Thomas Groll

A simple model of the commercial lobbying industry

In this paper we present a model of the behavior of commercial lobbying firms (such as the so-called K-Street lobbyists of Washington, D.C.). In contrast to classical special interest groups, commercial lobbying firms represent a variety of clients and are not directly affected by policy outcomes. They are hired by citizens, or groups of citizens, to act as intermediaries on their behalf with policymakers. In our analysis we address two basic questions: what tasks are commercial lobbying firms performing, and what are the implications of their existence for social welfare? We answer the first part of this question by proposing that commercial lobbying firms possess a verification technology that allows them to improve the quality of information concerning the social desirability of policy proposals. This gives policymakers the incentive to allocate their scarce time to commercial lobbying firms. Essentially, it is this access to policymakers that commercial lobbying firms sell to their clients. To address the question of social welfare we construct a simple general equilibrium model that includes commercial lobbying firms, and compare the equilibrium obtained under market provision of lobbying services to the first best optimum. We find that the market level of lobbying services can be socially either too large or too small, and characterize when each will be the case.

The pro-poorness, growth and inequality nexus: Some findings from a simulation study *

A widely accepted criterion for pro-poorness of an income growth pattern is that it should reduce a (chosen) measure of poverty by more than if all incomes were growing equiproportionately. Inequality reduction is not generally seen as either necessary or sufficient for pro-poorness. As shown in Lambert (2010), in order to conduct nuanced investigation of the pro-poorness, growth and inequality nexus, one needs at least a 3-parameter model of the income distribution. In this paper, we explore in detail the properties of inequality reduction and pro-poorness, using the Watts poverty index and Gini inequality index, when income growth takes place within each of the following models: the displaced lognormal, Singh-Maddala and Dagum distributions. We show by simulation, using empirically relevant parameter estimates, that distributional change preserving the form of each of these income distributions is, in the main, either pro-poor and inequality reducing, or pro-rich and inequality exacerbating. Instances of pro-rich and inequality reducing change do occur, but we find no evidence that distributional change could be both pro-poor and inequality exacerbating.

REPEATED LOBBYING BY COMMERCIAL LOBBYISTS AND SPECIAL INTERESTS

Using a model of repeated agency, we explain previously unexplained features of the real-world lobbying industry. Lobbying is divided between direct representation by special interests to policymakers, and indirect representation where special interests employ professional intermediaries called commercial lobbyists to lobby policymakers on their behalf. Our analytical structure allows us to explain several trends in lobbying. For example, using the observation that in the U.S. over the last 20 years policymakers have spent an increasing amount of their time fundraising as opposed to legislating, we are able to explain why the share of commercial lobbyist activity in total lobbying has risen dramatically and now constitutes over 60% of the total. The key scarce resource in our analysis is policymakers’ time. They allocate this resource via implicit repeated agency contracts which are used to incent special interests and commercial lobbyists to provide a mix of financial contributions and information on policy proposals. These implicit agency contracts solve both an information problem in the presence of unverifiable policy information and a contracting problem in the absence of legal enforcement. These repeated relationship, that are often described using the pejorative term cronyism in the popular press, may in certain circumstances be welfare improving.

Delegation and Administrative Lobbying in Rule-Making

We explore the determinants of market regulation with an analysis of the policy-making process in which the legislature delegates authority to an executive agency and special interests can lobby the executive agency. We discuss how the mere threat of administrative lobbying by the industry may be sufficient to induce the agency to set policies preferred by the industry. Our analysis also shows that policy conflict, the difference between the legislature’s preferred policy and the agency’s implemented policy, is increasing in the agency’s vulnerability to lobbying but decreasing in the interest group’s lobbying cost when the legislature prefers more extreme policies. Administrative lobbying either amplifies or mitigates the conflict between the legislature and the agency. Relatedly, our analysis shows that the “ally principle” does not hold and the legislature prefers an agency that is slightly more biased against the industry. The legislature delegates greater discretion to the agency when policy uncertainty is higher, when policy conflict between the legislature and the agency is a lower, and when administrative lobbying mitigates the policy conflict between legislature and agency.