About the project
Modern democracies increasingly rely on expertise and independent expert bodies in political decision processes. Central banks, international organisations and courts, and not least EU agencies, are typical examples. The EU has set up more than 40 agencies to perform specific tasks under EU law, in areas such as food safety, aviation security and defence cooperation. Norway participates in 27 of these agencies, mainly through the EEA Agreement.
Many of these bodies make decisions with consequences for citizens’ well-being and freedom and operate within large zones of discretion. There is thus a risk of policy formation being based on experts’ judgements rather than on citizens’ opinion. The delegation of authority to expert bodies raises some fundamental questions for democracy, and how such bodies can be legitimate.
Objectives
REFLEX aims to establish what kind of democratic problem we are witnessing. That requires paying attention to the role and status of depoliticized bodies in democratic theory. Can they be justified in democratic terms?
The project pursues the idea of reflexive legitimacy, which designates that actors, when exposed to justificatory reasons, may come to accept cogent resolutions even when they are not granted access to the decision-making process. The critical question is how expert bodies are embedded in the democratic chain of power.
REFLEX conducts in-depth studies of a selection of depoliticized bodies in the EU multilevel legislative chain within fields such as financial regulation, medicine, border protection, law enforcement and defence procurement. It compares depoliticized bodies under different formal arrangements – intergovernmental and supranational – in order to establish whether better ways of organising the relationship between expertise and politics exist.
By analysing the institutional and public linkages of several depoliticized bodies, REFLEX will be able to examine actual differences in the influence of expertise and their democratic check. These studies provide a broad empirical basis from which to establish a normative model of depoliticized bodies – an institutional design that meets democratic criteria. At the same time, they will lead to new empirical knowledge of whether or not the power of expertise is wielded legitimately.
Previous events
Workshop on non-majoritarian institutions and democracy
Time and place: June 20, 2019 – June 21, 2019, Johan P. Olsen room
The research project REFLEX will organize the workshop Making Non-Majoritarian Institutions Safe for Democracy on 20-21 June in Oslo.
Knowledge-based decision-making is indispensable to modern democracies; they cannot function without delegating some tasks to knowledge-producing bodies that are politically sheltered. Expertise is needed to run bureaucracies and agencies as well as to explain and justify policies to the general public in whose name policies are pursued. Thus, modern government relies on the delegation of a wide range of tasks to non-majoritarian institutions (NOMIS), such as central banks, international institutions, and independent agencies. From financial regulation to environmental protection, expert bodies vested with public authority conduct work necessary for polities’ day-to-day functioning and long-term stability. The increasing power of NOMIS has raised concerns about the displacement of democratic authorization and control and the rise of epistocracy/technocracy. How can such concerns be addressed in terms of both accuracy and potential remedy?
There are many potential sources of legitimacy for NOMIS, such as participatory inclusiveness, claims to expertise, and exposure to accountability mechanisms. However, it is unclear what reasons support these measures and what they entail in practice. Is there a common conceptual frame that can help us assess the democratic responsiveness of these institutions?
Understanding these challenges requires insight into the way NOMIS are embedded in the political landscape. It is therefore necessary to have multi-disciplinary venue for discussing legitimacy concerns regarding such institutions. Only by a precise diagnosis of the threats NOMIS pose can we propose strategies for making them safe for democracy.
Programme
Thursday 20 June
10.15 Section 1
Chair: Alexander Katsaitis
Erik O. Eriksen
Making depoliticized decision making safe for democracy
Discussant: Joana Mendes
Andreas Eriksen
The accountability of independent agencies
Discussant: Chris Lord
13.00 Section 2
Chair: Trym Nohr Fjørtoft
Tobias Bach
Reputational threats and democratic responsiveness of regulatory agencies (With Marlene Jugl, Dustin Köhler, Kai Wegrich)
Discussant: David Demortain
Martino Maggetti
Reasserting the center of the nation state: How EU agencies reshape domestic policymaking (With Philipp Trein)
Discussant: Alexander Katsaitis
14.45
David Demortain
The organization of evidence: How agencies design decision-making procedures to project truth and objectivity
Discussant: Andreas Eriksen
Eva Krick
Between ‘scientisation’ and a ‘participatory turn’. Tracing shifts in the governance of policy advice (With Johan Christensen and Cathrine Holst)
Discussant: Kjartan Koch Mikalsen
Friday 21 June
09.30 Section 3
Chair: Erik O. Eriksen
Torbjørn Gundersen
Scientific experts in unelected bodies: towards a pragmatic view of political and ethical values
Discussant: Eva Krick
Kjartan Koch Mikalsen
Expertise and the general will: Towards a more democratic republicanism
Discussant: Erik O. Eriksen
11.15
Alexander Katsaitis & Andreas Eriksen
Accountability through mutual attunement: Parliamentary hearings & agency oversight in the European Union
Discussant: Martino Maggetti
Joana Mendes
After legality: constitutive powers of the EU executive in financial regulation and their constitutional implications
Discussant: Andreas Eriksen
13.45 Section 4
Chair: Andreas Eriksen
Christopher Lord
Money as power. Implications for ECB Independence and Epistocracy
Discussant: Martino Maggetti
Trym Nohr Fjørtoft
Frontex, expertise, and the refugee crisis
Discussant: Tobias Bach
Coordinator
Prof. Erik Oddvar Eriksen
Workshop: The legitimacy of depoliticized decision-making
Time and place: Nov. 16, 2017 10:00 AM – Nov. 17, 2017 4:00 PM, University of Oslo
How can depoliticized bodies be seen as legitimate and be held to account? How to avoid the arbitrary exercise of expert power? This opening workshop of the REFLEX project 16-17 November deals with the functioning, justification and democratic embedding of depoliticized decision-making.
About the workshop
An increasingly complex political agenda makes modern democracies more dependent on expert knowledge. This knowledge is needed in order to run bureaucracies and agencies and to underpin and qualify political decision-making. No government can make viable decisions without a knowledge of facts, causal connections and interconnections, as well as of risk estimates of possible negative effects of various measures. Such knowledge is also needed to explain and justify policies to the general public.
The necessity of founding decision-making systematically on knowledge and expertise leads to delegation and the proliferation of depoliticized bodies. These are ‘non-majoritarian institutions’ (NOMIS) with specialized authority, neither directly elected nor directly managed by elected officials. In the wake of the global financial crisis – that has hit the European Union particularly hard and has morphed into a major institutional and constitutional crisis – we have witnessed an upsurge in NOMIS.
While indispensable, the power of NOMIS generates a threat of illegitimate dominance. NOMIS enjoy large zones of discretion, and they inevitably deal with values and policy ends – as opposed to brute facts and means – when they handle controversial issues. Thus, there is a danger of citizens being subjected to the rule of experts in ways that are warranted neither by science nor by democracy.
The REFLEX project studies this crucial dilemma for modern democracies. The project asks: How can NOMIS be seen as legitimate and be held to account? How to avoid expert power being exercised arbitrarily?
This workshop deals with the functioning, justification and democratic embedding of depoliticized decision-making. It welcomes papers that deal either with the actual proliferation of NOMIS, like agencies and central banks, and their institutional and legal structure; with the ways in which such bodies can be held to account; or a combination of the two.
Programme
Thursday 16 November 2017
10:00
Welcome by Erik O. Eriksen, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
10:15
Section 1: Depoliticization and Democratic Legitimacy
Chair: John Erik Fossum, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
Bounded Expertise: Identifying a Place for Expertise within PostNational Governance Michelle Everson, Birkbeck School of law, University of London Comments: Andreas Eriksen, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
The Means and Ends of Deliberative Democracy: Experts, Partisans, and Lay Citizens Jonathan Kuyper, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo Comments: Lars Chr. Blichner, Department of Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen
13:00
Section 2: Expert Accountability and Governance Chair: Asimina Michailidou, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
Making Transnational Markets: The Institutional Politics Behind the TTIP Marija Bartl, Centre for the Study of European Contract Law, University of Amsterdam Comments: Cathrine Holst, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
Shared Enforcement, but Separated Accountability Regimes in the EU Mira Scholten, Utrecht Centre for Regulation and Enforcement in Europe, University of Utrecht Comments: John Erik Fossum, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
Legitimizing the European Union’s Economic Governance Through Political Accountability? The European Parliament & Post-Crisis Deliberative Democracy Alexander Katsaitis, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo Comments: Guri Rosén, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
Friday 17 November 2017
09:00
Section 3: The Authority of Expertize Chair: Alexander Katsaitis, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
What’s Wrong With Epistocracy? On the Use of Expertise in Democracy Anders Molander, Center for the Study of Professions, Oslo University College Cathrine Holst, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo Comments: Matthew Wood, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield
How Climate Scientists View the Expert Role: The Value-Free Ideal, Moral Responsibility, and Relevance Torbjørn Gundersen, Center for the Study of Professions, Oslo University College Comments: Kjartan Koch Mikalsen, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Depoliticized Decision-Making and the Rule of the Many Erik O. Eriksen, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo Comments: Jonathan Kuyper, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo
13:00
Section 4: Engaging Experts in Politics Chair: Helene Sjursen, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
Legitimate Agency Reasoning Andreas Eriksen, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo Comments: Robert Huseby, Department for Political Science, University of Oslo
Rethinking the Legitimacy and Authority of EU Depoliticised Bodies Matthew Wood, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield Comments: Alexander Katsaitis, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
Institutional Innovations of Coupling Experts, Civil Society and the Government in Processes of Policy Development Eva Krick, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo Comments: Michelle Everson, Birkbeck School of law, University of London
Publications
Erik O. Eriksen The Accountability of Expertise: Making the Un-Elected Safe for Democracy Routledge, 2021 ISBN: 9781032007601
Torbjørn Gundersen How Climate Scientists View the Expert Role ARENA Working Paper 2/2018
Andreas Eriksen Legitimate Agency Reasoning ARENA Working Paper 1/2018
.jpg)
