Accountability of Expertise in Courts and Public Governance

Experts in courts and public administration wield considerable public power. Their role is often more than advisory; some – most noticeably apex judges - also make politically and morally sensitive decisions directly. More commonly, however, experts frame the knowledge basis, and thus what is considered to be possible policy options and elected state leaders, politicians and ordinary citizens routinely defer to the experts’ opinions and recommendations in shaping policies, thus making citizens vulnerable to the experts’ judgments and discretionary powers. Involving experts in politics and public decision-making has many rationales and is seen as enhancing the legitimacy of the policy decisions. Yet, the reliance on experts and expert knowledge in political decision-making has itself become the subject of criticism and has now come to be seen as a legitimacy problem by many. The typical proposed remedy for addressing these legitimacy concerns is to “make experts more accountable”. …Thus, “expert involvement is now (…) becoming subject to similar expectations as the decision-making processes themselves, with questions being raised in relation to how to create forms of accountability to govern these expert processes.” But how feasible is it to hold experts accountable? Are there special challenges of holding experts, as opposed to “ordinary” public officials accountable? And more fundamentally: Is it really more accountability we are in need of to address legitimacy problems that arise from the involvement of experts in public administration and courts? How does accountability differ from other related goals and concepts such as control, responsibility and transparency? Today there is widespread talk about “accountability deficits” and “accountability crisis” and the need for more accountability, but even in the scholarly discussions of such accountability problems the concept is often used with little precision. Also, most recent research on accountability has focused on democratic accountability and accountability of public officials, and these discussions often fails to pick upon the special challenges connected with expert knowledge and expert involvement in policy making. This (framework) article takes a critical look at what it means to hold experts in courts and public governance accountable. It draws on the more general theoretical discussions about accountability in public governance and administration literature and discusses how and whether these analytical distinctions can be transferred to the discussion about expertise.