California Effect Essay

Why does Lindblom describe business as having a “privileged” position in policymaking? Does this privilege vary across different capitalist economies? Why or why not? Lindblom scribes business as having a special position in policy making because society delegates an essential social function or business, such as economic activity and employment, without retaining practical control over business actor. However, political actors are still accountable for economic outcomes such as unemployment and recession, so any attempt to reshape business condition business can threaten to move away or cut employment. Since private firm controls the production of wealth, and the wages they pay provide the principal economic resources for most citizens.

Is the “Delaware effect” an example of shifting 1st order or 2nd order business preferences?

The California effect is the race to the top; where business wants the government to impose a new cost on the competitor. The California effect is actually an example of going from second order of preference to the first order of preference. An example of the California effect would be if the state of California force businesses to reduce car companies to reduce carbon emissions by a certain percentage. It would not be businesses first order of preference to have that regulation imposed on them. However, once the regulation is imposed business have to adapt their technology to follow the rule. Which, businesses are behaving based on their second order of preference. Which is how to behave so that they can still operate in California. As a result, businesses would want to lobby this regulation onto other states where their competitors do not have the same competitive advantage as they do. If other states do pass the same regulation that would be in businesses in California 's first order of preference since they already developed that technologies and their competitors have to play catch

First, in a pluralist country, there are a larger number of interest groups, low entry costs, and much more access point compared to a corporatist society. For example in the U.S., a bill can be blocked before it even reaches the agenda of the committee meeting. After that, it has to be approved in both chambers of congress before it reaches the president. Which the president also has the power to veto the bill. Thus there is many access point for the public to persuade their representatives to vote against the policy proposal. Which, when interest groups are losing they try and expand their scope of conflict in order to gain public attention so they can win. While in a corporatist society. There are few access points for the public to try and affect policy outcomes. At the same time state work with “peak” interest group through collaborations. Thus, policy proposal even controversial ones would be backed up by powerful business associations. Thus, it would be hard for the public to affect policy proposals. As a result, it seems that a controversial policy proposal has a much higher chance of being politicized by public debate in a pluralist