Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Technocratic Plimsoll Line

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#11

Post by Misdicorl »

andrewla wrote: post #2

I don't think the point here is wrong, but I think the line that is being drawn between "technocrats" and "political appointees" is too sharp. The article makes the point that sometimes a political appointment may be made on an aptitude basis rather than a social basis, so we should lump them together. But this is just a problem of trying to impose a taxonomy on reality, which is not going to be productive. The vast…

> Having Congress legislate and investigate where they can, and get out of the way where they can't, is generally a more robust policy than letting them defer to subject matter experts in areas where governmental action is relevant.

Isn't this exactly what the technocrat solution is? The technocrats go about their business as best they can. Congress can (and does, sometimes) intervene with new or updated laws whenever they deem the technocrats are not appropriately serving their function.

The issue (in the US anyways) is really that congress has completely abdicated their duty and deferred all work to either the presidency/judiciary and/or the technocrats/bureaucrats. Eliminating/curtailing the technocrats/buraeucrats doesn't make Congress work better, it just pushes them to cede more of their power to the other branches of government and thus even further into the autocratic hellscape.

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#12

Post by andrewla »

Misdicorl wrote: post #11
andrewla wrote: post #2

I don't think the point here is wrong, but I think the line that is being drawn between "technocrats" and "political appointees" is too sharp. The article makes the point that sometimes a political appointment may be made on an aptitude basis rather than a social basis, so we should lump them together. But this is just a problem of trying to impose a taxonomy on reality, which is not going to be productive. The vast…

> Having Congress legislate and investigate where they can, and get out of the way where they can't, is generally a more robust policy than letting them defer to subject matter experts in areas where governmental action is relevant. Isn't this exactly what the technocrat solution is? The technocrats go about their business as best they can. Congress can (and does, sometimes) intervene with new or updated laws wheneve…

By "get out of the way where they can't" I mean that the government should simply forfeit its authority and say that this is a realm of commerce or activity where there is no need for government intervention. Not that they should "get out of the way" by creating technocratic bodies.

I agree wholeheartedly that congress has completely abdicated their duty and actively refuses to wield power directly. Regarding deferring to the president, there are two approaches to that, one is to create rule-making bodies that are associated with the executive, and the other is to directly legislate to make clear what things are illegal.

The former approach is flawed for many reasons, but most notably because a regulatory body will always focus its efforts on "pre-crime"; to try to guarantee that it is structurally impossible to commit a crime, rather than trying and convicting individuals or organizations with crimes. Once this process is captured, it serves only as a moat for existing players in the space, to prevent new organizations from arising that offer innovation in that space by forcing them to structure their businesses in the "industry-standard" way. And they will spend the remainder of their time trying to create structures within their realm to enforce legibility.

The latter approach (laws -> enforcement) is fine. It allows discretion around the margins and forces accountability for causing harm, or, in some narrow cases, from dangerous recklessness in areas that have a great deal of potential harm in the tails.

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#13

Post by hypersoar »

> In any case, the point I am trying to make is that in every state, in every business or organization there's a certain horizontal line separating political appointees on the top from the technocrats on the bottom.

> ...

> One way or another, the line seems to objectively exist. It's hard, for example, to think of an organization where the political appointees are at the bottom of the hierarchy and the technocrats on the top.

This is an almost tautological realization. When people talk about "politics" in this context, they mean in the sense of (pulling from OED) "actions concerned with the acquisition or exercise of power, status, or authority." Who are the people at an institution who have the power, status, and authority? Well, it tends to be the ones interested in actions concerning it. There's nothing that says such people can't be subject-matter experts. But if you lock yourself in the proverbial basement and ignore the power structure, then you're less likely to take an active role in it.

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#14

Post by eternalban »

"For the purpose of this article, technocracy, bureaucracy and meritocracy are the same thing: It's a class of people who got their jobs based on their capabilities. The counterpart is the political class, the people who get their jobs based on their political views and/or their loyalty."

It seems to me that this basically begs the question of whether "merit" is an objective measure in a politicized society. Beyond that immediate critique, it is rather sloppy to equate facility with a domain of techne (technocracy) with facility in an organizational setting (bureaucracy), and a political system (meritocracy).

Alphabet Inc. is a nascent form of global technocracy. CIA is an established above-the-law bureaucracy. Meritocracy is a political system, with CPC possibly a legitimate du jour [overt] example. (We do have the equivalent of CPC and meritocracy in the West but it is entirely occult (in the strict sense of the word) and behind the curtain ala Wizard of Oz.)

[p.s.]

To address any possible misunderstanding regarding my comment and view point in context of the operative political regime in the (so called) Western world, note that it is informed by a historical scope that by necessity starts at the Reformation in Europe. I am of the opinion that a political perspective that is framed by contemporary personalities and events is hopelessly myopic and distorted.

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#15

Post by uncomputation »

This is an amazing start… that goes nowhere. The author says we can analyze the Plimsoll line and then doesn’t except for one case in Google based on personal experience. It would be very interesting to see an analysis of boards of directors, executive boards, etc. But I also see people’s points that it’s not much of a “line” in reality. Take Craig Federighi, Apple’s SW VP. It’s obviously a mix between “appointee” (knowing the right people) and “technocrat” (demonstrated skill working in software engineering). Same with government. Saying the “political class” is appointed based on “political affiliation” is not quite right. How do you distinguish Nancy Pelosi from the average California democrat? Political expertise and experience, which is technocratic acc. to the article. Even someone like Trump, there is a certain “skill” there in public manipulation and sheep-herding. I’d gladly read a more in-depth second take.

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#16

Post by sideshowb »

jameshart wrote: post #5

This seems to just be amateur idle musing, masquerading as political philosophy. > the technocratic Plimsoll line phenomenon is a fact of life. As such it can become a subject of research. Well: 1) it’s not a ‘fact of life’, as described. It’s a very simplified, Western-centric view that assumes certain things about rule of law and the nature of political accountability and maps loosely onto some organizations, yet d…

It's easy to criticise, but I'd be interested to know 1. Some key ways in which this model breaks down outside of the West, 2. A good summary of the literature you mention?

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#17

Post by Ericson2314 »

jessriedel wrote: post #7
ajb wrote: post #4

"Why can't the political appointees and the technocrats be formally separated in the same way as the executive, the legislative and the judiciary? " In the UK, this is formally the case. The Civil Service is below the line, Ministers and 'political advisers' are above it. Civil Servants are legally barred from standing for election and have a duty to be politically neutral. However for this reason the Civil Service c…

It's also the case in the US too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_th... It's pretty clearly established at each agency which positions are turned over when a new administration gains power and which are protected as non-political, and this interacts with the formal rules (e.g., you need cause to fire non-political positions but not political ones). Perhaps the author of the post is arguing t…

Thanks to this thread for pointing out that in multiple governments the distinction is in fact formal.

I am tempted to grumble that, once again, the rationalists are ignorant of the ways the world actually works.

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#18

Post by rendang »

eternalban wrote: post #14

"For the purpose of this article, technocracy, bureaucracy and meritocracy are the same thing: It's a class of people who got their jobs based on their capabilities. The counterpart is the political class, the people who get their jobs based on their political views and/or their loyalty." It seems to me that this basically begs the question of whether "merit" is an objective measure in a politicized society. Beyond t…

In what manner does Alphabet Inc. represent technocracy? What do they rule over? Do you mean that they have a great deal of indirect power over the lives of the people who use their products?

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#19

Post by mattkrause »

wahern wrote: post #3
andrewla wrote: post #2

I don't think the point here is wrong, but I think the line that is being drawn between "technocrats" and "political appointees" is too sharp. The article makes the point that sometimes a political appointment may be made on an aptitude basis rather than a social basis, so we should lump them together. But this is just a problem of trying to impose a taxonomy on reality, which is not going to be productive. The vast…

> The vast majority of technocrats in government service are political appointees chosen "Vast majority" seems like an exaggeration. But your point is exactly the first thing that came to mind, particularly when the author said that we should study the phenomenon of technocratic power. People do study it; that's how we get terms like regulatory capture.

Yeah, that can't possibly be correct.

The Department of Defense employs two million people, and literally none of them are empowered to start a war.

There are a lot of experts in munitions and logistics and everything else and job is to inform and execute the decisions made by the political parts of the government. Their counterparts elsewhere in the Civil Service do the same.

It seems kind of obvious to me that a democracy has to have this structure: if the technocrats were directly setting high-level policy, what would the political appointees even do? Likewise, you need more implementers than steer-era.

Re: Technocratic Plimsoll Line

#20

Post by jameshart »

sideshowb wrote: post #16
jameshart wrote: post #5

This seems to just be amateur idle musing, masquerading as political philosophy. > the technocratic Plimsoll line phenomenon is a fact of life. As such it can become a subject of research. Well: 1) it’s not a ‘fact of life’, as described. It’s a very simplified, Western-centric view that assumes certain things about rule of law and the nature of political accountability and maps loosely onto some organizations, yet d…

It's easy to criticise, but I'd be interested to know 1. Some key ways in which this model breaks down outside of the West, 2. A good summary of the literature you mention?

It doesn’t break down outside the west - it doesn’t even understand how this dynamic plays out in the west.

Look at the terms of reference here: “Why can't the political appointees and the technocrats be formally separated in the same way as the executive, the legislative and the judiciary?” - I mean, this is laughable. It asks why something can’t be done that manifestly is done in many government systems. It takes as a given though that executive, legislative and judiciary separation is always practiced, which is a little like assuming you have the right to remain silent when arrested everywhere in the world.

As an example of the kind of system that this simple dividing line with politicians on top and technocrats below breaks down, look at the role of organizations like the military in Pakistan, Turkey or Thailand - or of theocratic bodies in countries like Iran.

For the kicker, consider the reporting in this Axios article about the relationship between the Trump whitehouse and the Pentagon bureaucracy: https://www.axios.com/off-the-rails-trump-military-withdraw-... - and map that to a simple horizontal line with politicians on top and technocrats below.

As for a literature survey - I mean, bureaucracy or ‘administration studies’ is practically a sub-field of political science. It’s probably the subject of a lecture in most intro level undergrad classes, and I’d expect a decent political science program to have one or two upper level classes on the subject. Comparative politics might be a fruitful topic to search on. There are journals. This is not untrodden material.

Post reply on HN