The Iron Law of Oligarchy:
The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, 'Political Parties'.
Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty,
1. The fundamental asset controlled by the state is the power to coerce. Any group that can control how this power is used can profit.
Large firms have high benefits from mobilizing (the stakes our high). Since they are a small group, and since they are fairly homogeneous, they have no difficulty with collective action problems (they can lobby efficiently).
Consumers don't organize because the costs of doing so are high compared to the benefits (very high coordination costs).
“the first purpose of empirical studies of regulatory policy is to identify the purpose of the legislation! The announced goals of a policy are often unrelated or perversely related to its actual effects and the truly intended effects should be deduced from...
Market capital driven wealth of the S&P 500 has increased by 1500% since 1988 while median weekly incomes have increased by 113%.
An analysis of Stigler’s “theory": https://t.co/PtssEhAkmn
Link to obtain a copy Stigler’s original 1971 journal article ($24 US for download - 19 pages): https://t.co/Ad4WjFu0Lw
More from Culture
One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report on academic free speech thinks it is "ridiculous" to expect him to accurately portray an incident at Cardiff University in his study, both in the reporting and in a question put to a student sample.
Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:
Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.
Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".
The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.
This is ridiculous. Students were asked for their views on this example and several others. The study findings and conclusions were about student responses not the substance of each case. Could\u2019ve used hypotheticals. The responses not the cases were the basis of the conclusions.
— Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) February 17, 2021
Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:
The UK govt\u2019s paper on free speech in Unis (with implications for Wales) is getting a lot of attention.
— Richard Wyn Jones (@RWynJones) February 16, 2021
Worth noting then that an important part of the evidence-base on which it rests relates to (demonstrably false) claims about my own institution
1/https://t.co/buoGE7ocG7
Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.
Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".
The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.