What is epistocracy?

Dimensions of knowledge-based rule


The role of knowledge in political decision-making has been a central topic in political theory and social science for centuries. One central branch of these discussions has focused on the role of religious knowledge and authority in political rule and variations of “theocracy” or “rule of priests”.1 However, the central knowledge basis of a society or a political system is not necessarily of a religious kind. Arguably, in many contemporary societies the most crucial knowledge source is scientific and professional knowledge.


European Union Procedural Justification Limit State Function Political Rule Comprehensive Doctrine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Collins, H. & R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Curtin, D. 2009. Executive Power of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eisenstadt, S.N. 2002. Multiple Modernities. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Eriksen, E. 2009. The Unfinished Democratization of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Estlund, D. 2003. Why not Epistocracy? In N. Reshotko (ed.). Desire, Identity and Existence. Essays in Honor of T. M. Penner. Kelowna, B.C.: Academic Printing & Publishing. 53–69.Google Scholar
  6. Estlund, D. 2008. Democratic Authority. A Philosophical Framework. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Giddens, A. 1991. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Habermas, J. 1981. Modernity versus Postmodernity. In New German Critique 22.Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume I: Reason and Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  10. Habermas, J. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume II: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, J. 1999. Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, J. 2008. Between Naturalism and Religion. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kitcher, P. 2003. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kitcher, P. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  15. Longino, H. 2003. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lovenduski, J. 2006. State Feminism and Political Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Luhmann, N. 1984. Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  18. Meehan, J. (ed.). 1995. Feminists Read Habermas. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Nutley, S. M. et al. 2000. What Works? Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Parsons, T. 1971. The System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Rawls, J. 1997. The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. In The University of Chicago Law Review, 64, (3): 765–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rawls, J. 1999 [1971]. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Schumpeter, J.A. 2005 [1942]. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  24. Skirbekk, G. 2007. Timely Thoughts. Modern Challenges and Philosophical Responses. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  25. Slaughter, A.-M. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Steiner, J. et al. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sverdrup, U. & Å. Gornitzka. 2010. Enlightened Decision Making? The Role of Scientists in EU Governance. In Politique europeenne, 32: 125–149.Google Scholar
  28. Taylor, C. 2008. A Secular Age. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Van der Vleuten, A. 2007. The Price of Gender Equality. Member States and Governance in the EU. London: Ashgate. Google Scholar
  30. Wolff, J. 2011. Ethics & Public Policy. A Philosophical Inquiry. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Wageningen Academic Publishers 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for European Studies and Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of Sociology and Human GeographyUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations