|
4#

楼主 |
发表于 2009-10-26 09:23:42
|
只看该作者
The growing power of these special interest groups, on one hand, is reflected in the ways they've seized natural resources. For example, state-owned monopolies and a few, privileged power groups have carved up the country's mining resources. On the other hand, special interest groups have hired so-called "experts" to defend their monopolizing behavior.
The penetration of the country's political and judicial systems by special interest groups is most alarming. Someone once commented that there are a lot of corrupt officials everywhere in the world, but corrupt judges are rare. At the moment, the country's laws and regulations are incomplete, allowing judges to frequently pass verdicts at their discretion. The system exercises little supervisory power over public security agencies, prosecutors, courts and judges themselves, leaving plenty of room for corruption and abuse of the law.
Another dangerous phenomenon is that special interest groups are seeking political voices. As social resources transition from allocation by power to market allocation, the political circle has become an easy target for abduction and corruption by special interest groups. In order not to become a rubber stamp of special interest groups, the future government should rely on institutional and democratic procedures to coordinate interests and resolve conflicts among various groups, allowing them to reach consensus in the name of fair play.
In his book The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities, author and leading American political economist Mancur Olson explored the idea of "distributional coalitions" or "interest groups." He said that distributional coalitions tend to form over time, and not all are counter-productive. Some, when seeking the promotion of individual and group interest, succeed in promoting the growth of overall social income. Others, however, are not interested in enhancing social productivity but in sitting idle and making profits; they care about profit-sharing, not competition. The latter hinder the flow and rational deployment of resources and are anti-technology, even though they manage to boost the bargaining value of law, politics and bureaucracy. |
|