The Netherlands is facing major social challenges. Everyone wants a government that really solves the problems now. Politicians promise all kinds of things. But can complex issues such as the nitrogen crisis and climate change be solved by governments? And how should they be addressed? Politicians and policymakers often opt for a technocratic approach: political problems are then presented as technical issues. Complicated perhaps, but as long as experts are put to work, the right solution will follow automatically – or so the idea goes.
Unintentionally, this actually exacerbates the problems. In a technical debate, experts dominate, while citizens disappear to the sidelines. They no longer feel involved, especially when experts contradict each other. So a different approach is needed, one in which citizens are actively involved – not only in finding solutions, but especially in understanding what the problem actually is.
Knowledge?
Philosophers are masters of conceptual thinking. They ask: what exactly does a term mean, and under what conditions does it apply? Knowledge, for example, has been thought about for centuries: what is knowledge, and when can we say that someone knows something? But remarkably little about what knowledge we actually need to tackle complex social problems, such as climate change.
When we say we need experts – what makes someone an expert in this field? And if we trust in the wisdom of citizens, what knowledge do we expect from that collective? Policy scientists have already developed valuable insights into this, but philosophers seem to have largely missed that debate. My research shows that it is precisely by connecting these worlds – philosophy and policy science – that we better understand which forms of knowledge, collaboration and reflection are needed to deal wisely with complex problems.
Boomerang
Among other things, I researched how the Dutch government responded to the corona pandemic and how the nitrogen problem could develop into a nitrogen crisis – partly due to the way the problem was defined and addressed. The much-discussed nitrogen map, presented under Minister Van der Wal, is a good example of a technocratic approach: experts made calculations, politicians announced measures, but citizens did not feel heard.
The 'solution-oriented' policy hit back like a boomerang. If experts then also disagree, distrust in politics and science only increases. That is why it is crucial to have a clear idea of what makes someone an expert, what types of expertise there are and what we can expect from different experts. My research shows that policy works better when citizens are mainly involved in the question of what the problem actually is.