212
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
One objection might be that outsourcing problem-solving to an external organisation could bypass public involvement in the government decision-making process.
Jeffrey (2018) counteracts this argument by saying that governments can arrange a
limited epistocracy that is matched with robust political inclusion. She recommends
that specialised institutions must issue directives that give citizens various working
possibilities. In other words, scientists should not only produce recommendations
based on their scientific investigations, but ideally, they should, in collaboration with
government institutions, also incorporate working possibilities to allow citizens to
make informed choices before, during and after policy implementation.
Based on an outline of Lippert-Rasmussen’s (2012) moderate epistocratic views,
we can identify three additional epistocratic forms that are compatible with Jeffrey’s
(2018) limited epistocratic formulation. Following Lippert-Rasmussen (2012), I will
label these as issue-specific, temporal and small-group epistocracies.
An issue-specific epistocracy encompasses individuals who know the true, and
the best, answers to questions surrounding certain issues. Such an epistocracy would
ideally manage an issue-focused, political decision procedure. An issue-specific epistocracy consists of individuals who have authority relating to relevant issues. An
example of this might be a research group that conducts research and publishes
a report (List 2005) on a specific issue in which it has the relevant expertise. For
instance, if guidance is required on educational policies, one might argue that the
voices of teachers carry more weight (Lippert-Rasmussen 2012) than those of climate
change experts.
The temporal epistocracy is characterised by a time-sensitive and privileged
knowledge status. Because of its temporal nature, we are all, at some point, subject to
the authority of others (Lippert-Rasmussen 2012), or they are subject to our authority,
based on our expertise at a specific point in time. Not only is our exposure to influence
temporal. Issues are also emergent and highly dependent (Danaher 2016) on society’s
needs and circumstances and, therefore, inherently dynamic. This means that individuals occupying this type of epistocracy may exert an influence for a limited period
(Danaher 2016), when the issue is salient. The issue of xenophobia that emerges now
and again in South Africa would be a case in point, as well as the Covid-19 pandemic
at the time of writing.
A small-group epistocracy in society is one that has a better knowledge of the
normative standards than any other group has. In other words, it is smaller than
the entire political dispensation. The individuals within this epistocracy develop
collective answers to an issue, but they do not include any of those individuals who
know the best answer (Lippert-Rasmussen 2012; Kuljanin 2019). From a scientific
perspective, the problem with this group is its identification (Kuljanin 2019). LippertRasmussen (2012) uses the example of political factions in society. It would appear
that a group-think (Janis, 1982) is the dominant form of the group’s psychology.
Since the concept ‘epistocracy’ relates to the wider political society, observers
might interpret political rule or political decision-making as law-making, which is
a parliamentary function. If we also include opinion formulation, agenda setting
and the construction of option menus in the conceptualisation of political decisionmaking, then we need to expand our focus to epistocratic forms. If we do so, we can
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
One objection might be that outsourcing problem-solving to an external organisation could bypass public involvement in the government decision-making process.
Jeffrey (2018) counteracts this argument by saying that governments can arrange a
limited epistocracy that is matched with robust political inclusion. She recommends
that specialised institutions must issue directives that give citizens various working
possibilities. In other words, scientists should not only produce recommendations
based on their scientific investigations, but ideally, they should, in collaboration with
government institutions, also incorporate working possibilities to allow citizens to
make informed choices before, during and after policy implementation.
Based on an outline of Lippert-Rasmussen’s (2012) moderate epistocratic views,
we can identify three additional epistocratic forms that are compatible with Jeffrey’s
(2018) limited epistocratic formulation. Following Lippert-Rasmussen (2012), I will
label these as issue-specific, temporal and small-group epistocracies.
An issue-specific epistocracy encompasses individuals who know the true, and
the best, answers to questions surrounding certain issues. Such an epistocracy would
ideally manage an issue-focused, political decision procedure. An issue-specific epistocracy consists of individuals who have authority relating to relevant issues. An
example of this might be a research group that conducts research and publishes
a report (List 2005) on a specific issue in which it has the relevant expertise. For
instance, if guidance is required on educational policies, one might argue that the
voices of teachers carry more weight (Lippert-Rasmussen 2012) than those of climate
change experts.
The temporal epistocracy is characterised by a time-sensitive and privileged
knowledge status. Because of its temporal nature, we are all, at some point, subject to
the authority of others (Lippert-Rasmussen 2012), or they are subject to our authority,
based on our expertise at a specific point in time. Not only is our exposure to influence
temporal. Issues are also emergent and highly dependent (Danaher 2016) on society’s
needs and circumstances and, therefore, inherently dynamic. This means that individuals occupying this type of epistocracy may exert an influence for a limited period
(Danaher 2016), when the issue is salient. The issue of xenophobia that emerges now
and again in South Africa would be a case in point, as well as the Covid-19 pandemic
at the time of writing.
A small-group epistocracy in society is one that has a better knowledge of the
normative standards than any other group has. In other words, it is smaller than
the entire political dispensation. The individuals within this epistocracy develop
collective answers to an issue, but they do not include any of those individuals who
know the best answer (Lippert-Rasmussen 2012; Kuljanin 2019). From a scientific
perspective, the problem with this group is its identification (Kuljanin 2019). LippertRasmussen (2012) uses the example of political factions in society. It would appear
that a group-think (Janis, 1982) is the dominant form of the group’s psychology.
Since the concept ‘epistocracy’ relates to the wider political society, observers
might interpret political rule or political decision-making as law-making, which is
a parliamentary function. If we also include opinion formulation, agenda setting
and the construction of option menus in the conceptualisation of political decisionmaking, then we need to expand our focus to epistocratic forms. If we do so, we can