24
well-defined guidelines for public tenders to ensure competitive bidding
on various contracts, and algorithms that automate the allocation of particular opportunities to actors who best fulfil pre-specified and publicised
criteria to secure optimal performance.
Yet, both ad hoc and more embedded mechanisms, when situated
within a temporal perspective, can be appreciated as facing risks of cooptation and being reduced to an empty shell without securing the very
accountable outcomes that their technocratic components are ostensibly
put in place to ensure (Hendriks 2009). Actors often move between key
organisations in the same sector over time, and collegial and personal networks overlap in complex ways that render secrecy almost impossible, so
upcoming changes in assessment or selection routines often set off preemptive adjustments within organisations that are in the loop, even before
they are formally announced (Hargreaves et al. 2013). Moreover, sectoral
contexts often feature limited expertise within a region or country; hence,
expertise is subcontracted in to furnish inputs for terms of reference. This
again courts the risk that some well-networked actors may be tipped off in
advance of any technocratic legitimation procedures and maximise their
chances over competitors.
Probing these relational practices of technocratic legitimation in concrete instances can generate and advance a technically robust and politically informed understanding of energy transitions. Technocratic
legitimation is perhaps most visible at times when a sector undergoes rapid
change, as effort-intensive mechanisms are put in place to enable change
while simultaneously maintaining stability (Pellizzoni 2011). Over time,
these practices tend to be absorbed into reconfigured systemic practices
and become part of bureaucratic legitimation, which is more routinised
and embedded within existing organisational functions. In this sense,
practices of technocratic legitimation offer a raw, direct opportunity to
shape energy futures towards decarbonisation and enhancement of social
equity—by examining, critiquing and adjusting specific practices, it is possible to impact how the energy sector reorientates itself in relation to current changes. This translation function, between experts who are entrusted
with framing and conducting technocratic legitimation and the public
whose interests they should in principle safeguard, is one that researchers
and analysts are well equipped to weigh in on (Fischer 1993). Those who
inform themselves of the empirics of technocratic legitimation in a sectoral
context can credibly provide policymakers with inputs on specific measures
S. SAREEN
well-defined guidelines for public tenders to ensure competitive bidding
on various contracts, and algorithms that automate the allocation of particular opportunities to actors who best fulfil pre-specified and publicised
criteria to secure optimal performance.
Yet, both ad hoc and more embedded mechanisms, when situated
within a temporal perspective, can be appreciated as facing risks of cooptation and being reduced to an empty shell without securing the very
accountable outcomes that their technocratic components are ostensibly
put in place to ensure (Hendriks 2009). Actors often move between key
organisations in the same sector over time, and collegial and personal networks overlap in complex ways that render secrecy almost impossible, so
upcoming changes in assessment or selection routines often set off preemptive adjustments within organisations that are in the loop, even before
they are formally announced (Hargreaves et al. 2013). Moreover, sectoral
contexts often feature limited expertise within a region or country; hence,
expertise is subcontracted in to furnish inputs for terms of reference. This
again courts the risk that some well-networked actors may be tipped off in
advance of any technocratic legitimation procedures and maximise their
chances over competitors.
Probing these relational practices of technocratic legitimation in concrete instances can generate and advance a technically robust and politically informed understanding of energy transitions. Technocratic
legitimation is perhaps most visible at times when a sector undergoes rapid
change, as effort-intensive mechanisms are put in place to enable change
while simultaneously maintaining stability (Pellizzoni 2011). Over time,
these practices tend to be absorbed into reconfigured systemic practices
and become part of bureaucratic legitimation, which is more routinised
and embedded within existing organisational functions. In this sense,
practices of technocratic legitimation offer a raw, direct opportunity to
shape energy futures towards decarbonisation and enhancement of social
equity—by examining, critiquing and adjusting specific practices, it is possible to impact how the energy sector reorientates itself in relation to current changes. This translation function, between experts who are entrusted
with framing and conducting technocratic legitimation and the public
whose interests they should in principle safeguard, is one that researchers
and analysts are well equipped to weigh in on (Fischer 1993). Those who
inform themselves of the empirics of technocratic legitimation in a sectoral
context can credibly provide policymakers with inputs on specific measures
S. SAREEN