The relationship between government and big business advocate

Government & Big Business | Mises Institute

the relationship between government and big business advocate

Over time, this collusion between the State and Big Business, united by the This collusion between government and the business world is especially . The cozy relationship between lobbyists and legislators, and the real from Capitol Hill to private lobbying firms advocating on behalf of big businesses. The relationship between business and government is becoming increasingly antagonistic, says Philip So, it is a large issue for next researches of this type of relationships. . Every industry from agriculture to solar energy has advocates. Big business has too much power in Washington, according to 90 percent of take laps through the revolving door between government and corporate lobbying. Enron was a tireless advocate of strict global energy regulations supported by . an "advance in the whole conception of the relationship of business to public.

It is important to note that the real or perceived influence of private sector on government has contributed significantly to the broken relationship between governments and citizens in many countries, including the United States. The IMPACT audience is one that understands that distinction, and many of the member businesses count among their greatest successes those that include solid partnerships with the public sector.

Take the companies on the Change the World list published by Fortune earlier this year, for instance. Many of the examples cited as evidence of driving social and business benefit in tandem include a significant government partnership.

Heineken partners with the Dutch and Ethiopian governments to source barley locally. Ahsiya Mencin, director of the PULSE Volunteer Partnership at GSK, a company with a long track record in collaboration in areas such as training frontline health workers and widening access to vaccines: Global health challenges cannot be tackled by one organization or sector alone—it takes partnership between governments, business, and civil society with complementary resources and knowledge.

Many in the public sector agree that cross-sector partnerships are critical to progress. According to van Weerelt: The discussion should no longer be about whether private and public sector should work together—rather it should be about how can we make sure we build on the strongest elements of both.

Restoring the trust Private-public collaborations that show clear benefit for business and society are an important ingredient to restored trust in government. Corporations large and small, multinational and local, are increasingly embracing collaboration with government as critical to their business success.

They see government institutions as necessary to creating and maintaining a viable operating environment, as well as instrumental in scaling up solutions.

Government agencies are prioritizing public-private partnerships, acknowledging that the public sector alone has neither the know-how nor the resources to solve social challenges and deliver services on their own.

Business Collaboration with Government: Does Reward Outweigh Risk?

There are, of course, instances when it makes no sense to partner. What would have happened, by contrast, if a single poor black woman was caught with a small fraction of cocaine?

They would have thrown the book at her; in fact, they did - Stephanie George of Pensacola, Florida was sentenced to life in prison at age 27 for possessing some cocaine in a lockbox stored in her attic. The government allows the financial criminals to operate without worrying about the consequences of their actions, as they know the government deems them too big and important to disturb with petty matters like justice.

Local Collusion This sort of collusion happens at the local level as well through the granting of tax abatements. These abatements thus function almost as indulgences for businesses, remitting either all plenary or some partial of their tax burden! These abatements are usually done for admirable motives; companies that get abatements usually are larger employers whose expansions will create new jobs. In addition to this, municipalities covet the large tax revenues that they will reap from multi-million dollar investments once the abatement period has expired.

However, because state laws allow these to granted only under certain conditions usually the company has to demonstrate that it will create a certain number of jobs and the "investment" in the community has to be sufficiently large only very large companies are eligible for these abatements - companies whose expansions are projects in the tens of millions of dollars. Though the abatements are technically available to any applicant, the guidelines ensure that only sufficiently capitalized applicants will ever qualify to receive them.

Thus the big companies that can most afford to pay their taxes are granted breaks while small companies for whom taxes are a greater burden have no escape from them. In typical consequentialist fashion, these unfortunate inequalities are justified in light of the eventual good that will accrue to the community by the new jobs and new tax revenue the corporate development will eventually produce.

The real irony is that even these supposed benefits are ephemeral; there is no way for the company to ensure that only local persons are hired - in many cases, workers hired as a result of the development are from out of town or transferred in from another factory.

the relationship between government and big business advocate

And what about the taxes that will come into local coffers after the abatement period ends? Usually, a company that receives a 12 year abatement will file a property tax appeal in year 13 and fight tooth and nail in expensive lawsuits at the state tax tribunals that municipalities cannot afford to fight, eventually securing further tax concessions.

Thus, local governments grant tax exemptions to big corporations to get them into their towns while corporations play cities against each other, seeing who will give the most lucrative deal. In the end, the big corporations cooperate with the community only long enough to enjoy the fruits of their abatement before suing the same city that granted them the abatement to get their taxes lowered again.

Meanwhile small businesses, who do not have the benefit of having laws written for them that allow them to qualify for abatements, have no recourse.

Business Collaboration with Government: Does Reward Outweigh Risk?

This is a prime example of a very common form of government-corporate collusion that goes on all the time at the local level and rewards big corporations while doing nothing for the small businesses. Not to mention that abatements are only available for new businesses or expansions; existing businesses, even if they have been faithfully serving the community for decades, cannot apply for them unless they build an expansion or open up a new building.

The Revolving Door This collusion is perpetuated by a phenomenon that social scientists have dubbed "the revolving door. This mains that the persons making the laws and those advocating on behalf of big businesses are literally the same people.

Lobbying firms hire outgoing lawmakers because the legislators know the inner working of Washington and can bring this knowledge to the advantage of the lobbying firms; legislators, for their part, know that firms they advocated on behalf of during their tenure can be counted on to provide them with a snug, secure position when their term of office is over.

The cozy relationship between lobbyists and legislators, and the real crossing over of persons between both groups, ensures that legislation is written that is oriented in favor of business interests - that is, after all, the end of all corporate lobbying. This phenomenon is fairly universal; in the past decade, lawmakers and 5, staffers have made the jump from Capitol Hill to private lobbying firms advocating on behalf of big businesses.

Likewise, lobbyists have taken up jobs on Capitol Hill in the same frame of time. Lawmakers and lobbyists each have something to offer the other, and the collusion between representatives of public and private interests leave us with big corporations effectively writing legislation and legislation written for big corporations. In case it is not clear, I single out "big corporations" because, of course, mom and pop shops do not have the funding to employ full time lobbyists, nor spend their valuable time lobbying in person.

As with abatements at the local level, this form of collusion open to the big players. It could be objected that lobbying is not as inaccessible to small businesses as we are one might think. Small businesses might not have the funds to hire their own lobbyist, but they may participate in a sort of "virtual lobbying" by joining and paying dues to organizations that are big enough to lobby.

So, for example, a corner shoe store that sells locally made shoes could never hope to pay for its own full-time lobbyist might become a dues-paying member of the Chamber of Commerce, knowing that the Chamber advocates for business in general and is a very powerful voice on Capitol Hill. The shoe store, while not represented directly, is represented virtually through the Chamber, and thus is able to lobby, in a certain way.

This concept of "virtual lobbying" suffers from two major flaws: For example, the Chamber might advocate for free trade with China, knowing that many of its larger, industrial members will approve of the continued ability to get cheap-labor for their manufacturing. Yet this same free trade that pleases one Chamber member is detrimental to our above mentioned shoe store, whose smaller, off-brand and locally produced stock cannot compete with the low-cost junk made by Adidas, Nike and Reebok in the Chinese sweatshops.

the relationship between government and big business advocate

Free trade is actually burden to this store. Related but more important is the inequality of donations within a large umbrella group like the Chamber.

So while smaller businesses certainly can join the Chamber, so can large corporations like McDonalds, Exxon, etc.

Goldman Sachs and Texaco are among some of the Chamber's other top donors. James Carter, founder of a smaller, alternate business advocacy group called the "Green Chamber of Commerce," observed that the Chamber is "dominated by oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers and other polluting industries.

Big companies with big budgets employ full-time lobbyists who cozy up to lawmakers to ensure laws are written with corporate ends in mind; in exchange, lawmakers get information and advice from lobbyists and can count on cushy lobbying jobs themselves when they end their elected terms. Meanwhile, small businesses who cannot afford to lobby are relegated to making their opinions heard through participating in large umbrella groups to whom they pay dues year after year only to have the wishes of a handful of large donors the same ones employing the full-time lobbyists dominate the organization.

The result is that law is written for corporations, corporations write law, and small businesses get the shaft, paying dues to organizations that do not represent them and receiving no real representation at the same time. No mafia boss ever had a racket so profitable or well-organized! An End to Corporate-Government Collusion The classic definition of fascism is a situation in which Big Business and Big Government are formally united in their aims and in many aspects of their administration; government gives business direction in what and how much to produce, and business seeks the authority of government to establish and protect its interests, which are subordinated to the direction of the state.

Unlike communism, where the state owns industry, in fascism, the state is independent from industry, but becomes its biggest customer. The aims of the two coalesce. In Mussolini's Italy, government officials and corporate heads would have regular conferences to decide what "they" were going to do with production in a given period. Because of this legal collusion, fascism has been defined, even by its own adherents, as "national corporatism. How can we reverse this trend? How can we restore true subsidiarity to our economy and end the hijacking of government for corporate ends and the concomitant influence of corporations on government?

This is a tall order, but I think we can propose a few changes that would be keeping in the spirit of Distributism and would go a long way towards rectifying the problems we have highlighted.