The literature on technocracy has shown that expertise is a crucial factor in driving support for technocrats. However, the literature has not investigated yet what happens when technocrats are opposed to partisan experts. In this article, we want to fill this gap by analysing the support for two potential ministers of health with relevant expertise for their portfolio but with a different relationship to partisan politics. For this purpose, we run a novel survey in 14 European countries with more than 20,000 respondents. Our main results show that non-partisan experts are preferred over partisan experts across Europe, both when citizens have a high sympathy and a low sympathy for the party appointing the minister. However, in the latter case, the effect is more evident.
AchenCCBartelsLM (2016) Democracy for Realist. Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Governments?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
AlexiadouDGunaydinH (2019) Commitment or expertise? Technocratic appointments as political responses. European Journal of Political Research58(3): 845–865.
3.
AlexiadouDSpanielWGunaydinH (2022) When technocratic appointments signal credibility. Comparative Political Studies55(3): 386–419.
4.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerS, et al. (eds) (2005) Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
AndersonCJBolDAnandaA (2021) Humanity’s attitudes about democracy and political leaders: Patterns and trends. Public Opinion Quarterly85: 957–986.
6.
AndewegRBElgieRHelmsL, et al. (eds) (2020) The Oxford Handbook of Political Executives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
BarkemaWE (1991) The ministerial career. In: BlondelJThiebaultJL (eds) The Profession of Government Minister in Western Europe. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp.70–98.
8.
BartelsL (2000) Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science44(1): 35–50.
9.
BeckmanL (2006) The competent cabinet? Ministers in Sweden and the problem of competence and democracy. Scandinavian Political Studies29(2): 111–129.
10.
BengtssonÅMattilaM (2009) Direct democracy and its critics: Support for direct democracy and “stealth” democracy in finland. West European Politics32(5): 1031–1048.
11.
BertsouE (2022) Bring in the experts? Citizen preferences for independent experts in political decision-making processes. European Journal of Political Research61: 255–267.
12.
BertsouECaramaniD (2020) People haven’t had enough of experts: Technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine European democracies. American Journal of Political Science66(1): 5–23.
13.
BertsouEPastorellaG (2017) Technocratic attitudes: A citizens’ perspective of expert decision-making. West European Politics40(2): 430–458.
14.
BesleyT (2005) Political selection. Journal of Economic Perspectives19(3): 43–60.
15.
BickertonCInvernizzi AccettiC (2017) Populism and technocracy: Opposites or complements?Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy20(2): 186–206.
16.
BickertonCJInvernizzi AccettiC (2021) Technopopulism: The New Logic of Democratic Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
BlondelJThiébaultJL (1991) The Profession of Government Minister in Western Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
BovensMWilleA (2017) Diploma Democracy: The Rise of Political Meritocracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
CamerloMPerez-LiñanA (2015) The politics of minister retention in presidential systems: Technocrats, partisans, and government approval. Comparative Politics47(3): 315–333.
20.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWE, et al. (1960) The American voter. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
21.
CaramaniD (2017) Will vs. reason: The populist and technocratic forms of political representation and their critique to party government. American Political Science Review111(1): 54–67.
22.
CarnesNLupuN (2016) Do voters dislike working-class candidates? Voter biases and the descriptive underrepresentation of the working class. American Political Science Review110(4): 832–844.
23.
Castanho SilvaBJungkunzSHelblingM, etal. (2019) An empirical comparison of seven populist attitudes scales. Political Research Quarterly73(2): 409–424.
24.
ChiruMEnyediZ (2022) Who wants technocrats? A comparative study of citizen attitudes in nine young and consolidated democracies. British Journal of Politics and International Relations24(1): 95–112.
25.
CopelovitchMRickardS (2021) Partisan technocrats: How leaders matter in international organizations. Global Studies Quarterly1(3): 1–14.
26.
Costa PintoACottaMTavares de AlmeidaP (2018) Technocratic Ministers and Political Leadership in European Democracies. Cham: Macmillan Press.
27.
DaltonR (2000) The decline of party identifications. In: DaltonRWattenbergMP (eds) Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.19–36.
DaltonR (2021b) Modeling ideological polarization in democratic party systems. Electoral Studies72: 1–10.
30.
DaltonRJ (2004) Democratic challenges, democratic choices. The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
DominguezJL (1997) Technopols: Freeing Politics and Markets in Latin America in the S1990. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
32.
DowdingKDumontP (eds) (2014) The Selection of Ministers Around the World. London: Routledge.
33.
EberlJ-MHuberRAMedeNG, et al. (2023) Populist attitudes towards politics and science: How do they differ?Political Research Exchange5: 1.
34.
Fernández-VázquezPLavezzoloSRamiroL (2023) The technocratic side of populist attitudes: Evidence from the Spanish case. West European Politics46(1): 73–99.
35.
FerrínMKriesiH (eds) (2016) How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
GalassoVNanniciniT (2011) Competing on good politicians. American Political Science Review105(1): 79–99.
37.
HanimannA (2023) Do citizens judge health experts through a partisan lens? Evidence from a factorial survey experiment. Swiss Political Science Review29(1): 1–140.
38.
HarteveldEMendozaPRooduijnM (2022) Affective polarization and the populist radical right: Creating the hating?Government & Opposition57: 703–727.
39.
HoriuchiYSmithDMYamamotoT (2020) Identifying voter preferences for politicians’ personal attributes: A conjoint experiment in Japan. Political Science Research and Methods8(1): 75–91.
40.
IgnaziP (2014) Power and the (il)legitimacy of political parties: An unavoidable paradox of contemporary democracy?Party Politics20(2): 160–169.
41.
JannWWegrichK (2019) Generalists and specialists in executive politics: Why ambitious meta-policies so often fail. Public Administration97(4): 845–860.
42.
JungkunzSFaheyRAHinoA (2021) How populist attitudes scales fail to capture support for populists in power. PLoS ONE16(12): Article e0261658.
43.
KaplanSB (2017) Partisan technocratic cycles in Latin America. Electoral Studies45: 219–229.
44.
KirklandPACoppockA (2018) Candidate choice without party labels. Political Behavior40(3): 571–591.
45.
LavezzoloSRamiroLFernández-VázquezP (2021) The will for reason: Voter demand for experts in office. West European Politics44: 1506–1531.
46.
LavezzoloSRamiroLFernández-VázquezP (2022) Technocratic attitudes in COVID-19 times: Change and preference over types of experts. European Journal of Political Research61: 1123–1142.
47.
LeifeldP (2013) Texreg: Conversion of statistical model output in R to LaTeX and HTML tables. Journal of Statistical Software55(8): 1–24.
48.
Lewis-BeckMSStegmaierS (2007) Economic models of voting. In: DaltonRJKlingemannHD (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.518–537.
49.
McDonnellDValbruzziM (2014) Defining and classifying technocrat-led and technocratic governments. European Journal of Political Research53(4): 654–671.
50.
MairP (2014) On Parties, Party Systems and Democracy: Selected Writings of Peter Mair. Colchester: ECPR Press.
51.
MedeNGSchäferMS (2020) Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science29(5): 473–491.
52.
MuddeCKaltwasserCR (2017) Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
ÖnnudóttirEHHarðarsonOP (2020) Party identification and its evolution over time. In: OscarssonHHolmbergS (eds) Research Handbook on Political Partisanship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.167–176.
54.
PetrarcaCSGieblerHWeßelsB (2022) Support for insider parties: The role of political trust in a longitudinal-comparative perspective. Party Politics28(2): 329–341.
55.
RojonSPiletJBVittoriD, et al. (2023) Which political outsiders do Europeans prefer as ministers?European Political Science Review. Epub ahead of print 15February. DOI: 10.1017/S1755773923000048.
56.
SchulzAMüllerPSchemerC, et al. (2017) Measuring populist attitudes on three dimensions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research30(2): 316–326.
57.
TaggartP (2000) Populism. Buckingham: Open University Press.
58.
TorcalM (2017) Political trust in Western and Southern Europe. In: ZmerliSVan der MeerTWG (eds) Handbook of Social Trust. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.418–439.
Van der MeerTWGOuattaraE (2019) Putting ‘political’ back in political trust: An IRT test of the unidimensionality and cross-national equivalence of political trust measures. Quality & Quantity53(6): 2983–3002.
61.
VittoriDPaulisEPiletJB, et al. (2023a) Do technocrats boost the acceptance of policy proposals among the citizenry? Evidence from a survey experiment in Italy. Electoral Studies81: 102566.
62.
VittoriDPiletJBRojonS, et al. (2023b) Technocratic ministers in office in European countries (2000–2020): What’s new?Political Studies Review. Epub ahead of print 4 January. DOI: 10.1177/14789299221140036.
63.
WebbP (2013) Who is willing to participate? Dissatisfied democrats, stealth democrats and populists in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Political Research52(6): 747–772.
64.
WuttkeASchimpfCSchoenH (2021) When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: On the conceptualization and measurement of populist attitudes and other multidimensional constructs. American Political Science Review114(2): 356–374.
65.
ZáveczG (2017) Post-communist societies of Central and Eastern Europe. In: ZmerliSvan der MeerTWG (eds) Handbook of Social Trust. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.440–460.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
