Expert politics: technocratic reasoning in Dutch parliamentary debate, 1917-1994

Abstract

This dissertation examines the historical development of technocratic reasoning in Dutch parliamentary debate between 1917 and 1994. While existing research often frames technocracy as the institutional dominance of experts over democratic decision-making, this study approaches it as a rhetorical and political phenomenon. Technocratic reasoning is understood as the strategic use of expertise to reduce political contingency and present certain policies as necessary. Combining close reading and digital text analysis, the study identifies shifts in ideas about expertise, anti-political arguments, and the language of necessity across different periods. It traces how interwar concerns about inefficiency led to calls for depoliticization, how postwar specialization and managerial expertise transformed parliamentary debate, and how late twentieth-century appeals to scientific objectivity reshaped technocratic reasoning. The findings reveal that technocratic reasoning is a persistent feature of Dutch politics, evolving alongside changing conceptions of politics, expertise, and governance rather than simply replacing democratic conflict.