Lobbying as Economic Statecraft: Regulatory Capture, Industrial Strategy, and the Reform of Influence Networks

Authors

  • Dr. Ashutosh Sharma

Keywords:

lobbying, regulatory capture, economic statecraft, industrial policy, legislative reform

Abstract

This study reinterprets corporate lobbying as a structural component of economic statecraft, arguing that its role extends beyond corporate advocacy to shaping national industrial strategy and geopolitical competitiveness. Drawing on Trevor Dryer's case study of federal lobbying in the financial sector, alongside analyses of the CHIPS Act, pharmaceutical regulation, and firearm legislation in Massachusetts, the study demonstrates how lobbying functions as a dual mechanism: stabilizing regulatory environments for firms while advancing (or undermining) national economic sovereignty. By integrating Post-Keynesian economic theory, regulatory capture frameworks, and game-theoretic models, the paper reveals systemic vulnerabilities in the US lobbying regime. It concludes with actionable legislative reforms designed to align lobbying with public interest goals, such as cooling-off periods for officials, industrial impact assessments, and coalitional arbitrage strategies. The findings challenge conventional distinctions between private interest advocacy and public economic strategy, repositioning it as a pivotal arena for reasserting affirmative control over economic policy.

Downloads

How to Cite

Lobbying as Economic Statecraft: Regulatory Capture, Industrial Strategy, and the Reform of Influence Networks. (2025). Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 25(E2), 29-32. https://socialscienceresearch.org/index.php/GJHSS/article/view/104361

References

M Aalbers (2009) Geographies of the financial crisis. 41(1), 34-42.

J Bivens (2017) Adding insult to injury: How bad policy decisions have amplified globalization's costs for American workers.

J Blanes I Vidal, M Draca, C Fons-Rosen (2012) Revolving door lobbyists. 102(7), 3731-3748.

T Dryer (2007) Gaining access: A state lobbying case study. XX(3), 101-143.

Lee Drutman (2015) The Business of America is Lobbying.

Peter Yeoh (2011) Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report: Anything New?. 32(Issue 6), 150-152.

A Hertel-Fernandez (2019) State capture: How conservative activists, big businesses, and wealthy donors reshaped the American states-and the nation.

S Keen (2011) Debunking economics: The naked emperor dethroned? Zed Books.

R Kuttner (2018) Can democracy survive global capitalism.

L Lessig (2011) Republic, lost: how money corrupts Congress--and a plan to stop it. 49(12), 49-7176-49-7176.

H Markowitz (1952) Modern portfolio theory. 7(11), 77-91.

H Minsky (1986) Stabilizing an unstable economy.

H Minsky (1977) The Financial Instability Hypothesis: An Interpretation of Keynes and an Alternative to "Standard" Theory. 20(1), 20-27.

H Morgenthau (1948) Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace.

J Smith, R Patel (2023) ROI in energy lobbying: A California case study. 18(4), 89-104.

(2024) US Chamber of Commerce Lobbying Profile.

D Roy (2024) Future lasers could act as antimatter factories. 207(2774), 16.

Dani Rodrik (2011) The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. 28(3), 420.

W Norton, Company Unknown Title.

M Siegel, C Ross, C King (2020) The relationship between gun ownership and stranger and nonstranger firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981-2010. 110(1), 137-145.

Robert Spitzer (2020) Gun Policy. 248-273.

A Tanaka (2022) Coalitional game theory in lobbying. 67(1), 112-130.

J Wolfson, S Teret, S Frattaroli (2017) The political and legal challenges of gun policy reform. 38, 195-208.

M Wu (2016) The "China, Inc." challenge to Global Trade Governance. 57(2).

Lobbying as Economic Statecraft: Regulatory Capture, Industrial Strategy, and the Reform of Influence Networks

Published

2025-07-05

How to Cite

Lobbying as Economic Statecraft: Regulatory Capture, Industrial Strategy, and the Reform of Influence Networks. (2025). Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 25(E2), 29-32. https://socialscienceresearch.org/index.php/GJHSS/article/view/104361