Janine Wedel - Unaccountable - How Elite Power Brokers Corrupt Our Finances, Freedom, and Security

Despite the decline of newspapers, op-eds still matter, and they are of particular concern. Editors need to make sure that the thumbnail biography attached to an op-ed contains not just the most prestigious position, like professor or former cabinet secretary, but other roles like current industry affiliations that might bear on the views being expressed in the op-ed.

That this material can be depressing is, of course, not lost on me. Yet by providing what I hope is clear-headed analysis, identifying what is wrong, and providing tools for scrutiny and possible solutions, I hope I have helped to equip readers to move beyond skepticism and frustration and toward understanding and action.

Having studied power and influence for several decades, and expecting to continue to do so in the years to come, I welcome comments and examples from readers highlighting players and organizations about which I might not be aware.

And if you try my strategy of singing your way through airport security, do let me know how it goes.

ENDNOTES

CHAPTER 1

1. Justin Loisseau, “The 3 Most Corrupt Countries in the World.” The Motley Fool, January 1, 2014 (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/01/the-3-most-corrupt-countries-in-the-world.aspx).

2. Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Working Paper, April 9, 2014 (http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf).

3. Sahil Kapur, “Scholar Behind Viral ‘Oligarchy’ Study Tells You What It Means.” Talking Points Memo, April 22, 2014 (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview).

4. A poll published in 2007 on declining trust globally and corruption shows that, over the last four decades, nearly all of the so-called developed, industrialized democracies have been experiencing a decrease in the public trust in government. This has not occurred at the same pace or necessarily for the same reasons everywhere, but the trend is pervasive. (Peri K. Blind, “Building Trust In Government In The Twenty-First Century: Review of Literature and Emerging Issues.” 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government: Building Trust in Government 26-29 June 2007, Vienna, Austria, November 2006 [http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan025062.pdf, pp. 8-23].)

Even Swedes and Norwegians, traditionally highly trustful of their political institutions, expressed less trust in them in the 1990s (T. Christensen and P. Laegreid, “Trust in Government: The Significance of Attitudes Towards Democracy, Public Sector and Public Sector Reforms.” Working Paper 7, Stein Rokkan Center for Social Studies and Bergen University Research Foundation, April 2003, pp. 1-30). For details about these trends in the Netherlands, Austria, Canada, Germany, and Japan, see Russell J. Dalton, “The Social Transformation of Trust in Government.” International Review of Sociology , vol. 15, no. 1, March 2005, pp. 133-154.

With regard to the United States, in a 2013 Gallup Poll respondents were asked: “Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one—a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little?” The following are the percentages of those who replied either “a great deal” or “quite a lot.” The biggest drops in confidence were in Congress (42% in 1973 to 10% in 2013, more than a 76% fall), banks (from 60% in 1979 to 26% in 2013, nearly a 57% decline), TV news (46% in 1993 to 23% in 2013, a 50% decrease), schools (58% in 1973 to 32% in 2013, nearly a 45% decline), newspapers (39% in 1973 to 23% in 2013, a 41% decline), with diminished confidence also in unions (30% in 1973 to 20% in 2013, a 33% decline), the president (52% in 1975 to 36% in 2013, nearly a 31% decline), churches (65% in 1973 to 48% in 2013, greater than a 26% decrease), the Supreme Court (45% in 1973 to 34% in 2013, nearly a 24% decrease), and big business (26% in 1973 to 22% in 2013, more than a 15% decrease). Small increases in confidence were noted for the police, medical system, criminal justice, small business, and HMOs, and a big increase for the military. The first dates listed in each comparison are the year that Gallup first conducted the poll. See: Gallup, “Confidence in Institutions,” Gallup Poll, June 13, 2013 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/163055/confidence-institutions-2013-pdf.aspx and http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx).

5. The English word accountability warrants close scrutiny. As political scientist Melvin J. Dubnick has written, there is a traditional meaning and a more recent usage that came into prominence in the 1980s. Dubnick argues that what distinguishes the traditional accountability notion from other governance solutions is that it depends on the existence of a “moral community”—a community “that shapes (and is shaped by) the expectations, rules, norms and values of social relationships.” Thus, the traditional notion of accountability emerges as a primary characteristic of governance in contexts where there is a sense of agreement about the legitimacy of expectations among community members. Dubnick writes that “Conceptually, accountabilityc [the traditional concept] can thus be regarded as a form of governance that depends on the dynamic social interactions and mechanisms created within of [ sic ] such a moral community .” (Melvin J. Dubnick, “Seeking Salvation for Accountability,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 29-September 1, 2002, pp. 6-7, emphasis in original [http://pubpages.unh.edu/dubnick/papers/salv2002.htm].)

It’s also important to note, as I discuss in the last chapter, that “accountability” does not travel easily across cultures.

6. See, for instance, Claire Cain Miller, “Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program.” New York Times, June 7, 2013 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?pagewanted=1&hp&_r=0).

7. See, for example, Abbas J. Ali, Islamic Perspectives on Management and Organization . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2005; Syed Hussein Alatas, Corruption: Its Nature, Causes and Functions . Brookfield, VT: Gower, 1990, pp. 13-14; Maxime Rodinson, Islam and Capitalism . London: Saqi Books, 2007 (1966); Richard Rubenstein, Thus Saith the Lord . New York: Harcourt, 2006; and Iqbal Zafar and Mervyn K. Lewis, “Governance and Corruption: Can IslamicSocieties and the West Learn from Each Other?” American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, vol.19, issue 2, pp. 1-33.

8. World Bank, Helping Countries Combat Corruption: The Role of the World Bank . Washington, D.C.: World Bank: PREM, 1997, p. 8.

9. The timeframe here is approximately 2004 to 2007.

The U.S. government did sue Standard & Poor’s. As International Business Times reports (Malik Singleton, “Federal Judge Rules Justice Department Can Sue Standard & Poor’s For Fraud In $5 Billion Case Stemming From Ratings,” July 17, 2013 [http://www.ibtimes.com/federal-judge-rules-justice-department-can-sue-standard-poors-fraud-5-billion-case-stemming-ratings]):

The U.S. government can pursue its $5 billion civil fraud lawsuit against Standard & Poor’s following a ruling by a U.S. federal judge in Santa Ana, Calif. . . .

The DOJ (Department of Justice) accuses the credit rating agency of inflating ratings so that it could win more fees from mortgage issuers and bankers that pay for its ratings. The government alleges that S&P misled investors by not being objective in its ratings from 2004 to 2007.