Epistocracy and populism: second-order ideologies challenging democracy

References

• Achen, C. H., and L. M. Bartels. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections do not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, E. 2006. “The Epistemology of Democracy.” Episteme 3(1-2): 8–22. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, E. 2009. “Democracy: Instrumental vs. Non-Instrumental Value.” In Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy, edited by T. Christiano, and J. Christman, 213–227. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444310399.ch12.
   Google Scholar
• Anselmi, M. 2018. Populism: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arato, A., and J. L. Cohen. 2017. “Civil Society, Populism and Religion.” Constellations 24 (3): 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arlen, G., and E. Rossi. 2020. “Must Realists be Pessimists About Democracy? Responding to Epistemic and Oligarchic Challenges.” Moral Philosophy and Politics 8 (1): 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2019-0060.
   Google Scholar
• Bagg, S. 2018. “The Power of the Multitude: Answering Epistemic Challenges to Democracy.” American Political Science Review 112 (4): 891–904. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, R. R. 2017. “Populism as a Political Strategy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Populism, 1st ed, edited by C. Rovira Kaltwasser, P. A. Taggart, P. Ochoa Espejo, and P. Ostiguy, 44–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, D. A. 2015. The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berlin, I., R. Hofstadter, D. MacRae, L. Schapiro, H. Seton-Watson, A. Touraine, F. Venturi, A. Walicki, and P. Worsley. 1968. “To Define Populism.” Government and Opposition 3 (2): 137–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.1968.tb01332.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertsou, E., and D. Caramani. 2022. “People Haven’t Had Enough of Experts: Technocratic Attitudes among Citizens in Nine European Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 66 (1): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickerton, C., and C. I. Accetti. 2015. “Populism and Technocracy: Opposites or Complements?” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20 (2): 186–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2014.995504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickerton, C. J., and C. I. Accetti. 2018. “‘Techno-Populism’ as a new Party Family: The Case of the Five Star Movement and Podemos.” Contemporary Italian Politics 10 (2): 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2018.1472919.
   Google Scholar
• Blum, C. 2014. “Why the Epistemic Justification of Deliberative Democracy Fails.” In Challenges to Democratic Participation: Antipolitics, Deliberative Democracy, and Pluralism, edited by A. S. Campos, and J. G. André, 54–70. Lanham: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J. 2014. “How Smart is Democracy? You Can’t Answer That Question a Priori.” Critical Review 26(1-2): 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2014.907040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, J. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J., and H. Landemore. 2022. Debating Democracy: Do We Need More or Less?. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bugaric, B. 2019. “Could Populism Be Good for Constitutional Democracy?” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 15 (1): 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042927.
   Google Scholar
• Canovan, M. 1981. Populism. 1st ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Canovan, M. 1999. “Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy.” Political Studies 47 (1): 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caplan, B. 2001. “Rational Ignorance Versus Rational Irrationality.” Kyklos 54 (1): 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6435.00138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caplan, B. 2007. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose bad Policies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caramani, D. 2017. “Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government.” American Political Science Review 111 (1): 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerovac, I. 2019. “The Epistemic Value of Partisanship.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 19 (1): 99–117.
   Google Scholar
• Cerovac, I. 2020. Epistemic Democracy and Political Legitimacy. Cham: Springer International Publishing : Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/10.1007978-3-030-44602-4.
   Google Scholar
• Dietrich, F., and K. Spiekermann. 2013. “Epistemic Democracy with Defensible Premises.” Economics and Philosophy 29 (1): 87–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267113000096.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, D. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, D., and H. Landemore. 2018. “The Epistemic Value of Democratic Deliberation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, edited by A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. J. Mansbridge, and M. E. Warren, 113–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fleuß, D. 2021. Radical Proceduralism: Democracy from Philosophical Principles to Political Institutions. 1st ed. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Freeden, M. 1998. “Is Nationalism a Distinct Ideology?” Political Studies 46 (4): 748–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, J. 2019. Power Without Knowledge: A Critique of Technocracy. New York: Oxford university press.
   Google Scholar
• Galston, W. A. 2018. “The Populist Challenge to Liberal Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 29 (2): 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2018.0020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickman, C., E. Marks, P. Pihkala, S. Clayton, R. E. Lewandowski, E. E. Mayall, B. Wray, C. Mellor, and L. van Susteren. 2021. “Climate Anxiety in Children and Young People and Their Beliefs About Government Responses to Climate Change: A Global Survey.” The Lancet. Planetary Health 5 (12): e863–e873. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00278-3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Invernizzi-Accetti, C. 2017. “Does Democratic Theory Need Epistemic Standards?” Democratic Theory 4 (2): 3–26. https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2017.040202.
   Google Scholar
• Ivaldi, G., and O. Mazzoleni. 2019. “Economic Populism and Producerism: European Right-Wing Populist Parties in a Transatlantic Perspective.” Populism 2 (1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1163/25888072-02011022.
   Google Scholar
• Jansen, R. S. 2011. “Populist Mobilization: A New Theoretical Approach to Populism.” Sociological Theory 29 (2): 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2011.01388.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, G. 2020. 10% Less Democracy: Why You Should Trust Elites a Little More and the Masses a Little Less. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kiik, M. H. 2023. “Knowledge and Democracy: Are Epistemic Values Adversaries or Allies of Democracy?” Etica & Politica 25 (3): 261–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krastev, I. 2006. ““Sovereign Democracy”, Russian-Style.” Insight Turkey 8 (4): 113–117.
   Google Scholar
• Krick, E. 2021. “Dealing with the Epistemic-Democratic Tension in Policy-Making. Institutional Design Choices for Multi-Layered Democratic Innovations.” Political Research Exchange 3 (1): 1893608. https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1893608.
   Google Scholar
• Laclau, E. 2005. On Populist Reason. 1st. publ. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Lafont, C. 2020. Democracy Without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lefort, C. 1986. The Political Forms of Modern Society: Bureaucracy, Democracy, Totalitarianism. Translated by J. B. Thompson, 1st ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levitsky, S., and D. Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies die. 1st ed. New York: Crown.
   Google Scholar
• Lippmann, W. 1998. Public Opinion (2. pr). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Maerz, S. F. 2019. “Simulating Pluralism: The Language of Democracy in Hegemonic Authoritarianism.” Political Research Exchange 1 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2019.1605834.
   Google Scholar
• Mill, J. S. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government.
   Google Scholar
• Misak, C. J. 2008. “A Culture of Justification: The Pragmatist’s Epistemic Argument for Democracy.” Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 5 (1): 94–105. https://doi.org/10.3366/E1742360008000257.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 2005. On the Political. 1st ed. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 2018. For a Left Populism. London and New York: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Mounk, Y. 2018. The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom is in Danger and How to Save It. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mudde, C. 2004. “The Populist Zeitgeist.” Government and Opposition 39 (4): 541–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mudde, C., and C. Rovira Kaltwasser. ed. 2012. Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or Corrective for Democracy?. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mudde, C., and C. Rovira Kaltwasser. 2017. Populism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, J.-W. 2016. What is Populism?. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pappas, T. S. 2019. Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Plato. 2000. The Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prijić-Samaržija, S. 2018. Democracy and Truth: The Conflict Between Political and Epistemic Virtues. Sesto San Giovanni: Mimesis International.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rooduijn, M. 2014. “The Nucleus of Populism: In Search of the Lowest Common Denominator.” Government and Opposition 49 (4): 573–599. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2013.30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosanvallon, P. 2008. Counter-Democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosanvallon, P. 2011. Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rostbøll, C. F. 2008. Deliberative Freedom: Deliberative Democracy as Critical Theory. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rostbøll, C. 2019. “Populism and Publicity: The Participant Perspective.” Paper presented at 115th American Political Science Association Annual Meeting 115 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2019-hdx7q.
   Google Scholar
• Rostbøll, C. F. 2020. “Second-Order Political Thinking: Compromise Versus Populism.” Political Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720910171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rostbøll, C. F. 2023. Democratic Respect: Populism, Resentment, and the Struggle for Recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saffon, M. P., and N. Urbinati. 2013. “Procedural Democracy, the Bulwark of Equal Liberty.” Political Theory 41 (3): 441–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591713476872.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. A. 2003. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. 5. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Selg, P., and A. Ventsel. 2020. Introducing Relational Political Analysis: Political Semiotics as a Theory and Method. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, I. 2003. The State of Democratic Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Somin, I. 1998. “Voter Ignorance and the Democratic Ideal.” Critical Review 12 (4): 413–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819808443511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somin, I. 2016. Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter. 2nd ed. Stanford: Stanford Law Books, an imprint of Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley, B. 2008. “The Thin Ideology of Populism.” Journal of Political Ideologies 13 (1): 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310701822289.
   Google Scholar
• Taggart, P. A. 2000. Populism. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Talisse, R. B. 2013. “Sustaining Democracy: Folk Epistemology and Social Conflict.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 16 (4): 500–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2013.810390.
   Google Scholar
• Tong, Z. 2021. “The Virtues of Truth: On Democracy’s Epistemic Value.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 48 (3): 416–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211017573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong, Z. 2024. “The Epistemic Value of Democratic Meritocracy.” Social Epistemology 38: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2024.2330465.
   Google Scholar
• Urbinati, N. 2013. “The Populist Phenomenon.” Raisons Politiques 51 (3): 137–154. https://doi.org/10.3917/rai.051.0137.
   Google Scholar
• Urbinati, N. 2014. Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Urbinati, N. 2019. Me the People: How Populism Transforms Democracy. https://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/547165.
   Google Scholar
• Wiles, P. 1970. “A Syndrome, Not a Doctrine: Some Elementary Theses on Populism.” American Political Science Review 64 (3): 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400131880.
   Google Scholar
• Wodak, R., M. KhosraviNik, and B. Mral. 2013. Right Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Zakaria, F. 1997. “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.” Foreign Affairs 76 (6): 22–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/20048274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar