One of my occasional co-authors has been Andrew Baker from Queen's University Belfast, whose work in the sphere of political economy I much admire. He has an article on The Conversation under the above title and since such articles can be shared I do so here:
Much has been made of the 100-plus business figures who came out in support of the Conservative Party.
A letter published on the front page of The Daily Telegraph and the huge amount of debate it has provoked, has implicitly suggested that the views of these “business leaders” are of disproportionate importance and should be listened to above others. But what are the sources of this elevation and are they justified?
What distinguishes these individuals is their personal success in running businesses. They will have no doubt made good investment decisions for individual businesses and in some cases successfully navigated corporate structures to rise to the top of their organisations. Their status comes from these achievements and the office and personal wealth that comes with this.
It is this status that enables these individuals to have their personal views on the outcome of the general election and its impact on the economy, published in a national newspaper. In this case, elite status equals access.
The problem is that that all of the 103 names on the list do not live ordinary lives. Indeed, enhanced access and elevated voice indicate that they lead rarefied existences, divorced from the everyday lives of most of the UK electorate. On representative and democratic grounds, they should be somewhere at the back of the queue in terms of voice, precisely because their experiences are so unrepresentative and far removed from the rest of the population.
Yet in the UK presently, exactly the opposite situation prevails — these business leaders have a disproportionate capacity to obtain exposure for their views. The result is that that unrepresentative and already powerful few enjoy a skewed domination over public debate.
Fallacies of composition
If the enhanced weight given to their opinions is democratically questionable, maybe there are reasons to pay extra attention on grounds of expertise? However, none of the 103 individuals in the Telegraph letter regularly engages in any form of specialist analysis of macro-economic trends, processes, or dynamics that are at the core of public policy making. They are too busy running individual businesses.
Their successful track records come from the very restricted vantage point of what is best for their individual businesses. This does not necessarily translate into a good sense of what is the best outcome for the system and the nation as a whole.
In macroeconomics the concept of fallacies of composition captures this problem. It holds that what is true for individual agents is not necessarily true for the system as a whole. This means that drawing on individual preferences and experiences to make conclusions about what is best for the wider social whole has in the past led to bad systemic outcomes. This was one of the lessons of the financial crash of 2008.
It should also be noted that on the same day that the letter was published and discussed, a number of the country's top economists said that the Coalition's austerity policies had harmed the economy. This was given only a fraction of the air time of the prognosis of the business leaders.
Assertion vs evidence
The Telegraph letter itself contained a mere seven sentences. It cited only two figures — the new, reduced corporation tax rate of 20% and 1.85m new jobs. It contained no analysis or discussion of those figures. It asserted that the track record of the current government is good and that a change in course will threaten jobs and investment.
The letter was not based on analysis, data or argument, but pronouncement and assertion. There is no evidence of expertise or analysis. In the absence of this, status and social standing was the reason for the elevation of the personal opinions contained in the letter.
When invoked in favour of political and policy positions, business figures are frequently portrayed as impartial non-political figures, from a range of backgrounds, with a keen sense of the collective public interest. Yet many of the individuals concerned are paid up members or funders of the Conservative Party.
In such instances, social status and privileged access are being used for enhanced voice and to sway other individuals' private choices in the context of a general election. Yet when social status rather than substantive content or expertise are the reasons for the elevation of opinions and views, we have reasons to be concerned.
Such practices are corrosive of democratic politics and principles. They solidify and consolidate our elite driven politics, that increasingly revolves around status, access and wealth's disproportionate capacity to set agendas.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The phrase “the usual suspects” comes to mind. It depends how seriously you take them, if most people just see this as the sort of knockabout farce only to be expected from them with the loot they may well be right. Looking down the list of firms there seem to be quite a few whose pricing strategies are very much to their advantage. It is a pity that when this one was known to be in the wind others were too slow to come up a list of signatories of ordinary people who had suffered at the hands of predatory activity or questionable policies of some of these geezers.
Another threat to democracy is apparent if you go into/past any supermarket, newsagent or newstand during the few weeks before the General Election (and most other times too) – the screaming anti-Labour headlines of the national dailies owned and controlled by
– A pair of billionaires brothers who own their own tax haven – and hence pay no UK tax.
– An evil billionaire Australian, naturalised American – who pays no tax here.
– A billionaire non dom who inherited his title and wealth – and pays no tax here.
– A billionaire pornographer who uses a Luxembourg tax scam to avoid paying tax here.
The one owned by the Russian billionaire oligarch is generally neutral.
The Grauniad does not extend uncritical support to the Labour Party, has advocated voting LibDem in the past and gives equal support to the Greens.
The Daily Mirror is pro Labour but does not scream anti-Tory lies every day.
The Morning Star is the only national daily which, during the Election period – and only then – advises its readers unreservedly to vote Labour, but despite being an excellent paper it has a small circulation, partly because it is shunned by the big advertisers and hence is expensive per page.
With bourgeois parliamentarism, every pound gets to vote, and every citizen gets to imagine that they choose whose pounds get most votes.
An illustration of the evil Murdoch: http://www.theage.com.au/business/rupert-murdochs-us-empire-siphons-45b-from-australian-business-virtually-taxfree-20150406-1meu0l.html
Just realised that I contradicted myself by saying MStar only one pro Labour when DMirror does also.
As this FT letter points out, this CEO of BP is a US citizen so his personal views are irrelevant http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4549b22e-ce63-11e4-86fc-00144feab7de.html#axzz3WI448gWy.
Another newspaper has pointed out that he and his wife are getting their UK passports this week.
To put it more into context, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”
apologies to Mandy Rice-Davies.
It’s a free country and people can say what they want.
It’s actually anti-democratic to try and silence them.
But I’m sure if these same business leaders were coming out in favour of the Labour party, Andrew Baker wouldn’t have written this article at all.
And it is fraudulent to use multiple identities as you are
So go and comment on any number of other blogs if you so wish
I would have done actually. I think it’s fine for business to lobby and seek to exert influence on an individual policy issue. That is part and parcel of the democratic process.
However, there is a line and seeking to influence how individuals vote in the context of a general election and to influence the outcome of that goes beyond the usual pluralist politics. It is an abuse of status, access and contacts. The elevation of voice is the problem here, especially when the individuals concerned are hugely unrepresentative of the population at large. Our business leaders need to display self restraint when an election is underway, given their status, access, voice, wealth and privilege – is already disproportionate.
Business leaders have suffered from a break down of trust from the public at large since the 2008 crash and growing inequality as it reaches record levels. This is damaging capitalism and economic performance. This tawdry episode does little to restore that trust and faith. It is counter productive in so many ways. And it is so transparently self serving and motivated by personal enrichment. Large MNCs and a reputation of predatory business has a big PR problem. Stunts like this make things worse. We need responsible restrained businesses that people and the public have faith and trust in. This runs through the writings of arch liberals like Adam Smith, – who wrote that the merchant classes would seek to rig markets and the political process, in ways which would be ultimately detrimental. So the points in the piece are hardly new and hardly virulently left wing. But they do deserve to be restated and forcibly so.
And for further clarification, democracy has two primary constitutive principles – political equality and popular control. This letter and the reporting of it, particularly by the BBC, as another correspondent notes, are an affront to both of those principles. This would apply irrespective of which political party was involved.
For me a critical issue of this election is the relationship between the BBC and the Right Wing Press ( about 6 or daily 7 papers) So for example the Telegraph letter led the BBC national News at Ten which is of course the BBC adopting the Tory Press agenda. But also the people signing the letter let alone the economics of the letter were left unquestioned & uncriticised. Not journalism but ‘Churnalism’ from Tory letter to Tory paper to Tory trip to factories. All of us need to be critical of the BBC when it uncritically absorbs these Tory press manufactured stories and events.
Moreover on the press reviews of BBC and SKY news – there is a poor analysis of the Tory Press for example this week papers like the Sun, Telegraph and Mail have had headlines such as Miliband lost the election following the debates, and how the SNP leader is “The most dangerous women in Britain” The commentariat of these programs are limited to white, middle aged mainly London based journalists criticising the Non-Tories and bashing the Labour Leader. Impartiality has gone out the window so often with this soft, lazy content.
I suppose Stewart Rose has turned up again in this list has he?
This is the guy who did a decent job as CEO at M&S I suppose. He went onto support changes to benefits for working people and the unemployed/disabled early on in the Coalescence which he would do given this meant that pensioners have come off lightly in the cuts.
I mean, have you seen how many pensioners shop at M&S? Phew!! Mustn’t mess with M&S’ most lucrative market segment must we!!
Again, the problem here is that people think that CEO’s of companies are also good at running countries. Yet, when you think about it, companies are operating in shorter and shorter cycles with rent-seeking shareholders demanding more and more.
Running a country is a more long term franchise so once again we have macro economics being undermined and even confused with micro economics. What a pity.
BTW – I’m not on an anti-pensioner ticket here – I’m sure our pensioners are worth it – I just want to be sure that I and my kids and their kids can shop at M&S one day too when they retire.
I remember back in the 1970s that the late and saintly Tony Benn wanted to nationalise the Times, which was then a Paper of Record and not the rightwing rag it has become under the unpopular and undemocratic Murdoch Terror.
Maybe now is the time to nationalise the BBC properly (and maybe the Times too) to ensure their genuine integrity as impartial agents of a Courageous State.
I am as opposed to neoliberalism as anyone, but this is the sort of teenage infantile Marxism that gave it a toehold in the 1970s and led to the literal carnage of the miners in the 1980s.
I am surprised Mr Murphy has seen fit to let this comment through.
I let “it” through because I think it sound analysis based on accurate observation of what is happening in an increasingly neo-feudal society
Let’s face it, capturing the apparatus of public opinion is routinely done in the name of neo-liberalism all of the time, so why not give Sue’s idea a go?
Cue accusations of the nanny state, creeping Trotskyism from the Daily Mail, Times (form an orderly queue for the usual suspects).
This is why I thing Richard’s blog is important (as well as others) because these counter ideas can be refined and made more robust. However, once established, we do need a wider platform from which to sell them to the public.
This is why I hope that somehow we can have an election result where the smaller parties can actually push these issues further up the agenda – parties that talk about tax in a positive way or how deficit spending by governments is a perfectly natural and desirable thing to do for everyone.
There is going to be an awful lot of unlearning of neo-lib economic bollocks that our country is going to have to do before the public can truly understand what is going on. It’s big task.
Do you really think that it was Marxism that brought about the miners strike? Please explain how, I thought it was about miners striking to protect their jobs and communities.
Hang on, why aren’t the Unions more involved anyway?
They are key members of Civil Society, and are fighting for social justice, etc, and against rent-seeking neo-liberalism.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/lobbying-bill-trade-unions-law
Funny how only 6 months ago the Telegraph was leading with this piece, criticising business leaders who commented on the damage to be caused to the UK economy by leaving the EU
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11127836/Businesses-that-speak-out-for-Britains-EU-membership-will-be-punished-vows-John-Redwood.html
Wish they’d make up their minds…
There is some confusion here between democracy and majoritarianism. Our democracy is the method by which we elect our political representatives. Entwined within this are the concepts of the rule of law and freedom of speech which positively enables unrepresentative groups of having a voice, even a dis- proportionate one. So what we see here is in fact completely representative of our democracy. It could be seen as conflicting with majoritarianism but that is not the system we have.
Only the right now think it acceptable to make excuses to undermine democracy and free speech
Why is that?
Not sure what your point is. The best way to defend free speech is to say “I don’t agree with you, but I defend your right to say it”. If you truly advocate free speech you would say this about what the business leaders said. As it is, it appears as though you are suggesting they don’t have every right to say what they said.
Can I ask if you are able to follow an argument?
Democracy is best thought of as continuum that is not an all nothing affair, but represents certain core principles – popular control, political equality.
Having a situation whereby the mainstream media, and particularly the BBC, facilitate an already wealthy, powerful, and unrepresentative self identified elite’s dominance of the public debate (first on every news bulletin for 1-2 days) and gives them an elevated platform to call for the outcome of a general election is not healthy for the quality of our democracy and moves us towards the bottom end of the democratic continuum. This is especially so, when this elite is portrayed as impartial, with special expertise/ insight ( that is largely non-existent). It’s duplicitous and deceitful. And it is perfectly legitimate to highlight all of the above.
Agreed
But I suspect that James G knows all this and ignores it
Andrew Baker, our democracy does represent certain key principles one of which being freedom of expression. When you say political equality, to be honest, I’m not sure what this means. If it means one person one vote, then yes, definitely. But I’m not sure it can mean anymore than this without contravening other principles. For example, if I own a large air balloon and decide to post political slogans on it then I literally have an elevated platform, you could say I am an elite, and could be seen as dominating the political debate. Maybe. But what are you going to do about it? As soon as you outlaw my air balloon then you are quite obviously attacking my freedom of expression, which as a citizen in our democracy I am quite entitled to. This right must surely trump the seeming unfairness that I am using my air balloon, when other people don’t have air balloons? Taken to a logical extreme you could argue that someone with an excellent speaking voice has an advantage in the debate and is therefore unequal and undemocratic. Why should some advantages be ok, and others not? Moreover, the ability to communicate is not a zero sum game. My air balloon does not preclude someone else handing out leaflets, or starting a blog. And to try to create equality in people’s means to communicate is surely an impossible task. To try and create equality in people’s overall receipts of communication must necessarily entail widespread censorship. I agree it is quite right to highlight criticism of political messages, but it is logically incorrect to call citizens communicating to each other in a democracy undemocratic, whomever they may be and whatever they may say. Best. James.
Andrew Baker, just to further follow up, if I may. I think it is a misconception of our democracy to say a principle of it is ‘popular control’. As I mentioned earlier, that sounds more like majoritarianism – a crucial distinction. For example, let’s say a majority of people wanted to reinstate Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear, the BBC could still not be compelled to do this, and much less so if he had been working for say Sky. Our country is not governed by popular control, it is governed by the rule of law, which trumps what a majority may wish. Even popular control of parliament has some limitations, as we may well see when coalitions try to form.
As the plutopress has abandoned any pretence of impartiality in its assault on Miliband and adulation of Cameron, Labour has nothing to lose by following the example of the US and announcing that all proprietors of national newspapers must be British citizens. They could go further and insist that they pay corporate and personal takes here and include worker participation on their boards. Don’t kowtow, fight back.
I’m not sure I agree with you David. Pluto Press are good guys in my book. They publish work that the Neoliberal Consensus would rather suppress like Franz Fanon, Noam Chomski and David Croninberg. Lets not attack our own side.
Was it plutopress or Pluto Press who were being criticised?
Oh Dear, a run of excellent blogs but now this one. Daily Telegraph, Business leaders, I think the Electorate are bright enough to realise there will be a certain slant. Only the Left wing intelligentsia would think that the Electorate were not intelligent enough to realise this.
But Business leaders Vs Top Economists? I thought the definition of an Economist was someone who could not do anything else?
Stephen
You reveal two things
The first is your ignorance
The second is your prejudice that substitutes for intelligence
Richard