Democracy and Expert Rule: The Quest for Reflexive Legitimacy (Reflex)

In modern political systems, power and authority are delegated to independent, expert-based bodies, which have considerable discretionary power. Expert bodies, such as agencies and central banks, are often needed to deal with increasing uncertainty and increasingly complex issues. Such bodies do not only relate to means- end relationships, but also to values and norms.How are they to be held accountable? Their decisions have consequences for the interests of the citizens, and there is a danger of arbitrary power when their assessments are based on extra-scientific support factors. How to prevent an arbitrary exercise of power; how to reconcile the demand for rational decision-making with the democratic demand for participation of affected parties? This is an unsolved problem in political theory, and it is a practical problem for democracies. The REFLEX project challenges the established viewpoint that such bodies are legitimate only when they act on verified knowledge and when they can be controlled by the legislature. REFLEX proposes to look at political values and objectives, as well as political goal setting, as part of these bodies' mandates. The legitimacy of expert bodies rests on whether or not they appear to make solid, mutually acceptable decisions while meeting societal obligations. REFLEX is a project that combines normative and empirical research. It pursues the idea of 'reflexive legitimacy', which denotes the ability of citizens to support well-reasoned decision-making when they are given justifiable cause. To investigate this, REFLEX has conducted a number of in-depth studies of agencies in the EU. These agencies need different types of knowledge and operate under different formal structures. The project's researchers have published numerous articles in peer-reviewed international journals such as Public Administration, Political Research Quarterly, Public Policy and Administration, and Regulation & Governance. They have also made contributions to the book, The Accountability of Expertise: Making the Un-Elected Safe for Democracy. The book investigates questions regarding expert-based bodies and their legitimacy, and it examines how such bodies demonstrate responsible political power, how they justify their decisions, and what this says about responsible decision-making in modern governance. The book proposes a new model for accountability, as the standard theories in law and political science are inadequate. They are not able to hold expert bodies accountable. A better model for expert bodies' responsibility is found by taking serious the principle of reason-giving? ? one that also applies to administrative bodies - as our point of departure. Here we find the basis for a model that is based on public debate and compliant with the justification requirement. As part of the Toppforsk initiative, one of the goals of REFLEX was to collaborate with other projects and to enable the research group to apply for additional, external funding. Through REFLEX's two large workshops, and through participation in a number of seminars and conferences, the researchers established international collaboration. REFLEX has also housed a visiting researcher from the University of Oxford, who examines border control (FRONTEX). Additionally, Eriksen was awarded a new NFR project on administrative discretion starting in 2021. Regarding dissemination, three REFLEX researchers contributed to a symposium in the administrative journal, Stat og styring. The project leader, Eriksen, has written several op-eds, in Khrono about the EEA rules and the NAV scandal, in Aftenposten about democracy and expertise, and in Klassekampen about the pandemic and the role of experts. Dissemination also took place through Twitter and Facebook, and through an interview about the book in Uniforum - Democracy's currency is not votes or majority power, but argument - Uniforum (uio.no). The project's postdoctoral fellows and PhD research fellow have participated in many conferences and have written two posts on the blog of the international TARN network.

REFLEX har bidratt med ny kunnskap om uavhengige ekspertorgan, deres makt og legitimitet. Det være seg byråer, uavhengige sentralbanker, direktorater eller tilsyn. Dette prosjektet har brakt inn den europeiske dimensjonen og vist hvordan også norsk forvaltning er en del av det europeiske flernivå styringssystemet. Den har bidratt til å avdekke byråers makt og innflytelse og til å kritisere etablerte modeller for ansvarliggjøring og til å etablere et nytt perspektiv på ekspertisens legitimitet. En virkning av prosjektet var at Eriksen fikk tilslag på et nytt stort NFR- prosjekt om administrativt skjønn som starter høsten 2021. Dette prosjektet, "European integration and national law: A theory of administrative behaviour in our complex institutional settings (COMPLEX)", bygger på resultatene av REFLEX.

Can political decision-making be both democratic and good? Modern governments delegate competences to independent, expert-based institutions and endow them with discretionary decision-making power. How to avoid expert power being exercised arbitrarily, in particular when depoliticized bodies (DBs) unavoidably deal with policy ends, not only means? This is a question yet unresolved by political theorists. But it is also a central question for modern democracy. REFLEX challenges the established view that DBs are legitimate only when they comply with the 'truth' and can be controlled by the legislature. DBs cannot simply defer to the legislator's command or to 'truth' as they have wider democratic vocation. REFLEX's solution is to see rational reasoning about policy ends as part of DBs' duty provided that it meets the criterion of public acceptability. DBs' legitimacy thus revolves on reasoning about community obligations. REFLEX is a project in theory-building, which combines normative and empirical research. The main objective is to establish a theory of depoliticized decision-making, which reconciles administrative discretion with democracy so that expert power is not exercised arbitrarily. The project pursues the idea of reflexive legitimacy, which designates that actors when exposed to justificatory reasons may come to accept cogent resolutions even if not being granted access to the decision-making process. Sub-goals are to develop a normative model of depoliticized bodies and to establish whether the power of expertise is wielded legitimately. In order to do so REFLEX conducts in depth studies of a selection of DBs in the European Union, involving different types of knowledge and expertise as well as different formal arrangements. It learns from practice through an innovative, iterative method. REFLEX contains conceptual novelties such as reflexive legitimacy, working agreement, epistemic publics, and a typology of justificatory arguments.