Harry Geels: The PDF doctrine
This column was originally written in Dutch. This is an English translation.
By Harry Geels
We live in an age ruled by reports. International institutions, policy bodies and consultants inundate us with PDFs full of “facts”, recommendations, targets and instructions. I call this the “PDF doctrine”: the belief that policy should be based primarily on documents, not on democratic debate.
Social media is turning into a cacophony of opinions: lots of shouting, little dialogue. We talk past each other and are increasingly less open to genuine debate. We see this, for example, in the discussion about our freedom and democracy. One group claims that these are under pressure because populist leaders do not take (international) law very seriously. The other group points to increasingly restrictive rules, a lack of open debate, and a lack of respectful understanding for different opinions.
To me, freedom means, in a nutshell, that you are free to determine your own values and virtues based on the “do no harm principle”, that the number of government rules is kept to a minimum and that governments, including central banks, intervene as little as possible in the market (the government is merely the market referee). Democracy means that we engage in discussion with each other, treat other opinions with respect, and that the majority decides by taking the minorities into account as much as possible.
Society has become too complicated
One of the greatest challenges facing society today is that it has become increasingly complicated due to a growing number of regulatory frameworks, partly driven by globalisation. We need legal assistance, digital tools, lifelong education and external experts to navigate our way through life. This leads to stress, people withdrawing (into echo chambers or self-sufficient ecosystems such as Forumland of FvD), and even to the appeal of leaders who oppose official institutions.
A major complicating factor is the silent growth of international organisations, in terms of numbers (see Figure 1), number of employees and, above all, published reports. According to an analysis by Benjamin Cole (2021), based on JSTOR data, the number of English-language policy reports from the WHO, IMF, UNESCO and OECD increased from approximately 75 (1980-1989) to 600 (2000-2009). These reports often serve as input for international treaties, national policy or case law.
Figure 1: Growth of IGOs and INGOs
Source: Benjamin R. Cole, Professor of Public Policy, Simmons University
As can be seen in Figure 1, the number of intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has grown exponentially since 1945. This makes the institutional infrastructure more complex and influential. Incidentally, many of the reports published by these organisations use terms such as “evidence-based”, but often imply value judgements: what is “sustainable”, “inclusive”, “healthy”?
Education and public debate are being bypassed
It should be noted that the above figures come from only four IGOs. Central banks, system banks and consultants also produce a large number of papers, often with hidden agendas, to endorse their own policies, justify their positions or market their “business lines”. Recently, for example, the major Dutch banks called for the launch of Eurobonds. The balance of power is slowly shifting from public opinion-forming to technocratic knowledge production.
Whereas values, norms and policies used to be formed more autonomously by organisations closer to home, reports from Geneva, New York and Paris now set the tone. Technocratic knowledge seems to be replacing judgement, but in fact it obscures normative choices. Those who determine what is “healthy”, “sustainable” or “inclusive” are steering the world without a mandate. It is also interesting to consider how the PDF doctrine of institutions relates to objective scientific research, which is under pressure (budgetary).
Freedom and democracy under threat (but not only from populism)
Freedom and democracy are under pressure, but not only from angry citizens and fake news. There is a creeping loss of public control to institutions that derive their authority from producing reports without a democratic mandate. This shifts influence from elected representatives to networks of NGOs, IGOs, consultants and system banks.
This does not evoke nostalgia for a supposedly pure democratic era, but it does call for vigilance. If vocabulary and policy are increasingly developed outside the public debate, there is a risk of a technocratic shadow power emerging.
Furthermore, we are seeing a polarising debate with less “deliberative democracy” (reasoning together) and more “identitarian conflict”. Perhaps we are not living in a crisis of democracy, but in a struggle over what democracy and freedom mean. As the British liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin said: “freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep”. In other words, different conceptions of freedom and democracy are colliding, and those who hold power colour the concepts.
This column is not intended to portray organisations such as the WHO or the IMF as evil. They have good intentions. They seek to promote health, stability and development. But the means and definitions they choose often have normative consequences that are rarely discussed publicly. Furthermore, these non-market-driven organisations tend to appropriate more tasks and resources, creating undesirable power and interest structures.
This article contains the personal opinion of Harry Geels