Lobbying “from within”: A new perspective on the revolving door and regulatory capture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study explores the revolving door phenomenon–when public office holders move back and forth from the public to the private sector, often becoming lobbyists–and its implications on regulatory capture. It draws on the literature on regulatory capture theory and 46 interviews conducted in Quebec with public officers (ministers, chiefs of staff, deputy ministers, and heads of governmental organizations) whose career path includes a revolving door scenario, as well as observers of the phenomenon. New light is shed on capture theory by using a broad definition of the revolving door that focuses on the entry stage. A key finding is that “cultural capture” can occur when new public officers come from the same private sector now within their purview. Based on public officers’ allegiance to their former industry, lobbying is de facto exerted, “from within.” Despite clear irregularities and conflicts of interest, most of those interviewed do not believe in tightening rules and prefer continuing with vigilance from public office holders, journalists, and other observers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".