The Political Literacy of Experts

Expert agencies are entrusted with public authority in virtue of their technical competence. Areas such as environmental protection, food safety, or market stability are regulated with the backing of professional judgments regarding complex technical matters. But there is a clear political dimension to the work; regulation involves particular ways of framing problems and solutions. The very practice of regulation is bound up with evaluative concepts that are “essentially contested” (Gallie 1956) or “interpretive” (Dworkin 2011, chap. 8). Terms such as proportionality, reasonable precaution, or acceptable risk cannot be operationalized without taking a stand on evaluative matters on which there is reasonable disagreement. Moreover, expert agencies must apply these concepts in regulatory fields of heated political debate, concerning issues such as sustainability, security, and social justice. This paper seeks a model for capturing what it means for expert agencies to exercise political judgment responsibly. How can they engage with political values reflectively yet in a nonpartisan way? The proposal developed in this paper is that expert agencies must possess a form of “political literacy.” This approach departs from typical ways of connecting the terms literacy and competent rule. Traditionally, the connection has been made as part of some account of the deficiency of the public. The lack of “scientific literacy” in the general public has long been deemed a problem for the democratic quality of political life and the legitimacy of regulatory policies (Miller 1983). Similarly, political literacy is commonly taken to refer to a deficit on the part of the public: “Although the explanation of political literacy is unclear, political scientists agree that the extent of political literacy among mass publics is only modest” (Cassel and Lo 1997, 331). This is the sort of claim that is taken to have fundamental normative consequences in books such as Against Democracy (Brennan 2016). This paper develops a conceptual tool for turning the literacy question around: Expert agencies wield regulatory powers largely under the guise of scientific authority, but do they have the political literacy needed to pursue their goals in a legitimate manner? Importantly, the idea of political literacy to be developed does not simply refer to possession of a stock of independent facts. Rather, it follows the lead of theorists who have gestured towards political literacy as a “moral competence” (Goodin 2003, 2). Here, literacy is not primarily about having the right answers, but about the ability to form political judgments responsibly. The methodological approach of the paper is related to “institutional” or “practice-sensitive” readings of John Rawls (cf. James 2005; Sangiovanni 2008). That is, certain basic features of existing institutions or practices are taken as given (in this case, public authority exercised by expert agencies), and the question is what it takes for them to be political in the right way. In light of a practice-sensitive approach, it is to be expected that the form of public reason served by political literacy may diverge from standards of Rawls’s (2005, 442–3) “public political forum.” Rawls explained public reason in terms of a principle of reciprocity—justifications must be acceptable to all reasonable members of the community—that may be appropriate in forums that concern constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice. The decisions of expert agencies, by contrast, are often advisory, open to ongoing contestation, preconstrained by rights, and highly targeted. Such factors seem to mitigate the need justify decisions by appeal to a common reason. Moreover, the political aspects of expert agency work are intertwined with technical considerations that flout accessibility criteria that govern the public political forums of basic justice. For example, Rawls (2001, 90) explicitly excludes elaborate economic theories of general equilibrium from the content of public reason if these are in dispute. The account of political literacy to be developed here is not about shying away from contestedness but about being able to recognize and deal appropriately with the contested political values at stake in the public missions we entrust to experts. The mandates of expert agencies will require them to appeal to controversial claims, and to some extent this passes the buck of legitimation to the delegating authorities. However, such factors clearly do not erase the need for expert agencies to deal with values in a mode that is structured by some form of public reason; the decisions of expert agencies must be justifiable in nonpartisan and sufficiently accessible ways, even though they reach beyond what is acceptable to all reasonable citizens. As developed here, political literacy is a tripartite capacity that enables expert agencies (1) to be aware of the intrinsic political contestedness of the concepts they operate with, (2) to recognize diverging conceptions as belonging to shared paradigms of value, and (3) to let the specification of political values be guided by the intentions of the mandate. It is a capacity we would not require of citizens as such, but rather an expectation of institutions tasked with carrying out public mandates. The case of expert agencies is particularly important because the political nature of their work is often obscured by a technical façade.11 A large literature is devoted to explaining how political values are intertwined in subtle ways with the more scientific features of expertise and how findings are framed to suit agendas. For a clear overview and critical discussion, see Heazle, Kane, and Patapan (2016, esp. 6). As illustrative examples, the paper will focus on the expert agencies of the European Union (EU), where the delegated powers are supposed to comply with the Meroni doctrine, which restricts agency competences to technical matters “subject to strict review in the light of objective criteria.”22 Judgment of 13 June 1958, Meroni v High Authority, C-9/56 and C-10/56, EU:C:1958:8 and EU:C:1958:7. Many doubt that actual expert agency competences fit this prohibitive language. However, insofar as we think there may a legitimate role for expert agencies in a system of democratic rule, we need a way to conceptualize standards for engaging with the political values that the work of expert agencies inevitably entails. The conditions of political literacy may help illuminate the form of these standards. As a first step towards explaining the need for political literacy in expert agencies, the next section introduces the idea of an indirect interpretive strategy; political literacy is about accessing political values through constructive interpretation of the mandate. The section shows how the indirect interpretive strategy from existing literacy enables expert agencies to pursue what will an indirect interpretive strategy in to the right of to the political values that govern their This will be with interpretive but let first a more diverging to this all this of expert agencies engaging with political values is their public are entrusted in virtue of their technical expertise and they to what they appropriate democratic institutions can about the interpretation of values as long as expert agencies are under A of this is The of the Democracy and the of As the the is with the legitimacy of the authority of experts. In of a expert that and and that the more the of the values of the more they are to on the of the and the political this the legitimacy of expert agency on being by and to be about In this the approach seeks to a of political and experts. The problem is that we cannot simply the question of political to a of about normative is of only insofar as it is to an evaluative on the part of the expert agencies and the forums (cf. The that expert agencies be by and not values of is not very in this expert agencies that policies or engage in may be an to it does not that decisions the are more legitimate if expert agencies from on how the values are the it that expert agencies have way of they are in to the without interpretation of the entrusted of approach is that it is framed as an the political of expert agencies on of The is that a more account of expert agency is in to a legitimate of However, in terms of on the of the it is clear that in a in conceptual the of as a for by the However, in to that account would not fit the actual of the need in practice for a that the and This as a by to the case of expert is reason to think they will it more appropriate to part of their as by mandate. contrast, of interpretive judgment developed as a more way of the of of the a in the rather to how is bound up with and political of is not a of in the in a of but rather a way of the of the (Dworkin The idea of political literacy on this in the that it that are to a more interpretive approach to the political content of their mandate. In political literacy is an ability need in to practice what constructive where seeks to how the of interpretation some (Dworkin chap. 2). In a about what the a does not simply to how some interpretation the and Rather, it how the interpretation has or political appeal because it some justifiable interpretation expert agencies indirect to political It is indirect in the that the of values is by interpretive In the case of expert agencies, the entrusted a through which values are given a public literacy is the ability to this public It can be to indirect from interpretive The first is the this strategy that there are standards for political in expert agencies, but they are democratic standards. That is, the strategy the interpretive work to of in this not all the the of the on to at the public safety, and are among the considerations at on what for these values in this will be some considerations regarding but that we by means to in such about this the legitimate approach is rather to the evaluative content from “public and of However, it is clear that an agency cannot in of this public and it is to see such as agencies of interpretive For the right of democratic cannot be without an interpretive of the political at are issues such as and that need to be in light of the values in Moreover, as expert agencies have values and missions that their How can the agency values the approach without interpretive with the values at For example, the of the a to the and and values of the for the and of this and That sort of but it may the interpretive approach, for by on or This in to of such as decisions on features to or with In for public are a of evaluative not a The strategy the evaluative of and the need for political This may be with the This that expert agencies be as political It is in the claim that mandates be to political For example, some have that political of agencies be their in agencies be given to their missions in an and This strategy has been on the of that on of political is an to the or of This way of the would expert agencies to engage with but the that this to the political of their to democratic The of expert agencies is important only insofar as it is towards justifiable may to the public of what they often have on the public of the political judgment of agencies, where citizens and their the political of the mandates and them (cf. As a the strategy that values be structured by a public mandate. The of political literacy is as a way to that to the political values of the can be in a This the approach from to apply the idea of public reason to expert that of public reason to expert agencies problems that have been regarding In the is that expert agencies are bound by mandates that explicitly of reasonable of and of to have been by This regarding the of As account it is clear that important do not and of but require political For example, how the is by the to from if the agency the regulation and As terms are that they to the Moreover, the agency is to a of complex such as public and The is not to that such findings the claim that the a form of public reason for Rather, the of evaluative terms shows that we cannot the public reason approach without the of an interpretive The next to this In out the tripartite of political the is to conditions of nonpartisan with political values in expert This section features of political are for about political expert agencies to or exercise of this capacity does not that are acceptable to all reasonable but that is not the of expert agency Rather, expert agencies are under an to let their conceptions be by interpretive practices that are to the mandate. that will be to agencies, in on the of these expert is the in the of a particular of a contested and there is the in the of the as It is to think that involves more a of as this is we ways in which expert agencies stand from Expert agencies are institutions that can be to the in Many of expert agencies are to this there are for at with and are not for and can work as for the ability to concepts as these practices do not but they or controversial conceptions of political values that more and to reasonable be (cf. However, such will not if the work of the agency is not as with contested political A case in is the framing of agencies the As by the European the expert agencies are of technical of very quality and are not by political or Against that the European and has been political The a case the regulation the of of the European Union of v and The that it to judgments and out complex economic In it that the to on the of to the and of or the stability of the or part of the on a of the be as decisions made on the of criteria to objective the has been that such as are not in but are a technical in their of the that there is a need for judgment in the decisions of these are professional from matters of of agencies are of this sort of 2016). the in and they may more in in this and to a such as market some that the are tasked with market without a clear that for and of The claim is that these expert agencies operate with a that is and to objective This to of away from ongoing and political debate, which is to issues of and and them to the of professional rather a political focus on of the idea of political literacy legitimacy issues in this we that a professional will be sufficiently to for reasonable As has in account of the of a the to out a of and on market stability and acceptable The is not a for political but rather a particular in The is not that the of expert agencies be but that it matters that from an of may be to an but what is this if the are to a beyond public expert agencies can be to of this is of help the is in the of the does not lead to a interpretive It is with the as for The of political literacy is about of how diverging conceptions of contested concepts are in shared the of that through on in expert this as the contested because there is general about the standards for and because these standards on and political However, as and out in a more review of of there is at a conceptual that is about is about to with a legitimate claim to an and 6). an expert agency being in to a for The for more from regarding and with that this features of expert such as to or from political This is a about how to the standards of for this but it does not have to be a about the of is a shared that expert agencies must be from decisions by of public but what as appropriate will clearly be a of of shared paradigms the for interpretive with diverging This may of be a expert agencies to see in to the of their can have an to conceptions of risk and in the of their scientific or professional But that does not the of political or that with as as to scientific standards and the political may the political out of expert agency but it does not the political nature of the at The a independent scientific of the and aspects of the food and which for the issues having a or indirect on the of the food and and and of the European and of the of the general and of food the European and in matters of food of such a for a complex of to to require the expert agency to conceptions of risk to a more on a of risk that to the actual of appropriate This the to political values of the mandate. The conditions of political literacy are about up a for beyond professional Expert agencies of how the political values intertwined with technical are and they for interpretive with diverging conceptions on of shared The step is about this in the of the intentions of the mandate. This be the of constructive Here, the of intentions is about to and in the of the not the intentions of particular That is, the approach follows in that can and and be or to of from of of or citizens as literacy takes this as a in the that it is by to values entrusted in the of the of in the all agree on this is not to a role in the are not a political and we not be part of But we can see that some of on from the intentions with June the we do not have to see this as an approach or that is an will from the Expert agencies are aware that a of is for a of some are on or that are not appropriate for expert agency and there may be a of evaluative that with the and that can be as part of the public that agency interpretation must fit (cf. However, the intentions of a are clearly not by or in The public authority of expert agencies is not part of a of where a clearly a Expert agencies are part of an system where they are to ongoing and diverging from there are complex and In this has that legitimacy of public on their ability to and to on issues in The idea of political literacy that there are standards for this of literacy is an ability to to it as an interpretive to and in the of the For example, an expert agency may be to an expectation that decisions on and regulatory This can be in with a political focus on and risk In to a the expert agency must how the fit the of public intentions that govern their mandate. expert to lack of may be if the has been framed in terms of public about the and an need for This mode of diverging is a way of indirect to the political values in It is indirect in the that the of the values is from a public of evaluative The does not how the values are to be or but it the public of in which the expert agency This is not to claim that the of this can or be a The professional expertise of agencies may a legitimate role in the intentions of a mandate. For example, it has been that the European in risk an of to open up a interpretive which to the of to the and The expert agency an to the of expertise that if the existing of risk taken to judgments about the of This towards a more approach what the political institutions In up an interpretive the of professional standards beyond the means to political it the of what the intentions However, this to the of the does not expert agencies political in the way by the It is in the of and the intentions of the mandate. an expert agency the scientific and for conceptions of and environmental it is not a that with Rather, it a lack of The expert agency shows how intentions concerning are not yet for in the regulatory given the of In the agency is by the idea of on conceptions that are to political literacy takes the form of in of and by political the account of political literacy given can of the reasonable expert agencies towards their entrusted The has been to the basic capacity that the interpretation the right where the idea is that expert agencies are by the idea of to the entrusted The conditions in the how this can be a nonpartisan and The next section that this may be as a for constructive interpretation of actual As political literacy can agencies to engage in the appropriate form of constructive interpretation of their mandate. The has the way expert agencies reason about political The focus has not primarily been on how from an expert agency However, by from expert agencies such as and the paper has at that the idea of political literacy can as a constructive interpretation of the actual practice of expert The section the of political literacy with a on the practice of expert Many have agencies in to or values and and For example, agencies may their to values or them This has been as a form of constructive interpretation of actual practice and The of these is to how strategy is in the that they agencies to and not in evaluative and in explicitly the of that the to do can be The of this section is to the normative in the But in it about the of the the expert agencies out to be they are because it an of with political In these have a for it is legitimate for agencies to engage in such of is expectation that agencies to values as an interpretive by values as to be they are to that have to be in the are such to the expert agencies of the conditions of political literacy the for normative they for interpretive in to the nature or extent of the of contestedness certain of the normative the claim from the which the professional judgment in the of to pursue safety, and among these values the common and that all The of political literacy this way of of common values such as and given of what this to will on of the It is not as if the of such values is because they are in an the the public it to simply that particular of a political is Moreover, are to in with standards of scientific and professional which interpretive As they may have a to open interpretive the of political forums to how values to a regulatory of how diverging conceptions on shared paradigms can lead to a of A that to as about to may be but it to of the role in of political and the ways in which are as to The problem is not that a of is not acceptable to reasonable but rather that it may not be the public that the mandate. But the approach to values to this as even a It with values as a form of in the of the criteria of conceptions are to is to be it is that expert agencies are to rather an to recognize shared paradigms agencies from from of or professional as in a shared of value, it as The of the of political to the intentions of the particularly at the or nature of the form of that and the and role of values in expert it is that expert agencies may their regarding and and that they may to there is a legitimacy in this by way of a normative and values to This clear we the role of values in expert For example, in to justify more approach, an expert agency cannot appeal to a in to as if this does not in this Rather, it must how approach the of given the of the can a to a such as to be to the of the expert The normative judgment of must be to the of the For example, it the judgment of a on that conceptions of and are not with that have been out in more In the to sufficiently and are of agencies in a way that does not to the As a of an are and the of members to for these This is as for expert agencies as for the they important is that an agency is not in the way a democratic the of see where that normative particular and this to and are of the they are entrusted with that have been in forums with the normative powers to the of public to values is indirect through to the intentions of the literacy is about to the of and the of the that are by As an indirect strategy of it does not agencies to their entrusted values as a of or the values must be taken as and by a public mandate. This on of does not a on actual agency it may question the of the The to be by the that through interpretive of taking the mode as be open to of that on political In the idea of political this paper has on that how expert agencies and the forums they with the evaluative to be the of that have to and of and they to the intentions of This is an that political literacy may as part of a constructive interpretation of actual This paper has to how the capacity of political literacy expert agencies the appropriate indirect to political As a first it that it is not for expert agencies to simply be about their The with political values must be structured by the in the right way. public an important part here, they cannot expert agencies of their interpretive a of public and it is their to their through a of the normative The conditions of political literacy can the has been in a way. the expert agency that the political values do not have criteria of as of the by appeal to the intentions that govern the to these criteria a capacity for of of shared and an ability to let be guided by the intentions of the mandate. of this complex does not legitimate but it enables It to the expert agency an appropriate of political

Competence (human resources) · Democracy · Economics · Epistemology · Framing (construction) · Law and economics · Legitimacy · Literacy · Management · Operationalization · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Sociology · Foucault, Power, and Ethics · Law · Political Philosophy and Ethics

• Expertise, Policy-making and Democracy

  Open Access•Cathrine Holst, Anders Molander et al.•Expertise, Policy-Making and…•2022

  Add to list

• The Future Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

  Open Access•Torbjørn Gundersen, Kristine Bærøe•Science and Engineering Ethics•2022

  Add to list

• Science Advice in an Environment of Trust

  Open Access•Torbjørn Gundersen, Cathrine Holst•Social Epistemology•2022

  Add to list

• Worries About Philosopher Experts

  Open Access•Cathrine Holst•Res Publica. Revista de Historia…•2023

  Add to list

• Trustworthy Science Advice

  Open Access•Torbjørn Gundersen•Res Publica. Revista de Historia…•2023

  Add to list

• Grenseoverskridende forpliktelser

  Open Access•Erik Oddvar Eriksen•Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning•2025

  Add to list

• The Application Paradox

  Open Access•Alicia Noëllie Saes‐Louarn, Karin Hjorthen Zelano et al.•Scandinavian Political Studies•2026

  Add to list

• Does the Background of the Regulator Matter? The Role of Expertise and Diversity on the Perceived Competence of Regulatory Bodies

  Open Access•Ixchel Pérez‐durán, Yannis Papadopoulos et al.•Regulation & Governance•2025

  Add to list

• Three modes of administrative behaviour

  Open Access•Erik Oddvar Eriksen•Journal of European Public Policy•2023

  Add to list

• The Rise of the Unelected

  Open Access•Frank Vibert•The Rise of the Unelected•2007

  Add to list

• Justice as Fairness

  John Rawls, Erin Kelly•Justice As Fairness•2001

  Add to list

• Public Accountability

  Mark Bovens, Robert E Goodin et al.•2014

  Add to list

• Rational deliberation among experts and citizens

  Open Access•Thomas Christiano•Deliberative Systems•2012

  Add to list

• Nonmajoritarian Institutions and the Limits of Democratic Governance

  Giandomenico Majone•Journal of Institutional and…•2001

  Add to list

• Reflective Democracy

  Robert E Goodin•Reflective Democracy (Oxford…•2003

  Add to list

• Justice for Hedgehogs

  Open Access•Ronald Dworkin•Justice for Hedgehogs•2011

  Add to list

• Against Democracy

  Jason Brennan•Against Democracy•2016

  Add to list

• IX.—Essentially Contested Concepts

  W B Gallie•Proceedings of the Aristotelian…•1956

  Add to list

• Depoliticizing Democracy

  Open Access•Philip Pettit•Ratio Juris•2004

  Add to list

• Time in Law's Domain

  Open Access•Gerald J Postema•Ratio Juris•2018

  Add to list

• Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality

  Open Access•Andrea Sangiovanni•Journal of Political Philosophy•2007

  Add to list

• Coping With Public Value Conflicts

  Open Access•G De Graaf, Leo Huberts et al.•Administration & Society•2016

  Add to list

• Self-Constitution

  Christine M Korsgaard•Self-constitution•2009

  Add to list

• Two Concepts of Accountability

  Mark Bovens•West European Politics•2010

  Add to list

• Theories of Political Literacy

  Open Access•Carol A Cassel, Celia C Lo•Political Behavior•1997

  Add to list

• Constructing Justice for Existing Practice

  Open Access•Aaron James•Philosophy & Public Affairs•2005

  Add to list

• Managing Value Conflict in Public Policy

  Open Access•David Thacher, Martin Rein•Governance•2004

  Add to list