Strategies for repairing legitimacy deficits

Abstract

Depoliticised decision-making is intrinsic to the rise of the administrative state. The seclusion of regulatory power became a distinctive ingredient of modern government that emerged during the twentieth century, first in the United States and later in Europe. This development raises accountability problems. Non-majoritarian institutions (NOMIS) such as agencies and central banks cannot simply defer to political, judicial or bureaucratic power. NOMIS operate within large zones of discretion and also deal with values and policy ends, not only means, and hence legitimacy problems. By bringing together different research traditions this chapter identifies three different ways of mending the legitimacy problems: the evidence-based strategy, the legislators’ command strategy and the participatory strategy. These strategies all come with shortcomings. They build on unrealistic presuppositions about the relationship between expertise and politics, and they do not abolish the legitimacy deficits. They do not adjust for the fact that NOMIS are specialised not only on means-ends relations but on the viability and justifiability of political ends, as well. This analysis paves the way for the public reason approach. NOMIS are not simply obeying and specifying political directives but are involved in public reasoning on the basis of an independent knowledge base.