As a middle-aged, US-trained, European economist, I feel a natural sympathy for the middle-aged, US-trained, European economists floating into positions of power – a little like Mary Poppins, umbrella open, floating gently down from the sky to sort out the mess. Lucas Papademos, Mario Monti, Mario Draghi all seem like thoroughly decent, respected public servants, and one hopes fervently that their ascent will help restore calm to European financial markets, where inter-bank lending is drying up again.

The mini-trend does, however, raise the technocracy versus democracy question so powerfully raised by Daniel Bell in [amazon_link id=”0465097138″ target=”_blank” ]The Coming of Post-Industrial Society[/amazon_link] (in 1973):

“In a society which becomes increasingly conscious of its own fate, and seeks to control its own fortunes, the political order necessarily becomes paramount. Since the post-industrial society increases the importance of the technical component of knowledge, it forces the hierophants of the new society – the scientists, engineers and technocrats – either to compete with the politicians or become their allies. The relationship between the social structure and the political order thus becomes one of the chief problems of power in a post-industrial society.”

Written like a sociologist. But the book makes the point forcefully that the more complicated the economy and society, the greater the need for technical expertise in managing it, and the greater the tension with the growing presumption of democratic participation by all. Indeed, the technologies driving the social complexity are also driving the presumption that political participation by ordinary, non-expert folk will continue to grow. A financial system that has become a tangle of complex derivatives meets growing populism…. no signs that Bell’s dilemma is becoming any less acute, then.

A technocract parachuting in to the rescue