Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Partisanship and democracy's other ills holding down the economy, Harvard study says

Political divide

Political polarization is preventing the government from addressing problems that gold back economic competitiveness, Harvard Business School says.

John M Lund Photography Inc./Getty Images

The many problems with American democracy are a central reason the country has made so little progress in tackling major challenges during a decade of economic growth, Harvard Business School concludes in an ambitious report out this week.

More precisely, the report blames the Democratic and Republican parties for looking to advance partisan advantage over the public interest — wasting a valuable opportunity to improve health care, the education system and infrastructure during a time of expansion so the country might become more globally competitive in the long haul.

"Electoral and legislative rules serve the parties well but cause gridlock and disable our democracy," concludes the report, one of the most comprehensive in a long roster of recent studies about governmental dysfunction and its consequences.


Titled "A Recovery Squandered," it is the latest in a series on the country's economy produced by the school. With Harvard professors Michael Porter and Jan Rivkin as principal authors, it is based on research as well as interviews with the public and members of the business school's prestigious alumni network. (A main author of the chapter on gridlock was Katherine Gehl, the founder of Democracy Found, which advocates for alternative voting systems.)

Among the most important conclusions:

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

  • Many people do not understand the structural problems that have gridlocked the government. Instead, they think we have just elected the wrong people.
  • Those surveyed support fixing the system, but more attention is given to high-profile reforms like regulating the campaign finance system and eliminating gerrymandering to perpetuate the party in power. More attention should be given, the report's authors believe, to less publicized but more potentially powerful reforms including nonpartisan primaries and ranked-choice voting.
  • The people perpetuating an increasingly partisan duopoly are not only the parties and their elected leaders, but also the attendant infrastructure — which they dub the "political industrial complex" — of lobbyists, big-money donors, super PACs, think tanks, consultants and the national media.

The report marshals a variety of statistics to make its central argument including:

  • The percentage of people who told pollsters they trust the federal government always or most of the time has fallen from 77 percent in 1964 to 17 percent this year.
  • A survey two years ago found 44 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Republicans view the other party "very unfavorably" — compared to less than 20 percent in 1994.
  • More people identify as independents, 41 percent, in 2019, than Democrats (30 percent) or Republicans (28 percent), evidence according to the report of declining confidence in the parties.

The report calls for reforming the rules of Congress to remove what it says are obstacles to bipartisanship.

One is the regularly applied policy of the House majority leadership known as the Hastert rule, because GOP Speaker Dennis Hastert started applying it in the early 2000s. It says no bill will be put to a floor vote until a majority of the majority supports it, or sometimes until it is assured of passage entirely with the majority's votes. This effectively negates the need for the minority party's input in policy making.

The report also blames the role that business plays in politics for exacerbating the problems with democracy: "We believe that much of today's business involvement in politics may actually be working against business' longer-term interests."

It cites the hiring of former government officials, especially those who lobby their former colleagues, and a lack of transparency by companies about their political involvement as two of the problem areas.

The report is not all doom and gloom, however, with the authors noting that many companies and their leaders are trying to "adopt a broader corporate purpose as their central goal, going well beyond maximizing shareholder value."

A consensus is emerging, the report states, for a new role for business in politics and it proposes a set of voluntary standards.

These include a reduction in spending on special-interest lobbying; greater support for solutions-oriented candidates; an end to hiring former government officials to lobby; and support for democracy reforms to reduce partisanship and change electoral and legislative rules.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less