Lobbying: How the rich get richer and the poor get poorer

In this four-part series, we investigate preferential lobbying – what it is, why it matters, how and why it happens and how to stop it. 

Preferential lobbying is primarily wealth appropriation and rarely wealth creation. Every time a decision goes in favour of the wealthy it is to the cost of the less well off, which means preferential lobbying is a driver of inequality.

By Ed Straw and Ray Ison

Preferential lobbying is where a large organisation secures its interests preferentially; that is, without concern for other interests and usually at their expense. This form has become ubiquitous – from Canberra to Washington, Brussels to Lagos – so much so that it appears as simply the way things are done, integral to the governing process.

But it was never thus. What we do here is to lay out the effects of preferential lobbying, why it matters, its means, and how to stop it. All large organisations with sufficient funding and political weight can do it – trade unions, national charities, public sector bodies such as the police, professional organisations. But it is business and industry that have by far the biggest impact on our lives and futures.

Preferential lobbying either starts or stops something. It could be a law, regulation, tax change, policy or other ministerial decision. Imagine you are running a utility where the regulator sets the prices that consumers have to pay for electricity. Your interest is in securing the highest price – the consumer’s interest is paying the lowest. You hire lobbyists who advise that an economic assessment would be persuasive.

https://i0.wp.com/johnmenadue.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/040AB161-04A3-4AC6-B380-9DF7E28C5934.jpeg?ssl=1
Preferential lobbying helps increase inequality

Those consultants make the best case from the data – for example, a high price is necessary to fund vital investment in the grid. Without this investment, in X years’ time supply will be regularly disrupted. This is called the ‘credible threat’. It’s sufficiently daunting and has sufficient credibility to grab the attention of decision-makers. The regulator would look pretty dumb if and when the lights went out.

The lobbyists will then take this case to influencers – politicians and others who are always seeking a cause to champion. They fan the flames of the credible threat and then lobby the government internally. Minsters will either then lean on the regulator internally or via the media.

Some see all of this in terms of good and bad people. So business leaders may be deemed as ‘bad’ because they lobby. This is a mistake. They do what they do because that’s their job and because the systems of governing allow and, often, enable lobbying. Because business has become more and more powerful under the prevailing neoliberal economic system, so more and more have lobbied. They would be criticized by those to whom they are accountable if they did not.

Why it matters

How much does preferential lobbying matter? Rather a lot. Not every lobbied decision is wrong or not in citizens’ interests, but mostly they are.

One study found that for every dollar spent lobbying for targeted tax breaks, the return on investment was between $6 and $20. Leaving aside whether the term ‘investment’ is appropriate for what is near corruption, who pays? The public does.

It may be in higher prices, extra charges from the financial services industry, extra taxes for many and lower taxes for the very wealthy, genuinely unsafe products and services on the market with us all bearing the costs such as a fire for example, lower house building standards – you’ll pay more for heating, taxpayers money spent on industry subsidies serving no or negative social purpose, degradation in employment protections and pensions, and so on.

Preferential lobbying is a zero sum game, in that someone pays for someone else’s benefit. It is wealth appropriation and rarely wealth creation. Even in conventional economic terms, it is manifestly inefficient.

Image result for zero sum game

Next comes environmental degradation. As many are now understanding, treating the environment as a dumping ground and as an infinite resource comes at a very high price: indeed so high that we may not sustain the planet as our life-support system. The roll-call of polluting industries that refuse to pay the full cost of their short-term self-interest is lengthy – coal, oil, gas, mining, agriculture, fishing, air transport, shipping.

All of this adds up to preferential lobbying being a driver of inequality. Every time a decision goes in favour of the wealthy it is to the cost of the less wealthy. Ideology-driven policies, such as mass outsourcing, reduce the wages and conditions of workers. Their income is transferred to management and shareholders. When the pharmaceutical industry gets traditional medicines banned, income is transferred from small firms to big pharma.

Image result for lobbying = inequality

Asymmetric information – when one party has more information than the other – in retail investment, for example, penalises the small investor and ensures the banking sector reaps higher profits. The company that is likely to build a project, regardless of whether there are more worthy public projects, often lobbies for specific infrastructure.

Where ‘quantitative easing’ (QE) after the 2008 crash went to the banks to distribute, the outcome was to increase share and house prices by about 25% in the UK according to the Bank Of England. Great, if your assets include shares and houses, bad luck if not. Commenting on the latest QE by the Reserve Bank of Australia, the chief economist at the accounting firm KPMG said one risk was the soaring price of houses and other assets, which ‘will further exacerbate the difference between the haves and have-nots in society’.

Preferential lobbying can be thought of as capital’s carriage. Money is creamed off, on average the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, wealth is retained in the same hands, acquiring it becomes next to impossible.

The same is true of power. The disappearance of democracy between elections is no coincidence as preferential lobbying has steadily built its hold over several decades.

For most decisions, you and I are not at the table. We are literally powerless. Token gestures to the public interest may be made, but the excluding decision pertains, unless a huge outcry or riot occurs. In these situations, it can be no surprise that ‘populism’ and populist parties have flourished. Where else can a disadvantaged citizen go for a slice of the cake? Not to an establishment well enmeshed in preferential lobbying or to established parties of government.

Day-to-day democracy has withered. Preferential lobbying is a scourge and the perfect bedfellow for neoliberalism. Indeed without it neoliberal economics would not have the hold it does.

Part 2 tomorrow: Money talks … loudly. How and why preferential lobbying happens. 

The Hidden Power of Systems Thinking: Governance in a Climate Emergency (routledge.com). See; https://www.routledge.com/The-Hidden-Power-of-Systems-Thinking-Governance-in-a-Climate-Emergency/Ison-Straw/p/book/9781138493995

__________

First published at Pearls and Irritations – Monday 15 February 2021. See; https://johnmenadue.com/preferential-lobbying-the-rich-get-richer-the-poor-get-poorer-part-1-of-4/

______________

One thought on “Lobbying: How the rich get richer and the poor get poorer

  1. On balance, lobbying is an evil practice which ought to outlawed. In reality, the best we might expect from political “leaders”, is a formalisation and management of the process, by an independent body, an ICAC for the “lobbying industry”.
    The following lengthy slab, offered for comment on this article, is taken from a Rant which I wrote in 2018, entitled “There Has To Be A Better Way”:

    An entire industry has developed around “lobbying” – the task of getting pollies to vote in a way that is favourable to specific sections of society, most notably business and industry, who pay the lobbyists for favourable outcomes. Pollies may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, many survive on native cunning, but they’re not stupid enough to bite the hand that gets them elected, so donors are rewarded by getting laws made that are consistent with their particular interests.
    In some cases, these manipulations of the system may be legal, but rarely are they in the best interests of the whole community. Technically this may not constitute corruption in the legal sense, but morally they stink.
    The favours to pollies do not end with donations.
    Consider this hypothetical scenario:
    Ivor Lottamunny, Member for the NSW electorate of Wideopenspaces, has been the Minister for Lands and Water for five years. During that time, controversial legislation has been passed which affects the rights of landholders to use water from two of the state’s major rivers.
    A huge farming conglomerate, with its headquarters in India, has bought up several major farming properties in the Wideopenspaces electorate, with the intention of changing to a lucrative crop which, unfortunately, consumes enormous quantities of water. Even the combined water entitlements of the recently purchased properties would not be sufficient to make the growing of the new crop viable.
    However, with great foresight, the Indian entrepreneurs had been able to utilise the services of one of their company directors, Sir Hugh Jarsole, former Member for Wideopenspaces, and “close personal friend” of the incumbent, Ivor Lottamunny, as a lobbyist.
    Sir Hugh, by virtue of his many remaining contacts in the ruling coalition’s Rural Advancement Party, had been able to persuade Ivor Lottamunny and several other serving pollies, of the wisdom of supporting the Indian corporation (economic benefits to the state, job creation, bullshit, bullshit . . . ), and those pollies then persuaded other members of the government to change the rules regarding water licenses in order to benefit the Indian company. Of course there would have been a quid pro quo required, “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine”.
    There were four significant consequences of this action:
    1. Share values in the Indian company experienced enormous increases, bringing even more millions of dollars to the company and its Board of Directors. The wives, children and some close friends of a number of politicians, who had happened to buy shares some months before the government’s decision was announced, also benefitted.
    2. A number of farmers in the lower reaches of two major NSW rivers found that the rivers were supplying insufficient quantities of water for them to remain in business.
    3. The Rural Advancement Party ceased using the slogan, “Rural Advancement Party Enterprises”, when a respected political commentator raised the unfortunate, but accurate, implications of the accompanying acronym.
    4. The (ir)responsible Minister for Lands and Water received strong public censure following a scathing report by television’s “4 Square” current affairs programme, which went as far as suggesting a Royal Commission should be held into political corruption in the NSW government. Minister Ivor Lottamunny resigned his post and, after securing his post-retirement benefits, left the scene.
    It was several months later that a journalist reported that “former NSW government minister, Ivor Lottamunny, today took up a position as a director of Sandjay Incorporated, an India based multinational with multiple agricultural holdings in western NSW. It is reported that Mr Lottamunny’s position carries a remuneration package worth in excess of three million dollars annually”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Coffs Coast Outlook - Your alternative Coffs Coast voice
+ +