The legitimacy of experts in policy: navigating technocratic and political accountability in the case of global poverty governance

Abstract

Background: The canonical view of expert legitimacy in policymaking links it to objectivity and autonomy from politics. Yet, in practice such ‘epistemic gains’ stemming from the separation of facts and values are problematic, as expert advice inherently combines political and technical considerations.Aims and objectives: This article addresses the puzzle of double – technocratic and political – legitimacy of experts by proposing a framework for understanding expert legitimacy as an interplay of three analytical levels: epistemic, individual actor and institutional. The paper explores this problem in the case study of global poverty measurement as a field located at the interface of science and policy.Methods: This is a comparative case study of poverty measurement in the World Bank and UNICEF. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 40 experts employed by the two organisations.Findings: The analysis posits expert legitimacy as constructed via navigation between specific practices of knowledge production, such as the production of policy-relevant and methodologically robust knowledge, a strategic distance between the research and the political setting aimed at extending or shortening the distance between experts and policymakers, and institutionalised cultures of evidence of the organisations through which expert advice is given.Discussion and conclusion: The paper offers a theorisation of expert legitimacy as symbiotic negotiation between technocratic and political modes of accountability which are irrevocably linked while remaining strategically separated.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>The legitimacy of experts is underpinned by a dual logic of political and technocratic accountability.</li><br /><li>The paper proposes expert legitimacy as an interplay of three levels: epistemic, individual actor and institutional.</li><br /><li>The tension between technocracy and politics is enacted on all three levels through practices of evidence production and exchange as well as institutional evidence culture.</li></ul>

Beyond Winners and Losers: Ranking Visualizations as Alignment Devices in Global Public Policy*

“…The rankings of poverty and wellbeing discussed in this paper operate in an institutional and political context that is shaped by ever-expanding infrastructures of measurement (Merry, 2019) and pressures to decolonize global governance (Rottenburg, 2009). This context is not only highly fragmented by the growing number of actors but it is also participatory, as it requires constant mediation and brokerage (Bandola-Gill, 2020;Grek, 2020). The extant literature has privileged the analysis of rankings in the consumer economy (e.g., Jeacle & Carter, 2011;Pollock et al, 2018;Pollock & D'Adderio, 2012) or in commodified higher education domains such as business schools and law schools (e.g., Elsbach & Kramer, 1996;Espeland & Sauder, 2007;Free et al, 2009;Hazelkorn, 2011).…”

“…However, the literature has privileged the study of rankings and the effects of their visualization in the consumer economy (Jeacle & Carter, 2011;Kornberger, 2017;Pollock & D'Adderio, 2012), in commodified higher education domains (Espeland & Sauder, 2007;Free, Salterio, & Shearer, 2009;Hazelkorn, 2011), and in public service delivery (e.g., Bevan & Wilson, 2013). Notably, the workings of rankings are particularly under-investigated in settings where the very notions of "winners and losers" and the hierarchical ordering of performance are politically and ethically sensitive (Bandola-Gill, 2020;Bhuta, Malito, & Umbach, 2018). In our study, we detail how and why the poverty and wellbeing rankings produced within the broader measurement infrastructure of the SDGs are visualized in interactive, indirect, and multivocal formats.…”

Knowledge Production for the SDGs: Developing the Global Indicators

“…These evaluatory practices of quantified knowledge production are by definition both technical and political. Building off the 'success' of the MDGs to entangle global policy agendas with quantified knowledge, the SDGs entangle technical and political accountabilities (Bandola-Gill, 2021;Fontdevila & Grek, 2021). As outlined in the 2011 Busan Action Plan, 'reliable and accessible statistics provide the evidence needed to improve decision making, document results, and heighten public accountability' (PARIS21, 2011, p. 2).…”

Expert Brokers: SDGs and the Emergence of New Forms of Expertise

“…Perhaps the most significant finding coming out of the METRO project was the fact that, despite an undeniable commitment to governance by numbers, IOs did not see themselves as 'producers' of statistics. Rather, they saw themselves as 'links' between a variety of actors, navigating the complexities of knowledge production on the one hand and the politics of number-making on the other (see Bandola-Gill, 2021). This does not mean that the experts completely abandoned their statistical and economic training-quite the opposite, they perceived their work to be knowledge-intensive and requiring high-level skills.…”