Advantages And Disadvantages Of Economic Capture

Economic Capture and Damages to the Society:

The term “Capture” is used to describe strong influence. A "Captured government agency" is an agency that is dominated by powerful lobbies or a network of individuals. These agencies are worse than failed agencies, because they end up serving the interest of the powerful at the expense of the public.

The literature is full of examples of regulatory, economic and media capture?

How does economic capture happen?
There is not enough research literature to examine the process yet, but it appears that some captures happen naturally while others are planned or a mix of both.

It is natural for people to hire their friends and those who share the same views. The problem does not lie in hiring a friend,

If regulatory capture was just due to illegal behavior, it would be easier to fight…
2. Regulators’ opinions can be influenced and not all groups have equal opportunities in influencing them.
3. There is an implicit and explicit unethical behavior. The easiest place to see the importance of this quid pro quo is with Harvard case studies. The explicit quid-pro-quo is that field cases require approval by the company before release.

Damages from Economic Capture

When plagiarism is combined with economic capture, the damage increase exponentially.

Regulatory, media and academic captures enrich and benefit the powerful few and at the expense of other professionals and the society as a whole. A clear example of the net loss that the society suffers from when politically connected economists continue to get the most influential positions, lucrative consulting projects, and media coverage even when they provide incompetent advice or behave unethically.

Regulatory, Economic and Media Capture Case

Economic and Media Capture Case 2:

Another example of the damage of economic and media capture is illustrated by recent the Boston Globe’s Spotlight Case. The case reveal how the collective psychology work in favor of the famous and powerful at the expense of the victim and the public in general. The case also shows the importance of fighting the capture in media and policy.

When few powerless victims of sexual abuse spoke out against the Catholic Church in Boston in USA, the Church official covered it up, no would write about it or take the case. Lawyers and journalists worked against the victim’s interest and in favor of the powerful church, whether there was a conspiracy or collusion that is not the point of this example. The point is the rationalization of the lawyers, journalists and Church officials involved illustrate economic capture and the way it works against the interest of the public. The three key rationales in play were as follows:

1. The Church and the church officials have impeccable reputation and its priests are highly unlikely to commit such unethical acts. Even if it happened, it is an isolated case and the top officials surely did knew about