Technical Legitimacy

Trym Nohr Fjørtoft

Political Studies2026https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217251409057article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

In studies of non-majoritarian institutions, there is a widespread idea that political neutrality, epistemic authority, and technical expertise are sources of legitimacy. Empirical studies tend to find that such appeals are effective sources of legitimacy, but theorists are overwhelmingly skeptical of their normative appeal. This article’s conceptual ambition is to unify the disparate debates under the term technical legitimacy . The article’s theoretical ambition is to improve on the normative debate on technical legitimacy. Existing defenses fail to robustly satisfy the reasons that ground delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. I propose conditions for accepting technical legitimacy that are reasonably robust against counterfactuals. Technical legitimacy must meet three criteria. Institutions must promote a functionally specified common good; build on sound and undistorted expertise; and, perhaps counterintuitively, contain appropriate venues for value input.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217251409057

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{trym2026,
  title        = {{Technical Legitimacy}},
  author       = {Trym Nohr Fjørtoft},
  journal      = {Political Studies},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217251409057},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Technical Legitimacy

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.