Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:28:27.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polycentric Limited Epistocracy: Political Expertise and the Wiki-Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2020

Aylon Manor Open the ORCID record for Aylon Manor [Opens in a new window]
Aylon Manor*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Democracy has recently been criticized by several philosophers on grounds of poor epistemic performance. The proposed alternative – epistocracy – faces criticism for failing to uphold and express the core democratic values of civic equality and individual autonomy. In response, proposals have been offered that try to achieve epistocratic performance while retaining democratic inclusion. This paper raises two problems for such proposals, relating to the selection of experts and the incentive-compatibility of the system. Given these failures, I sketch what I call the Wiki-Model. I argue that the Wiki-Model (i) has desirable epistemic properties; (ii) realizes our democratic ideals; while also (iii) avoiding the two problems that other hybrid models face.

Keywords

DemocracyepistocracyJeffreyWikipediapolycentricityinstitutional design
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 1 - 20
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aitamurto, T. and Landemore, H.E. (2015). ‘Five Design Principles for Crowdsourced Policymaking: Assessing the Case of Crowdsourced Off-road Traffic Law in Finland.’ Journal of Social Media for Organizations 2(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Aligica, P.D. (2018). ‘Civic Competence, Self-Governance, and the New Epistocratic Paternalism: An Ostromanian Perspective.’ The Good Society 26(2–3), 202–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aligica, P.D. and Tarko, V. (2012). ‘Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and Beyond.’ Governance 25(2), 237–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aligica, P.D. and Tarko, V. (2013). ‘Co-production, Polycentricity, and Value Heterogeneity: The Ostroms’ Public Choice Institutionalism Revisited.’ American Political Science Review 107(4), 726–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. (2011). ‘Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony.’ Episteme 8(2), 144–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayers, P, Matthews, C. and Yates, B. (2008). How Wikipedia Works. No Starch Press.Google Scholar
Bagg, S. (2018). ‘The Power of the Multitude: Answering Epistemic Challenges to Democracy.’ American Political Science Review 112(4), 891–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D.A. (2016). The China Model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brabham, D.C. (2013a). Crowdsourcing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brabham, D.C. (2013b). Using Crowdsourcing in Government. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J. (2016). Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, B. (2007). The Myth of the Rational Voter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Christiano, T. (2008). The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, T. (2018). ‘Democracy.’ In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/democracy/.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Estlund, D. (2003). ‘Why not Epistocracy.’ In Reshotko, N. (ed.), Desire, Identity and Existence: Essays in Honor of TM Penner, pp. 53–69. Kelowna, BC: Academic Printing & Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, D. (2007). Democratic Authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fallis, D. (2008). ‘Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia.’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(10), 1662–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaus, G.F. (2010). The Order of Public Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, J. (2005). ‘Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head.’ Nature 438, 900–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodin, R.E. and Spiekermann, K. (2018). An Epistemic Theory of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F.A. (1945). ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society.’ American Economic Review 35(4), 519–30.Google Scholar
Hong, L. and Page, S.E. (2004). ‘Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers can Outperform Groups of High-ability Problem Solvers.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101(46), 16385–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeffrey, A. (2018). ‘Limited Epistocracy and Political Inclusion.’ Episteme 15(4), 412–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laffont, J.J. and Tirole, J. (1991). ‘The Politics of Government Decision-making: A Theory of Regulatory Capture.’ Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4), 1089–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landa, D. and Pevnick, R. (2019). ‘Representative Democracy as Defensible Epistocracy.’ American Political Science Review. doi: 10.1017/S0003055419000509.Google Scholar
Landemore, H. (2012). ‘Democratic Reason.’ In Elster, J. and Landemore, H. (eds), Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, H. (2015). ‘Inclusive Constitution-making: The Icelandic Experiment.’ Journal of Political Philosophy 23(2), 166–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, H. (2017). Democratic Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lathrop, D. and Ruma, L. (2010). Open Government. O'Reilly Media.Google Scholar
López-Guerra, C. (2014). Democracy and Disenfranchisement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, P.D. (2009). ‘On Trusting Wikipedia.’ Episteme 6(1), 74–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelberg, T. (2002). ‘The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence.’ Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation 6(1), 151–193.Google Scholar
Noveck, B.S. (2009). Wiki Government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Noveck, B.S. (2015). Smart Citizens, Smarter State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, E. (1999). ‘The Cathedral and the Bazaar.’ Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 12(3), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffon, M.P. and Urbinati, N. (2013). ‘Procedural Democracy, The Bulwark of Equal Liberty.’ Political Theory 41(3), 441–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzberg, M. (2015). ‘Epistemic Democracy and its Challenges.’ Annual Review of Political Science 18, 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somin, I. (2013). Democracy and Political Ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Stigler, G.J. (1971). ‘The Theory of Economic Regulation.’ Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surowiecki, J. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (2005). ‘The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review.’ Yale Law Journal 115, 1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar