The book of the fortnight: “The gap between knowing and doing. Stronger democracies with more effective policies”, by Joan Subirats (2026, Anagrama)
We owe to Max Weber the theoretical confrontation of the politician and the scientist formulated a little over a century ago. Then, mass politics was beginning to outline the figure of the professional politician endowed with a peculiar combination of vocation and ambition that confronted him with professional activity and inserted in the electoral game as a promotional mechanism. In contrast, the scientist established himself as a relevant figure in an industrial society that had consolidated the industrial revolution and in which positivism little by little consolidated its epistemological assumptions. In this scenario, Weber also popularized the complex dilemma between the ethics of responsibility and that of conviction.
The decade that followed the end of the First World War in the British panorama also consolidated a concern for an unprecedented activity of the State that began to address social demands through the formulation and implementation of hitherto unprecedented actions that constituted innovative public policies. Harold Laski, along with John Stuart Mill, were prominent figures who addressed the tasks of States driven by new tasks. Public policies began to be at the center of public debate in their political and academic facets. Decades later, Luis. F. Aguilar Villanueva disseminated the wealth accumulated significantly in the English-speaking world and effectively contributed to the establishment of his study in the Spanish-speaking universe.
Joan Subirats, professor of Political Science at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, is the great Spanish reference in the field of the study of public policies who adds to his long academic career his experience in the world of politics as a councilor of the Barcelona city council and as Minister of Universities in the government of Spain. His teaching and research experience is, therefore, enriched by his time in politics. This allows you to ask about the existence of space, resources and will necessary for scientific knowledge to be relevant in political and social debates. To what extent can their functions be complemented with those of citizens, public officials and representatives of various interests? What scope is there to try new responses to persistent problems?
The book brings together 14 short texts and a final conclusion in which it addresses questions of absolute relevance in a permanent attempt to build bridges over the classic gap that separates knowing from doing in a particularly delicate area to the extent that it is evident that the strength of democracy depends on the effectiveness of the policies implemented. As Subirats points out in the conclusions, “the fragility of democracy is now concentrated in its lack of problem resolution in the face of authoritarian alternatives that are presented as more decisive.” The conjunction of very diverse interests and values - if not radically opposed -, divergent priorities, as well as capacities that are not always developed or lubricated represents a permanent challenge in both the daily and long-term future of politics. Also the availability of data that not only prefigures the research agenda, but, in turn, can end up shaping the political agenda itself.
Science for politics cannot ignore political science, particularly the analysis of public policies, maintains Subirats. The scientific analysis has to take into account the political-social aspects and the institutional and administrative limitations that condition its implementation, in addition to the perspective of the recipients or citizens. Which does not mean that the scientist has to stop doing his job. Interaction becomes paramount as well as active involvement with non-academic audiences.
“It is about reinforcing the capacity for action of the democratic system without depriving it of one of its structural components such as the free debate of ideas and opinions. Science can contribute to distinguishing what is more consistent with the facts than what is not, contributing, without closing the possibility of dissent, to making the bases on which to build public policies more solid and ultimately effective.”
