures favoring inflationary spending. Similarly, studies of Latin American countries post-1980s reforms show that enhanced central bank independence correlated with sustained reductions in inflation persistence and volatility, as technocratic mandates prioritized data-driven monetary stability over populist fiscal demands. In crisis scenarios, technocratic interventions have facilitated faster implementation of reforms than democratic processes encumbered by partisan negotiation. During Italy's 2011 Eurozone debt crisis, Mario Monti's technocratic cabinet enacted structural adjustments, including pension reforms and fiscal consolidation, within months—actions delayed under prior elected governments due to coalition vetoes—stabilizing bond yields and averting default risks. Greece's 2011 technocratic prime ministership under Lucas Papademos similarly bridged bailout negotiations with the EU and IMF, enabling €130 billion in emergency funding amid political gridlock. These cases illustrate technocracy's edge in urgency-driven contexts, where expert-led cabinets leverage technical credibility to secure international support and domestic compliance, often boosting short-term institutional trust. Technocracy mitigates democratic short-termism by decoupling policy from electoral cycles, fostering long-range planning in areas like and development. Singapore's hybrid meritocratic framework, selecting leaders via rigorous performance metrics rather than popular vote alone, underpinned average annual GDP per capita growth of 6.8% from 1965 to 2020, transforming a resource-poor into a high-income —outstripping growth rates in contemporaneous democracies like (around 4-5%) or the (under 3%). This model attributes sustained outcomes to expertise-driven allocation, minimizing and prioritizing evidence-based investments, though full causality remains debated due to authoritarian controls. Critics of , including advocates of epistocratic variants akin to technocracy, cite pervasive voter —such as widespread misperceptions on economic trade-offs—as eroding decision , with surveys showing median citizens unable to identify basic policy effects, leading to suboptimal aggregate choices. Technocratic filters, by weighting informed input, theoretically align governance closer to optimal epistemic standards, as simulated in models where knowledgeable selectors outperform in tasks. However, such advantages hinge on verifiable expertise and remain unproven at systemic scale absent pure implementations.

Criticisms and Empirical Shortcomings

Accountability Deficits and Power Concentration Risks

Technocracy's reliance on unelected experts for governance inherently undermines democratic accountability mechanisms, as decision-makers are selected based on technical credentials rather than public mandate or periodic electoral review. This structure insulates technocrats from direct voter feedback, making it challenging to sanction errors or policy failures through removal from office, unlike elected officials subject to ballot-box consequences. Critics, including democratic theorists, argue that such insulation fosters unresponsiveness to diverse societal values and priorities, prioritizing quantifiable metrics over broader welfare considerations. The concentration of power in a narrow cadre of specialists exacerbates risks of and systemic biases, as technocratic bodies often operate with limited oversight and diffuse responsibility. For instance, in the , unelected officials within institutions like the have driven monetary policies during crises, such as the 2010-2012 debt turmoil, where measures persisted amid public discontent without mechanisms for electoral reversal. critiqued this "fatal conceit" of centralized expertise, emphasizing that no group possesses the dispersed, required for optimal societal planning, leading to inefficient or harmful outcomes when power aggregates in technocratic hands. Empirical analyses of central bank discretion reveal how such autonomy can prolong policy missteps, as seen in post-2008 programs that inflated asset bubbles without proportionate democratic input. These deficits amplify vulnerability to groupthink and ideological blind spots among experts, who may undervalue political legitimacy or ethical trade-offs in pursuit of efficiency. Historical precedents, including technocratic governments in Italy during the 2011-2013 debt crisis, demonstrate how temporary expert-led administrations diluted electoral accountability, correlating with subsequent populist backlashes as publics rejected perceived elite overreach. Without robust checks, power concentration invites corruption or mission creep, where technical rationales justify expanding authority beyond intended scopes, eroding public trust and institutional resilience. Proponents counter that expertise mitigates populist errors, yet evidence from governance studies indicates that unaccountable technocracy heightens instability, as unresolved grievances fuel demands for reversion to more participatory systems.

Historical Failures and Ideological Blind Spots

The of the 1930s, led by Howard Scott through Technocracy Inc., represented an early organized attempt to implement rule by technical experts, proposing energy-based resource allocation to supplant price mechanisms during the . Despite initial enthusiasm—peaking with over 500,000 supporters in study groups across by late —the initiative collapsed due to internal schisms, including a 1933 factional split over organizational control and democratic participation, exacerbated by Scott's and failure to build a viable political apparatus. Scott's personal credibility was undermined by revelations of fabricated academic credentials, such as unverified claims of engineering degrees from the University of Berlin and , which eroded public and media trust. By 1936, splinter groups like the Continental Committee on Technocracy had dissolved amid ongoing disputes, and the movement never translated its theoretical appeals into electoral success or policy adoption, overshadowed by the New Deal's pragmatic reforms under President . Efforts to infuse technocratic principles into state planning, as seen in the Soviet Union's reliance on scientific management and expert bureaucracies from the 1920s onward, further illustrate implementation pitfalls. The Bolshevik regime's Five-Year Plans, initiated in 1928, empowered engineers and economists to centrally allocate resources via quantitative targets, embodying a technocratic faith in data-driven optimization over market signals. Yet, this approach faltered empirically: by the 1930s, distorted reporting from subordinate experts led to overproduction in heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods, culminating in chronic shortages and the 1932-1933 famine that killed an estimated 5-7 million in Ukraine alone due to misallocated grain requisitions. Innovation stagnated as risk-averse planners prioritized ideological conformity over trial-and-error experimentation, with the system's aversion to failure—evident in purges of underperforming technicians—suppressing technological adaptation; Soviet GDP growth rates, while high in the 1930s (averaging 13-14% annually), decelerated to 2-3% by the 1970s amid inefficiencies that contributed to the USSR's 1991 dissolution. Ideological blind spots in technocratic thought compound these historical shortcomings, particularly its underestimation of incentives and political realism. Proponents often presuppose experts' decisions as objectively optimal and value-neutral, disregarding how technical rationales mask subjective priorities—such as Soviet planners' bias toward reflecting Marxist dogma rather than pure efficiency calculus. This overlooks principal-agent problems, where unelected specialists, insulated from electoral feedback, pursue self-interested or bureaucratically convenient goals, as evidenced by the Soviet nomenklatura's scandals in the 1980s that siphoned resources equivalent to billions in rubles. Technocracy's aversion to ideological pluralism further blinds it to non-quantifiable social dynamics, including cultural resistance and moral trade-offs; for instance, movement's energy certificate scheme ignored behavioral responses to altered incentives, assuming compliance without addressing evasion or black markets that plagued analogous in wartime economies. A core oversight lies in conflating technical feasibility with political viability, treating as rather than a signal of misaligned values or information asymmetries. Historical cases reveal technocrats' tendency to dismiss democratic as inefficient noise, yet this insulation fosters : Soviet cybernetic experiments in the 1950s-1960s, like Viktor Glushkov's network for real-time planning, were abandoned by 1970 due to entrenched bureaucratic opposition and infeasible across 50,000+ enterprises, highlighting the of top-down control in complex systems. Such blind spots persist because technocratic privileges measurable outputs over causal feedback loops involving human agency, systematically undervaluing adaptability in unpredictable environments.

Contemporary Relevance and Debates

Technological Enablers like AI and Data-Driven Governance

Advancements in (AI) and analytics have facilitated technocratic governance by enabling real-time processing of vast datasets to inform policy decisions, often sidelining traditional democratic deliberation in favor of algorithmic optimization. These technologies allow for predictive modeling, resource allocation simulations, and automated regulatory enforcement, theoretically aligning governance with empirical outcomes over ideological or electoral pressures. For instance, algorithms can analyze economic indicators, metrics, and behavioral patterns to forecast crises or optimize , as demonstrated in simulations where AI outperforms human forecasters in complex scenarios like disruptions. Singapore exemplifies data-driven technocracy through its (GovTech), which integrates AI across public services to support evidence-based policymaking. The Sense platform, introduced in 2024, permits civil servants to query integrated government databases using , yielding insights for and service delivery without manual aggregation. This approach underpins Singapore's meritocratic system, where technocratic elites leverage such tools to maintain high governance efficiency, contributing to the nation's top rankings in global indices for ease of doing business and digital readiness as of 2023. Singapore's Model AI Governance Framework, updated in 2023, further embeds ethical guidelines for AI deployment, prioritizing transparency in usage while advancing applications in and citizen services. In , AI enhances technocratic control by the through systems that process biometric and transactional data for behavioral prediction and enforcement. Facial recognition technologies, deployed nationwide since 2018, enable real-time monitoring of over 1.4 billion citizens, supporting that has reduced certain crime rates in pilot cities like by up to 20% according to state reports. While the is often misrepresented as a unified AI-driven score— in reality, it comprises disparate blacklists and incentives managed administratively rather than algorithmically—the integration of AI in adjacent domains like dissent detection reinforces rule by technical experts aligned with party directives. These enablers spark debates on scalability and risks, with proponents arguing AI reduces policy errors via from large datasets, as seen in analyses of data-driven shifts yielding measurable improvements in productivity. Critics, however, highlight empirical pitfalls such as algorithmic biases perpetuating inequalities if training data reflects historical disparities, necessitating robust validation—evident in European regulatory efforts like the AI Act of 2024, which imposes technocratic oversight on high-risk systems. In the , hybrid models blending AI with human expertise are proliferating, potentially amplifying technocracy's appeal amid complex global challenges like climate modeling and pandemic response.

Political Influences and Global Examples in the 2020s

In the early 2020s, the accelerated technocratic influences in democratic politics, as governments delegated authority to scientific experts for decisions, often prioritizing epidemiological models over immediate electoral accountability. For instance, in , policy advice relied heavily on data-driven mechanisms from institutions like the , emphasizing quantitative projections for lockdowns and restrictions that shaped national responses from March 2020 onward. Similarly, Taiwan's administration under President empowered technocratic bodies, such as the Central Epidemic Command Center, to enforce border controls and , resulting in one of the lowest per capita death rates globally by mid-2021 through expertise-led protocols rather than partisan debate. This deference, while yielding measurable containment in select cases, fostered perceptions of technocratic overreach, with surveys indicating stable but elevated public support for expert governance amid crisis fatigue by 2022. A prominent global example emerged in , where former President formed a technocratic government on February 13, 2021, backed by a cross-party to manage post-pandemic recovery and secure €191.5 billion in EU funds. Draghi's cabinet featured 38% technocratic ministers without partisan ties, focusing on economic reforms, , and digital transition, which stabilized GDP growth to 6.6% in 2021 after a 2020 contraction. The administration dissolved in July 2022 following fractures, highlighting the fragility of technocratic interventions in polarized systems. Ongoing technocratic models persisted in non-Western contexts, such as , where the maintained a merit-based emphasizing and economic expertise, exemplified by the 2017 Committee on the Future Economy's recommendations adopted in 2020s policies for digital resilience and productivity gains amid global supply disruptions. In , the system integrated technocratic with state direction, as seen in the 2021-2025 Five-Year Plan prioritizing scientific self-reliance in semiconductors and AI, with leadership promotions tied to technical achievements rather than ideological purity alone. In the United States, technocratic influences manifested through private-sector experts entering public roles post-2024 election, notably Elon Musk's appointment as a special government employee leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from January 2025, tasked with auditing federal spending and proposing cuts estimated at $2 trillion. Musk's tenure, ending in May 2025 amid policy disputes, underscored tech entrepreneurs' push for data-optimized governance over bureaucratic inertia. These developments reflected broader trends, where crises and technological complexity elevated expert input, though often straining democratic norms.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/technocracy.asp
  2. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/technocracy/
  3. https://mises.org/mises-wire/technocracy-movement-and-howard-scott
  4. https://archive.org/details/scotthowardother00unse
  5. https://www.etymonline.com/word/technocracy
  6. https://wordpandit.com/history-words-technocracy-march-31/
  7. https://www.britannica.com/topic/technocracy
  8. https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/technocracy-hypothesis
  9. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/technology/technocracy
  10. https://technocracyinc.org/about-technocracy/
  11. https://archive.org/details/HistoryAndPurposeOfTechnocracy.howardScott
  12. https://archive.org/stream/HistoryAndPurposeOfTechnocracy.howardScott/HistoryAndPurposeOfTechnocracy.howardScott.pd-2_djvu.txt
  13. https://bostonraremaps.com/inventory/technocracy-inc-technate-of-america-1940/
  14. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/
  15. https://academic.oup.com/book/39784/chapter/339878255
  16. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03605310600732834
  17. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1713&context=bts
  18. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/biographical/bacon-francis-1561-1626/v-1
  19. https://medium.com/tecnosophia/the-technocratic-society-evolution-from-philosophical-ideals-to-todays-governance-29e5e211d757
  20. https://intellectualhistory.web.ox.ac.uk/article/saint-simons-technocratic-internationalism-1802-1825
  21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2708793
  22. https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v9y2018i1d10.1007_s13132-015-0313-0.html
  23. https://www.zephyr.org/event-details/auguste-comte-and-the-prospects-for-a-technocracy-of-the-right
  24. https://technocracy.fandom.com/wiki/Technocracy_movement
  25. https://www.amazon.com/Scientism-Technocracy-Twentieth-Century-Scientific/dp/1498525709
  26. https://journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/690694
  27. https://historyofeconomicthought.mcmaster.ca/veblen/Engineers.pdf
  28. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780429339462-3/veblen-technocrats-engineers-price-system-daniel-bell
  29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3486703
  30. https://www.americanheritage.com/howard-scott-and-his-technocratic-utopia
  31. http://biographicalmemoirs.org/pdfs/hubbert-m-king.pdf
  32. https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/technocracy-incorporated-elon-musk
  33. https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-frederick-taylor/
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389022167_Scientism_and_Technocracy_in_the_Twentieth_Century_The_Legacy_of_Scientific_Management
  35. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/690694
  36. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17449359.2024.2343657
  37. https://www.sustainable.soltechdesigns.com/technocracy-scott.html
  38. https://www.nytimes.com/1932/12/20/archives/head-of-technocracy-urges-new-system-howard-scott-in-article-scores.html
  39. https://technocracy.fandom.com/wiki/Energy_Accounting
  40. https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Energy_accounting
  41. https://ia801602.us.archive.org/21/items/TechnocracyM.KingHubbert/TechnocracyM.KingHubbert.pdf
  42. https://www.britannica.com/money/Gosplan
  43. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/contemporary-european-history/article/alberto-beneduce-a-technocrat-in-the-fascist-era/A304C22DBB5063702239BD01DEA18C87
  44. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/FE2458D091F25098BB79EEA61E3B6008/core-reader
  45. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/gia/article/to-beat-populism-blend-democracy-and-technocracy-s-pore-style
  46. https://www.elysian.press/p/learning-from-singapores-technocracy
  47. https://issues.org/perspective-the-benefits-of-technocracy-in-china/
  48. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3328
  49. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/04/chinas-overrated-technocrats-stem-engineering-xi-jinping/
  50. https://www.chinausfocus.com/2022-CPC-congress/chinese-technocrats-20-how-technocrats-differ-between-the-xi-era-and-jiang-hu-eras
  51. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/singapore/overview
  52. https://amro-asia.org/an-exemplary-journey-in-eradicating-poverty/
  53. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/bdadc16a4f5c1c88a839c0f905cde802-0070012022/original/Poverty-Synthesis-Report-final.pdf
  54. https://mises.org/mises-wire/economic-success-singapore-and-hong-kong
  55. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5592/viewcontent/Singapore_Technocracy_2021_av.pdf
  56. https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/132861/1/Technocracy_an%20alternative%20to%20democracy.pdf
  57. https://www.stlouisfed.org/about-us/resources/why-fed-is-well-designed-central-bank/central-bank-independence-inflation
  58. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/09/16/Central-Bank-Independence-and-Inflation-in-Latin-America-Through-the-Lens-of-History-523542
  59. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/it-matters-even-more-central-bank-independence-long-run-inflation-and-persistence
  60. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/a-tale-of-two-technocrats-paths-diverge-for-greece-and-italy-idUSTRE8120LX/
  61. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/technocracy-trust-and-democracy-evidence-on-citizens-attitudes-from-a-natural-experiment-in-italy/2E9CAE25BBCECF9B9BC7ABB01FFA4E53
  62. https://iea.org.uk/publications/meritocracy-personal-responsibility-and-encouraging-investment-lessons-from-singapores-economic-growth-miracle/
  63. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/12/opinion/international-world/singapore-autocracy-democracy.html
  64. https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17581394/against-democracy-book-epistocracy-jason-brennan
  65. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1168&context=id-journal
  66. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/whats-wrong-with-technocracy/
  67. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-theory/article/perils-of-technocratic-power-central-bank-discretion-and-the-end-of-bretton-woods-revisited/1511B02B9A2993B2DB86E83AD995347E
  68. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-hayek/
  69. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2022.2095494
  70. https://gratton.org/papers/TechnocraticDemocracies.pdf
  71. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/56367658.pdf
  72. https://archive.org/details/the-technocrats-magazine-1933_202011
  73. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/892014
  74. https://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/download/691/659/2987
  75. https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/2019-08-19-bv61r6/
  76. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUig0Qwnc4I
  77. https://www.douggarnett.com/complexity-in-business/complexity-self-organization-vs-technocracy-the-messy-ness-of-chestertons-fence-part-2-of-2/
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X19305925
  79. https://news.mit.edu/2023/how-ai-tocracy-emerges-0713
  80. https://www.tech.gov.sg/about-us/what-we-do/our-digital-government-efforts/ai-and-data-driven-government/
  81. https://rebootdemocracy.ai/blog/How-Singapores-Policymakers-are-Experimenting-with-AI
  82. https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/help-and-resources/2020/01/model-ai-governance-framework
  83. https://merics.org/en/comment/chinas-social-credit-score-untangling-myth-reality
  84. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/22/1063605/china-announced-a-new-social-credit-law-what-does-it-mean/
  85. https://oecdstatistics.blog/2025/05/07/from-evidence-informed-to-data-driven/
  86. https://policyreview.info/articles/news/regulating-ai-without-people
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9185129/
  88. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/rise-of-technocracy-and-the-covid19-pandemic-in-taiwan-courts-human-rights-and-the-protection-of-vulnerable-populations/0FCD6D70FCDE950C775CC05E9D922DAD
  89. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11614-025-00619-0
  90. https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2047-8852.12381
  91. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/02/how-italy-draghi-government-collapsed.html
  92. https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/italy-crisis/
  93. https://asia.nikkei.com/opinion/china-is-quietly-building-a-tech-driven-welfare-state
  94. https://www.scmp.com/opinion/china-opinion/article/3308646/chinas-technocratic-elite-will-be-powerful-force-rivalry-us
  95. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/13/nx-s1-5293124/special-government-employee-trump-musk-doge
  96. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/28/politics/elon-musk-announces-departure-from-trump-administration
  97. https://academic.oup.com/pa/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pa/gsaf029/8128859
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.