Atechnocracy 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 withrepresentative 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 termtechnocracy was initially used to signify the application of thescientific method to solving social problems. In its most extreme form, technocracy is an entiregovernment running as a technical or engineering problem and is mostlyhypothetical. In more practical use, technocracy is any portion of abureaucracy run bytechnologists. 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 ofmeritocracy, 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 aform of government or an approach to political action that emphasizesexpertise, but its precise definition is disputed. One characterization focuses onwho makes decisions, defining technocracy as rule by experts in contrast todemocracy as rule by the people. Another centers on decision procedures rather than rulers, highlighting the role of technical skills, scientificevidence, and instrumentalrationality.[6] More abstractly, technocracy can be defined as the view that the main source ofpolitical 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 acentral bank in which unelected officials setmonetary policy based on technical criteria.[8]
A hallmark of technocracy is itsscience-focused approach. It frames policy objectives, resource allocation, and administrative procedures in terms of evidence-based and efficiency-oriented processes that follow a rigorousmethodology privilegingquantifiable outcomes. It typically employscost-benefit analysis andrisk 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'sobjective andimpartial character, but its claims to value-neutrality and freedom from ideology are contested. Technocracy is normally considered a form ofelitism 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 termtechnocracy comes from theancient Greek wordsτέχνη (tekhne), meaning'skill' or'craft', andκράτος (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 thetechnocratic movement.[15]
Before the termtechnocracy was coined, technocratic or quasi-technocratic ideas involving governance by technical experts were promoted by various individuals, most notably early socialist theorists such asHenri 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 toDaniel 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][19]: 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 ofsystems analysis, later explored bycybernetics. InTectology, Bogdanov proposed unifying all social, biological, and physical sciences by considering them as systems of relationships and seeking organizational principles that underlie all systems.
ThePlatonic idea ofphilosopher-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 oftechnology 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 theSoviet Union has been referred to as a technocracy.[22] Soviet leaders likeLeonid Brezhnev often had a technical background. In 1986, 89% ofPolitburo members were engineers.[22]
In 2013, aEuropean Union library briefing on its legislative structure referred to theCommission as a "technocratic authority", holding a "legislative monopoly" over the EU lawmaking process.[28] The briefing suggests that this system, which elevates theEuropean 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 theCommission's sole right of legislative initiative is a power usually associated with Parliaments.
Several governments in Europeanparliamentary democracies have been labelled 'technocratic' based on the participation of unelected experts ('technocrats') in prominent positions.[2] Since the 1990s, Italy has hadseveral such governments (in Italian,governo tecnico) in times of economic or political crisis,[29][30] including the formation in which economistMario Monti presided over acabinet of unelectedprofessionals.[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 economistLucas 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 theTunisian National Dialogue Quartet, political parties inTunisia agreed to install a technocratic government led byMehdi Jomaa.[34]
The article "Technocrats: Minds Like Machines"[3] states thatSingapore 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 inWired by Sandy Sandfort,[40] where he describes the information technology system of the island as highly effective even during the early days.
Various academic discussions of technocracy examine its relation to other political ideologies, such asdemocracy. Democracy vests political power in the people. Citizens have the most immediate control indirect democracy, where they participate by voting on laws and policies. Inindirect 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 ofpolitical legitimacy anddecision-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, democraticaccountability 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 bydepoliticization, 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 orclass 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 aboutinstrumental 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 delegatemonetary 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 withpopulism, 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 emphasizesmass 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 theiranti-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 ofelitism, 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 withegalitarianism, which holds that all individuals should have equal political rights and opportunities.[54]
Technocracy is closely related tomeritocracy, 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] andmanagerialism, 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 personalfreedom,individual rights,tolerance, therule of law, and the protection ofprivate property.[61]Socialism prioritizeseconomic equality,social welfare, andcollective ownership.[62]Nationalism values social cohesion grounded innational 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 inneoliberal technocracy and technocratic socialism.[65]
Technocracy is typically contrasted withauthoritarianism, 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 totechno-authoritarianism.[66]
The American economist and sociologistThorstein Veblen was an early advocate of technocracy and was involved in theTechnical Alliance, as wereHoward Scott andM. King Hubbert (the latter of whom later developed the theory ofpeak 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.[67]Daniel Bell sees an affinity between Veblen and theTechnocracy movement.[68]
In 1932,Howard Scott andMarion King Hubbert foundedTechnocracy 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 anddebt.[1]
The technocracy movement was briefly popular in the US in the early 1930s during theGreat Depression. By the mid-1930s, interest in the movement was declining. Some historians have attributed the decline to the rise of Roosevelt'sNew Deal.[69][70]
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'.[71] Akin postulates that many technocrats remained vocal, dissatisfied, and often sympathetic to anti-New Deal third-party efforts.[72]
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 ofaristocracy while marginalizing the opinions and viewpoints of the general public.[73][74]
As major multinational technology corporations (e.g.,FAANG) swellmarket caps and customer counts, critiques of technocratic government in the 21st century see its manifestation inAmerican politics not as an "authoritarian nightmare of oppression and violence" but rather as anéminence grise: a democraticcabal directed byMark Zuckerberg and the entire cohort of "Big Tech" executives.[75][76] In his 1982Technology 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 ofThe Long Boom and the genesis of theInternet, following the1973–1975 recession.[77][78] Gunnel goes on to add three levels of analysis that delineate technology's political influence:
"Political power tends to gravitate towards technological elites".
"Technology has become autonomous" and thus impenetrable by political structures.
"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, andchauvinism".[77][79]
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.[77] Forty years after the publication of Gunnell's writings, technology and government have become, for better or for worse, increasingly intertwined.[80][81][82]Facebook can be considered a technocratic microcosm, a "technocratic nation-state" with acyberspatial population that surpasses any terrestrial nation.[83] 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".[84][85][86]
In a 2022 article published inBoston 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.[87] 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.
Algocracy, an alternative form of government or social ordering where the usage of computer algorithms is applied to regulations, law enforcement, and generally any aspect of everyday life such as transportation or land registration
^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]
^In a different sense, expertocracy can also mean that experts seize power from democratically elected officials.[57]
^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.JSTOR41802302.
^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.JSTOR654061.S2CID154544102.
^Wood, John (1993).The life of Thorstein Veblen and perspectives on his thought. introd. Thorstein Veblen. New York: Routledge. p. 369.ISBN978-0-415-07487-2.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.
^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.JSTOR2701484.
^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.
^Fisher, W.R. (1987).Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Bertsou, Eri; Caramani, Daniele (2020). "Measuring Technocracy". In Bertsou, Eri; Caramani, Daniele (eds.).The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy. Routledge. pp. 91–110.ISBN978-1-000-04360-0.
Bickerton, Christopher; Accetti, Carlo Invernizzi (2015). "Populism and Technocracy: Opposites or Complements?".Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.20 (2):1–21.doi:10.1080/13698230.2014.995504.
Bickerton, Christopher; Accetti, Carlo Invernizzi (2020). "Technocracy and Political Theory". In Bertsou, Eri; Caramani, Daniele (eds.).The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy. Routledge. pp. 29–43.ISBN978-1-000-04360-0.
Bickerton, Christopher J.; Accetti, Carlo Invernizzi (2021).Technopopulism: The New Logic of Democratic Politics. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-880776-6.
Brown, Garrett Wallace; McLean, Iain; McMillan, Alistair (2018).The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-967084-0.
Burris, Beverly H. (1993).Technocracy at Work. State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0-7914-1495-8.
Caramani, Daniele (2020). "Introduction". In Bertsou, Eri; Caramani, Daniele (eds.).The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy. Routledge. pp. 1–26.ISBN978-1-000-04360-0.
Centeno, Miguel Angel (1993). "The New Leviathan: The Dynamics and Limits of Technocracy".Theory and Society.22 (3):307–335.doi:10.1007/BF00993531.
Dunlop, Claire A.; Radaelli, Claudio M. (2020). "Technocracy and the Policy Process". In Bertsou, Eri; Caramani, Daniele (eds.).The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy. Routledge. pp. 183–196.ISBN978-1-000-04360-0.
Eagleton-Pierce, Matthew; Knafo, Samuel (2020). "Introduction: The Political Economy of Managerialism".Review of International Political Economy.27 (4):763–779.doi:10.1080/09692290.2020.1735478.
Fiala, Andrew (2015)."Glossary". In Fiala, Andrew (ed.).The Bloomsbury Companion to Political Philosophy. Bloomsbury. pp. 227–254.ISBN978-1-4411-1434-1.
Gilabert, Pablo; O'Neill, Martin (2024)."Socialism".The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved19 April 2025.
Gratton, Gabriele; Edenhofer, Jacob (2025). "The Rise and Fall of Technocratic Democracies: Unstable Majorities and Delegation to Technocrats".Journal of European Public Policy:1–30.doi:10.1080/13501763.2025.2576160.
Hill, Arthur; Moore, Margaret (2025). "Nationalism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred; Muldoon, Ryan (eds.).The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy (2nd ed.). Routledge. pp. 485–495.ISBN978-1-00-341159-8.
Hoffmann, Erik P.; Laird, Robbin Frederick (1985).Technocratic Socialism: The Soviet Union in the Advanced Industrial Era. Duke University Press.ISBN978-0-8223-0692-4.
OED staff (2026)."Technocracy, n."Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
Peron, Alcides Eduardo dos Reis; Almstadter Mattar de Magalhães, David; Caetano, Gabriel Fernandes (2025). "Beyond Digital Repression: Techno-authoritarianism in Radical Right Governments".Cogent Social Sciences.11 (1).doi:10.1080/23311886.2025.2528457.
Rummens, Stefan (2024). "Technocracy as a Thin Ideology".Constellations.31 (2):174–188.doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12676.
Russo, Silvia; Lalot, Fanny; Roccato, Michele (2025). "Support for Technocratic and Authoritarian Governance in Times of Crisis: The Role of Trust and COVID-19 Concerns".International Journal of Public Opinion Research.37 (3).doi:10.1093/ijpor/edaf042.
Sadowski, Jathan (2020). "Rediscovering a Risky Ideology: Technocracy and Its Effects on Technology Governance".Journal of Responsible Innovation.7 (sup1):112–116.doi:10.1080/23299460.2020.1816345.
Sánchez-Cuenca, Ignacio (2020). "Neoliberal Technocracy: The Challenge to Democratic Self-government". In Bertsou, Eri; Caramani, Daniele (eds.).The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy. Routledge. pp. 44–60.ISBN978-1-000-04360-0.
Selk, Veith (2025). "Expertocracy as Thin-centered Ideology: Theoretical Concepts and Empirical Illustrations".Political Research Exchange.7 (1).doi:10.1080/2474736X.2025.2575772.
Marion King Hubbert, Howard Scott, Technocracy Inc.,Technocracy Study Course Unabridged, New York, 1st Edition, 1934; 5th Edition, 1940, 4th printing, July 1945.
