...
首页> 外文期刊>Southern Economic Journal >Separation of power and expertise: Evidence of the tyranny of experts in Sweden's COVID-19 responses
【24h】

Separation of power and expertise: Evidence of the tyranny of experts in Sweden's COVID-19 responses

机译:权力和专业知识的分离:瑞典Covid-19回应专家暴政的证据

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Whereas most countries in the COVID-19 pandemic imposed shutdowns and curfews to mitigate the contagion, Sweden uniquely pursued a more voluntarist approach. In this article, our interest is primarily on how and why Sweden's approach to the pandemic was so unique. There are two parts to this research question: (1) why did virtually all other nations follow a radical lockdown protocol despite limited evidence to its effectiveness and (2) why did Sweden not follow this same protocol despite strong political pressures? The answers to these questions lie within typical government technocracy versus Sweden's constitutional separation of government and technocracy. We review the history of the responses to the pandemic and show how the "tyranny of experts" was severe within the typical technocratic policy response, and attenuated in Sweden's. Thus, the recent pandemic offers empirical evidence and insights regarding the role of Hayekian knowledge problems in engendering a technocratic "tyranny of experts" and how such effects can be structurally mitigated.
机译:而大多数Covid-19大流行的国家被施加的停工和宵禁减轻了传感器,瑞典唯一追求了更加卑鄙的方法。在本文中,我们的兴趣主要是如何以及为什么瑞典对大流行的方法是如此独特。这项研究有两部分问题:(1)为什么几乎所有其他国家都遵循激进的锁定协议,尽管证据有限,但(2)为什么瑞典尽管有强烈的政治压力,但瑞典仍未遵守同一议定书?这些问题的答案在于典型的政府技术专制与瑞典对政府和技术政治的宪法分离。我们审查了大流行的回答的历史,并展示了“专家的暴政”在典型的技术政策反应中如何严重,并在瑞典衰减。因此,最近的大流行就会提供有关Hayekian知识问题在提取技术政府的“专家暴政”中的作用以及这些效果如何在结构上减轻这种影响的经验证据和见解。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号