The Epistemic Value of Democratic Meritocracy

References

• Agmon, S. 2022. “Two Concepts of Competition.” Ethics 133 (1): 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1086/720779.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ancell, A. 2017. “Democracy Isn’t That Smart (But We Can Make it Smarter): On Landemore’s Democratic Reason.” Episteme 14 (2): 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2015.67.
   Google Scholar
• Bagg, S. 2018. “The Power of the Multitude: Answering Epistemic Challenges to Democracy.” The American Political Science Review 112 (4): 891–904.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagg, S. 2022. “Sortition as Anti-Corruption: Popular Oversight against Elite Capture.” American Journal of Political Science 68: 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12704.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bai, T. 2008. “A Mencian Version of Limited Democracy.” Res Publica 14 (1): 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-008-9046-2.
   Google Scholar
• Bai, T. 2020. Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, D. A. 2006. Beyond Liberal Democracy: Political Thinking for an East Asian Context. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, D. A. 2013. “Introduction: The Theory, History, and Practice of Political Meritocracy.” In The East Asian Challenge for Democracy: Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective, edited by D. A. Bell and C. Li, 1–27. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, D. A. 2015. The China Model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, D. A., and W. Pei. 2020. Just Hierarchies: Why Social Hierarchies Matter in China and the Rest of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benson, J. 2021. “The Epistemic Value of Deliberative Democracy: How Far Can Diversity Take Us?” Synthese 199 (3–4): 8257–8279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03161-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitton, M. 2022. “Mini‑Publics and Political Meritocracy: Towards a New China Model.” Chinese Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00228-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, J. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, J. 2007. “Democracy and Meritocracy: Toward a Confucian Perspective.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 34 (2): 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1163/15406253-03402004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, J. 2013a. Confucian Perfectionism: A Political Philosophy for Modern Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, J. 2013b. “Political Meritocracy and Meritorious Rule.” In The East Asian Challenge for Democracy: Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective, edited by D. A. Bell and C. Li, 31–54. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Converse, P. E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by D E. Apter, 206–261. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dowlen, O. 2008. The Political Potential of Sortition: A Study of the Random Selection of Citizens for Public Office. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Doyon, J., and B. K. Franziska. 2020. “Knowing the Wrong Cadre? Networks and Promotions in the Chinese Party-State.” Political Studies 68 (4): 1036–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719888854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, J. 2006. “Democratic Competence in Normative and Positive Theory: Neglected Implications of “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics”.” Critical Review 18 (1–3): 1–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fumagalli, C. 2023. “Stability in Liberal Epistocracies.” Social Epistemology 37 (1): 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2022.2131482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E., and K. Spiekermann. 2018. An Epistemic Theory of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gunn, P. 2019. “Against Epistocracy.” Critical Review 31 (1): 26–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2019.1609842.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannon, M. 2022. “Are Knowledgeable Voters Better Voters?” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 21 (1): 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X211065080.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayek, F. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” American Economic Review 35 (4): 519–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, L., and S. E. Page. 2004. “Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (46): 16385–16389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403723101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussain, W. 2020. “Pitting People Against Each Other.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 48 (1): 79–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingham, S. 2022. ”Representative Democracy and Social Equality.” The American Political Science Review 116 (2): 689–701.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeffrey, A. 2018. “Limited Epistocracy and Political Inclusion.” Episteme 15 (4): 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2017.8.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, S. 2016. Public Reason Confucianism: Democratic Perfectionism and Constitutionalism in East Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kogelmann, B. 2022. “Finding the Epistocrats.” Episteme 20: 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2022.18.
   Google Scholar
• Landa, D., and R. Pevnick. 2018. “What Role Can Equality Play in the Justification of Representative Democracy?” Working Paper.
   Google Scholar
• Landa, D., and R. Pevnick. 2020. “Representative Democracy As Defensible Epistocracy.” The American Political Science Review 114 (1): 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H., and J. Brennan. 2022. Debating Democracy: Do We Need More or Less? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H., and S. Page. 2015. “Deliberation and Disagreement: Problem Solving, Prediction, and Positive Dissensus.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 14 (3): 229–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X14544284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landry, P. F., X. Lü, and H. Duan. 2018. “Does Performance Matter? Evaluating Political Selection Along the Chinese Administrative Ladder.” Comparative Political Studies 51 (8): 1074–1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017730078.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, C. 2019. “Missing Links in the China Model.” Philosophy East and West 69 (2): 568–576. https://doi.org/10.1353/pew.2019.0041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manor, A. 2022. “Polycentric Limited Epistocracy: Political Expertise and the Wiki-Model.” Episteme 19 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2020.3.
   Google Scholar
• Méndez, M. P. 2022. “An Epistemic Problem for Epistocracy.” Social Epistemology 36 (2): 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2021.1992531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, T. A. 2005. A Cloud Across the Pacific: Essays on the Clash Between Chinese and Western Political Theories Today. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.
   Google Scholar
• Muirhead, R. 2014. “The Politics of Getting it Right.” Critical Review 26 (1–2): 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2014.907045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulligan, T. 2018. “Plural Voting for the Twenty-First Century.” The Philosophical Quarterly 68 (271): 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqx046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Dwyer, S. 2015. “Epistemic Elitism, paternalism, and Confucian Democracy.” Dao 14 (1): 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-014-9415-9.
   Google Scholar
• Pitkin, H. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raz, J. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartzberg, M. 2019. “Sheep May Safely Graze: On the Instrumental Justification of Democracy.” Unpublished manuscript. Accessed April 9, 2019. https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Colloquium_SchwartzbergSheep.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Shin, D. C. 2012. Confucianism and Democratization in East Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shin, D. C. 2013. “How East Asians View Meritocracy: A Confucian Perspective.” In The East Asian Challenge for Democracy: Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective, edited by D. A. Bell and C. Li, 259–287. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sintomer, Y. 2023. The Government of Chance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stalnaker, A. 2019. Mastery, Dependence, and the Ethics of Authority. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., and M. Lodge. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, M., J. Chan, and D. C. Shin. 2016. “Political Legitimacy in East Asia: Bridging Normative and Empirical Analysis.” In East Asian Perspectives on Political Legitimacy: Bridging the Empirical-Normative Divide, edited by J. Chan, D. C. Shin, and M. Williams, 1–24. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Xiao, H., and C. Li. 2013. “China’s Meritocratic Examinations and the Ideal of Virtuous Talents.” In The East Asian Challenge for Democracy: Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective, edited by D. A. Bell and C. Li, 340–362. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zaller, J. 2004. “Floating Voters in US Presidential Elections, 1948–2000.” In Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, edited by W. E. Saris and P. M Sniderman, 166–212. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ziliotti, E. 2023. “An Epistemic Case for Confucian Democracy.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 26 (7): 1005–1027. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2020.1838736.
   Google Scholar