Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:24:06.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IDEE E CONOSCENZA NELLE POLITICHE PUBBLICHE EUROPEE: TECNOCRAZIA O POLITICIZZAZIONE?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2018

Claudio M. Radaelli

Introduzione

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

La conoscenza nelle politiche pubbliche dell'Unione europea: un vantaggio a metà?

Come spesso accade, l'interesse attuale per la dimensione cognitiva della politica rappresenta più una riscoperta che una novità assoluta. In senso lato, essa comprende filoni ben noti, addirittura classici, degli studi politici. Lo dimostra la ricca letteratura su temi diversi quali l'incrementalismo (Lindblom 1959), la razionalità limitata (Simon 1957), le mappe cognitive delle élites politiche (Axelrod 1976), la concezione dei meccanismi di governo come apprendimento (Deutsch 1966, 80; Heclo 1972), il cosiddetto «complesso militare-industriale» (Rosen 1973), e la tecnocrazia (Fisichella 1997). Perché dunque «riscoprire» il ruolo politico della conoscenza? O meglio, qual è il potenziale di studi i quali, sia nell'ambito dell'analisi sulle politiche pubbliche (Capano 1995; Radaelli 1997) sia nelle relazioni internazionali (Jacobsen 1995), reclamano una maggiore considerazione per i fattori cognitivi nelle scelte di policy? Quanto sono efficaci nella spiegazione del cambiamento {policy change)? E, da ultimo, come possono essere valutati da un punto di vista normativo? Una delle idee cardine della prospettiva cognitiva è che la politica vada oltre la semplice risoluzione dei conflitti. L'apprendimento, la propensione alla soluzione dei problemi, i fora di discussione e il policy enlightenment - si sostiene - possono contare più della politica basata su stili conflittuali. La politica sta forse superando il modello della democrazia competiti- va-awersariale?

Summary

Summary

The role of expertise in European public policy has become the object of a passionate debate. On the one hand, it has been argued that knowledge, in various guises, can foster learning, enlightenment, problem-solving attitudes, and policy change. On the other, the public policy of the European Union (EU) is in the firing line because of its technocratic bias. However, what is meant by technocracy in the case of the EU? How can political scientists be fascinated by the positive input of knowledge, and, at the same time, horrified by technocratic policy-making? The aim in this article is to tackle this puzzle by suggesting a conceptual framework. Concepts such as technocracy, epistemic communities, and bureaucratic politics refer to different modes of the politics of expertise. Empirically, they should be contrasted with the logic of politicization. Case studies discussed in this article suggest that the power of expertise is being counterbalanced by a process of politicization. The conclusion is that the main challenge is neither to preserve an unattainable de-politicized Union nor to assume that politicization will tame technocracy, but to make expertise more accountable in an increasingly politicized environment.

Type
Ricerche
Information
Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , December 1999 , pp. 517 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by Società editrice il Mulino, Bologna 

References

Riferimenti bibliografici

Adler, E. e Haas, P.M. (1992), Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program, in P.M. Haas (1992), pp. 367–390.Google Scholar
Allison, G.A. (1971), The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Boston, Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Andersen, S.S. e Burns, T. (1996), The European Union and the erosion of parliamentary democracy: A study of post-parliamentary Google Scholar
12 Majone (1996, cap. 13) sostiene che la legittimità procedurale implica, fra le altre cose, procedure democratiche per la definizione degli obiettivi e del potere dei regolatori, e il requisito che costoro giustifichino le decisioni che hanno assunto. Quest'ultimo requisito — contenuto nell'art. 190 del Trattato di Roma — stimola la partecipazione pubblica, il controllo dei pari, e un ricorso sistematico all'analisi delle politiche pubbliche. Ciò rende le decisioni del regolatore soggette anche al controllo giudiziario. governance in S.S. Andersen e K.A. Eliassen (a cura di), The European Union: How Democratic Is It?, London, Sage, pp. 227–251.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1976), Structure of Decision. The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites, Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Boston, J. (1988), Advising the Prime Minister in New Zealand: the origins, functions and evolution of the Prime Minister's advisory group, in «Politics», n. 1, pp. 8–20.Google Scholar
Burris, B. (1993), Technocracy at Work, New York, State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (1995), Transnational Relations and the Development of European EMU, in Risse-Kappen, T. (a cura di), Bringing Transnational Relations Back In, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–78.Google Scholar
Capano, G. (1995), Il Policy change: tra politica delle idee e politica degli interessi, in «Teoria Politica», n. 1, pp. 133–165.Google Scholar
Caporaso, J. (1996), The European Union and Forms of State: Westphalian, Regulatory or Post-Modern?, in «Journal of Common Market Studies», n. 1, pp. 29–52.Google Scholar
Cini, M. (1996), La Commission Europenne: Lieu d'émergence de cultures administratives. L'exemple de la DG IV et de la DG XI, in «Revue Française de Science Politique», n. 3, pp. 457–472.Google Scholar
Coen, D. (1997), The evolution of the large firm as a political actor in the European Union, in «Journal of European Public Policy», n. 1, pp. 91–108.Google Scholar
Cram, L. (1993), Calling the tune without paying the piper? Social policy regulation: the role of the Commission in European Community social policy, in «Policy and Politics», n. 2, pp. 135–146.Google Scholar
Dehousse, R. (1997), Regulation by networks in the European Community: the role of European agencies, in «Journal of European Public Policy», n. 2, pp. 246–261.Google Scholar
Dehousse, R. (1998), European Institutional Architecture after Amsterdam: Parliamentary System or Regulatory Structure?, Working Paper n. 98/11, Firenze, Robert Schuman Centre, European University Institute.Google Scholar
Deutsch, K.W. (1966), The Nerves of Government, New York, The Free Press.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1967), Inside Bureaucracy, Boston, Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Dyson, K. (1994), Elusive Union, Harlow, Longman.Google Scholar
Dyson, K. e Featherstone, K. (1999), The Road to Maastricht. Negotiating the Maastricht Treaty, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Featherstone, K. (1994), Jean Monnet and the Democratic Deficit in the EU, in «Journal of Common Market Studies», n. 2, pp. 149–170.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. (1990), Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise, London, Sage.Google Scholar
Fisichella, D. (1997), L'Altro Potere. Tecnocrazia e Gruppi di Pressione, Roma-Bari, Laterza.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J.K. (1967), The New Industrial State, Boston, Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge, Polity Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. (1993), Ideas, Interests, and American Trade Policy, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Giuliani, M. (1998), Sul concetto di imprenditore di policy, in «Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica», n. 2, pp. 357–378.Google Scholar
Haas, E. (1958), The Uniting of Europe, Stanford, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, P.M. (a cura di) (1992), Knowledge, Power and International Policy Coordination, in «International Organisation», Monographic Issue, n. 1.Google Scholar
Harcourt, A.J. (1998), EU media concentration. The conflict over the definition of alternatives, in «Journal of Common Market Studies», n. 3, pp. 369–389.Google Scholar
Harcourt, A.J. e Radaelli, C.M. (1999), Limits to EU technocratic regulation?, in «European Journal of Political Research», n. 1, pp. 107–122.Google Scholar
Heclo, H. (1972), Review article: policy analysis, in «British Journal of Political Science», n. 2, pp. 83–108.Google Scholar
Heclo, H. (1974), Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden, New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Humphreys, P. (1996), Media and Media Policy in Western Europe, Manchester, Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, J.K. (1995), Much ado about ideas. The cognitive factor in economic policy, in «World Politics», pp. 283–310.Google Scholar
Jobert, B. (1989), The normative frameworks of public policy, in «Political Studies», pp. 376–386.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C.E. (1959), The science of muddling through, in «Public Administration», n. 1, pp. 78–88.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C.E. (1990), Inquiry and Change. The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society, New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Majone, G.D. (a cura di) (1996), Regulating Europe, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Majone, G.D. (1999), The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems, in «West European Politics», n. 1, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
McNamara, K.R. (1998), The Currency of Ideas. Monetary Politics in the European Union, Ithaca-London, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Meynaud, J. (1969), Technocracy, New York, The Free Press.Google Scholar
Monnet, J. (1978), Memoirs, London, Collins.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1998), The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, London, Ucl Press.Google Scholar
Muller, P. (1995), Les politiques publiques comme construction d'un rapport au monde, in Faure, A., Pollet, G., e Warin, P. (a cura di), La Construction du Sens dans les Politiques Publiques. Débats autour de la Notion de Référentiel, Paris, L'Harmattan, pp. 153–179.Google Scholar
Oecd (1997), The Oecd Report on Regulatory Reform, Paris, Oecd Publications.Google Scholar
O'Neill, M. (1999), Between regime and republic: The polity problem in the European Union, Paper presented to the Uaces-Cespg-Amlrf workshop on The state of the art: theoretical approaches to the EU in the post-Amsterdam era , Birmingham, Aston University, 6-7 maggio.Google Scholar
Page, E. (1997), People who Run Europe, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, G.B. (1992), Bureaucratic politics and the institutions of the European Community, in Sbragia, A. (a cura di), Europolitics. Institutions and Policy-Making in the ‘New’ European Community, Washington, Brookings, pp. 75–122.Google Scholar
Peters, G.B. (1994), Agenda-setting in the European Community, in «Journal of European Public Policy», n. 1, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar
Peterson, J. (1992), The European Technology Community Policy Networks in a Supranational Setting in D. Marsh e R.A.W. Rhodes (a cura di), Policy Networks in British Government, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. (1977), Elite transformation in advanced industrial societies: an empirical assessment of the theory of technocracy, in «Comparative Political Studies», n. 3, pp. 383–412.Google Scholar
Radaelli, C.M. (1997), The Politics of Corporate Taxation in the European Union. Knowledge and International Policy Agendas, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Radaelli, C.M. (1999), Technocracy in the European Union, London, Longman.Google Scholar
Radaelli, C.M. (in corso di stampa), Steering the EU regulatory system: the challenges ahead, in «Public Administration», n. 4.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.J. (1995), Eu water policy. Uncertain agendas, shifting networks, and complex coalitions, in H. Bressers, L. O'Toole e J.J. Richardson (a cura di), Networks for water policy, Special issue di «Environmental Politics», pp. 139–167.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.J. (1996), Policy-making in the EU: ideas and garbage-cans of primeval soup, in Richardson, J.J. (a cura di), The European Union: Power and Policy-Making, London, Routledge, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. (a cura di) (1973), Testing the Theory of the Military-Industrial Complex, Lexington (Mass.), Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P.A. e Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (a cura di) (1993), Policy Change and Learning. An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder, Westview.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P.A. (1998), The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe, in «Journal of European Public Policy», n. 1, pp. 98–130.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1987), The Theory of Democracy Revisited, Chatham, Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Schmitter, P. (1999), Come e perché democratizzare l'Unione europea, Bologna, Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Schön, D. e Rein, M. (1994), Frame Reflection, New York, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Sclove, R.E. (1995), Democracy and Technology, New York, Guilford.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1957), Models of Man, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Stone, D., Denham, A. e Garnett, M. (a cura di) (1998), Think Tanks across the World. A Comparative Perspective, Manchester, Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, M., Ellis, R. e Wildavski, A. (1990), Cultural Theory, Boulder, Westview Press.Google Scholar
Verdun, A. (1999), The role of the Delors Committee in the creation of EMU: An epistemic community?, in «Journal of European Public Policy», n. 3, pp. 308–328.Google Scholar
Wallace, W. e Smith, J. (1995), Democracy or technocracy? European integration and the problem of popular consent, in «West European Politics», n. 3, pp. 137–157.Google Scholar
Wallis, J. (1997), Conspiracy and the policy process: a case study of the New Zealand Experiment, in «Journal of Public Policy», n. 1, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Wendt, A.E. (1987), The agent-structure problem in international relations theory, in «International Organization», n. 3, pp. 441–473.Google Scholar
Williams, R. (1971), Politics and Technology, Basingstoke, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wincott, D. (1998), Does the EU pervert democracy? Questions of democracy in new constitutionalist thought on the future of Europe, in «European Law Journal», n. 4, pp. 411–428.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research, London, Sage, II ed.Google Scholar
Zito, A. (1998), Epistemic Communities and European Integration, Paper prepared for Ecpr Workshop n. 22 on The Role of Ideas in Policy-making, Ecpr 26th Joint Sessions of Workshops, University of Warwick, 23-28 marzo.Google Scholar