Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Cronyism

Cronyism is the favoritism shown to friends, associates, or allies in the allocation of jobs, contracts, resources, or privileges, typically bypassing merit, competence, or competitive processes, and often enabled by political or institutional power.^[1]^[2] In economic contexts, it manifests as the substitution of political influence for market mechanisms, where government intervention creates opportunities for connected individuals or firms to secure rents—such as subsidies, licenses, or regulatory protections—that distort competition and concentrate benefits among a select few at the expense of broader efficiency and innovation.^[3]^[4] This practice, analyzed through public choice theory, arises from the incentives in political systems where concentrated benefits encourage lobbying and collusion, while dispersed costs to the public reduce oversight, leading to systemic inefficiencies rather than isolated aberrations.^[5]^[6] Empirical evidence links cronyism to reduced organizational and economic performance, including lower employee morale, heightened deviance, and suboptimal decision-making due to incompetence in favored appointees.^[7]^[8]^[9] In broader economies, it erodes wealth creation by favoring politically connected entities over consumer-serving innovation, as seen in cases where regulatory barriers entrench incumbents and stifle entrants.^[4]^[10] Unlike free-market capitalism, which rewards value creation through voluntary exchange, cronyism thrives under expansive government authority that dispenses arbitrary favors, often conflated with legitimate enterprise but fundamentally antithetical to it.^[11]^[12] Critics, drawing from first-principles analysis of incentives, argue it perpetuates inequality not through market dynamics but via state-mediated privilege, with historical patterns in both democratic and authoritarian regimes underscoring its roots in unchecked power rather than ideology alone.^[13]^[14]

Definition and Core Concept

Defining Cronyism

Cronyism denotes the practice of appointing individuals to positions of power, authority, or economic advantage based on personal relationships, such as friendship or association, rather than merit, qualifications, or objective criteria.^[15]^[16] This form of favoritism exploits institutional power to confer privileges, including jobs, promotions, contracts, loans, or policy benefits, often undermining efficiency and fairness.^[17]^[18] Unlike general corruption, which may involve anonymous bribery or theft, cronyism hinges on relational ties that create reciprocal loyalties, enabling sustained influence without necessarily violating explicit laws.^[2] In political and organizational settings, cronyism manifests as superiors prioritizing subordinates or allies for resources and opportunities, fostering environments where competence is secondary to allegiance.^[7]^[19] Economically, it distorts markets through deliberate government actions—such as subsidies, tariffs, or regulatory exemptions—that advantage connected firms, leading to resource misallocation and reduced innovation as uncompetitive entities persist via political protection rather than productivity.^[12]^[20] Cronyism extends beyond nepotism, which limits favoritism to family members, encompassing broader networks of acquaintances and allies while sharing the core mechanism of non-merit-based selection.^[21] Empirical studies link cronyism to adverse outcomes, including heightened employee withdrawal, lowered organizational performance, and systemic inefficiencies, as relational preferences erode trust and incentivize sycophancy over value creation.^[15]^[7] In free-market contexts, it contrasts sharply with meritocratic allocation, where success derives from competitive excellence, but cronyism introduces artificial barriers that privilege insiders, often rationalized as pragmatic networking yet empirically correlating with stagnation.^[22]^[17]

Etymology and Linguistic Evolution

The word crony originated in the 1640s as slang among students at Cambridge University, denoting an "old familiar friend" or "intimate companion."^[23] It derives from the Ancient Greek khrónios ("long-lasting" or "enduring"), rooted in khrónos ("time"), evoking a relationship of long standing rather than mere acquaintance.^[23] The Oxford English Dictionary records its earliest attestation in 1663, in the writings of poet Samuel Butler.^[24] The noun cronyism, formed by appending the suffix -ism to crony, first appeared in print around 1840, initially describing the favoring of close associates in positions of trust or authority, without strong pejorative overtones.^[25] By the mid-19th century, it connoted the extension of friendship into institutional favoritism, as seen in American English usages critiquing patronage networks.^[25] Linguistic evolution intensified in the 20th century, particularly post-1952 in U.S. political contexts, where it shifted to denote corrupt practices—such as appointments under President Harry S. Truman—prioritizing personal loyalty over competence, transforming it into a term of systemic critique.^[26] This pejorative sense has since dominated, distinguishing cronyism from benign camaraderie by implying distortion of merit-based processes through relational bias.^[27]

Historical Origins and Evolution

Pre-Modern Instances

In ancient China, the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) featured prominent instances of imperial favoritism toward eunuchs, who leveraged proximity to the throne for undue influence over governance. Under Emperor Ling (r. 168–189 CE), the Ten Attendants—a clique of powerful eunuchs—dominated court politics, monopolizing appointments by selling official posts to the highest bidders and executing scholarly officials who opposed them, amassing personal fortunes while the empire faced famine and rebellion. This network's corruption, including the extortion of provincial governors for bribes exceeding millions of cash coins, weakened central authority and fueled the Yellow Turban Rebellion in 184 CE, accelerating the dynasty's fragmentation into warlordism.^[28]^[29] The Roman Empire similarly exhibited crony-like patronage abuses, where emperors elevated personal clients and freedmen to administrative roles, often prioritizing loyalty over competence. Emperor Claudius (r. 41–54 CE) entrusted key secretarial positions to freedmen such as Narcissus, who commanded armies during the invasion of Britain in 43 CE, and Pallas, who oversaw finances and reportedly accumulated wealth equivalent to 300 million sesterces through influence peddling and land grants to allies. These appointments, which bypassed senatorial elites, led to inefficiencies in tax collection and provincial management, as favorites extracted rents from the bureaucracy, contributing to elite resentment and plots like the Pisonian conspiracy of 65 CE under Nero.^[30]^[31] In medieval Europe, papal nepotism represented a institutionalized form of favoritism within the Catholic Church, with popes appointing relatives—often nephews—to cardinalships and bishoprics to consolidate familial power amid clerical celibacy. This practice intensified during the Avignon Papacy (1309–1377 CE), where seven successive popes created over 100 cardinal-nephews, distributing benefices worth millions of florins and enabling family control over Italian territories, which drew condemnation from reformers like Dante Alighieri for fostering simony and moral decay. Such allocations diverted church revenues from charitable or doctrinal purposes, exacerbating schisms and lay critiques that undermined ecclesiastical legitimacy.^[32]^[33]

Emergence in Industrial Era

The Industrial Era, spanning the late 18th to early 20th centuries, marked a pivotal shift toward large-scale economic enterprises requiring substantial capital and infrastructure, which increasingly entangled government authority with private interests and fostered cronyism through selective subsidies and privileges. In the United States, this manifested acutely during the Gilded Age (approximately 1866–1900), where federal and state governments dispensed vast land grants and low-interest loans to railroad companies to accelerate transcontinental expansion, often favoring politically aligned firms over merit-based competitors. Between 1850 and 1871, Congress authorized over 130 million acres of public domain land—equivalent to about 10% of U.S. territory—to aid railroad construction, with companies like the Union Pacific and Central Pacific receiving prime routes through lobbying and personal connections to legislators.^[34] ^[35] These interventions, justified as promoting national development, instead enabled insiders to secure monopolistic advantages, as unsubsidized lines like James J. Hill's Great Northern Railway demonstrated greater efficiency and lower costs without such aid.^[35] ^[36] Cronyism proliferated via outright corruption, including bribery of officials for franchises and contracts, which railroads pursued aggressively to mitigate competitive risks inherent in their capital-intensive operations. The Crédit Mobilier scandal (1864–1872) epitomized this, as Union Pacific executives formed a fictitious construction entity to overcharge the government for work on the first transcontinental railroad, pocketing millions in inflated profits while distributing stock dividends to influential politicians, including future Vice President Schuyler Colfax and other congressmen who quashed investigations.^[36] Such practices extended beyond railroads to emerging industries like steel, where protective tariffs—averaging 40–50% on imports during the period—shielded domestic producers like Andrew Carnegie's operations from foreign competition, often in exchange for political contributions and influence.^[36] ^[37] These mechanisms distorted resource allocation, as government favoritism prioritized connected enterprises, leading to overbuilding, bankruptcies among subsidized lines, and public backlash that spurred antitrust reforms by the 1890s.^[4] In Europe, analogous patterns emerged, though less scandal-prone than in the U.S., with state-directed investments in canals and railways favoring established elites during Britain's Industrial Revolution (1760–1840) and subsequent continental expansions. For instance, French government loans and guarantees in the 1830s–1850s supported select railway concessions, intertwining bureaucratic networks with industrialists like the Péreire brothers, who leveraged political ties for monopolistic routes.^[38] This era's cronyism arose causally from the mismatch between laissez-faire rhetoric and interventionist realities: rapid technological scaling demanded public resources, but without competitive safeguards, allocations devolved into patronage, eroding merit and entrenching inefficiency as a hallmark of industrial state-business collusion.^[39]^[4]

Forms and Mechanisms

Political Cronyism

Political cronyism manifests as the favoritism shown by elected officials or government leaders toward personal acquaintances, family members, or political supporters in allocating public offices, contracts, or resources, often disregarding qualifications or competitive processes.^[40] ^[41] This practice leverages state authority to reward loyalty, contrasting with merit-based systems by prioritizing relational ties over competence.^[42] Empirical studies indicate it thrives in environments with weak institutional checks, such as patronage networks where electoral victories enable the distribution of "spoils" like civil service jobs.^[43] Key mechanisms include direct appointments to bureaucratic roles and the awarding of no-bid contracts or licenses to allies, which consolidate power but foster inefficiency.^[44] In historical U.S. contexts, the spoils system exemplified this by tying federal employment to partisan support, leading to widespread incompetence until reforms like the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of January 16, 1883, introduced merit examinations to curb such abuses following the 1881 assassination of President James A. Garfield by a rejected office seeker.^[42] Internationally, similar dynamics appear in regulatory favoritism, where politicians grant exclusive privileges—such as import licenses or subsidies—to connected firms, distorting markets and elevating entry barriers for outsiders.^[13] These processes often intersect with corruption, as seen in bribe-for-access schemes that undermine procurement integrity.^[45] Notable cases highlight the scale: The Teapot Dome scandal (1921–1923) involved U.S. Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall leasing naval petroleum reserves in Wyoming and California to private oil companies without competitive bidding, receiving approximately $400,000 in bribes (equivalent to over $6 million today), marking the first conviction of a Cabinet member for corruption.^[45] In contemporary settings, crony networks in manufacturing sectors, as analyzed in Morocco, demonstrate how politically connected firms receive disproportionate subsidies and protection, reducing overall productivity by 10–15% compared to non-connected peers.^[44] Such patterns persist globally, with studies showing cronyism spilling from public to private sectors via shared elites, amplifying resource misallocation.^[43] The impacts extend to governance erosion, as unqualified appointees deliver suboptimal policy execution and foster public cynicism toward institutions.^[46] Quantitatively, cronyism correlates with higher business costs for excluded entities—up to 20% in investment climates marred by favoritism—and diminished economic growth, as resources flow to inefficient insiders rather than productive uses.^[47] This causal chain, rooted in political incentives for loyalty over performance, perpetuates cycles of underachievement, particularly in states reliant on discretionary power without robust transparency laws.^[4]

Economic Cronyism (Crony Capitalism)

Economic cronyism, commonly termed crony capitalism, denotes an economic arrangement wherein private enterprise thrives principally through preferential treatment granted by government entities, supplanting market-driven competition with political favoritism. In this system, firms secure advantages such as subsidies, tax exemptions, protective tariffs, or exclusive contracts not via superior efficiency or innovation, but via cultivated ties with policymakers, often facilitated by lobbying expenditures or campaign contributions.^[12] ^[48] This deviates from genuine capitalism, which hinges on voluntary exchanges and price signals undistorted by state intervention, as crony mechanisms introduce rent-seeking behaviors where resources are expended to capture government largesse rather than create value.^[49] Central mechanisms include regulatory capture, whereby industries influence agencies to enact rules benefiting incumbents while erecting barriers to entrants, and the revolving door phenomenon, where officials transition to high-paying corporate roles post-tenure, incentivizing decisions favoring future employers. Bailouts exemplify this, as seen in the 2008-2009 U.S. financial crisis where politically connected banks received Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds totaling $700 billion, with recipients exhibiting higher pre-crisis lobbying outlays.^[48] ^[50] Subsidies to sectors like U.S. sugar production, amounting to over $4 billion annually in effective support through quotas and loans, further illustrate how such policies shield uncompetitive producers from import competition, sustaining prices 2-3 times global levels.^[48] These practices foster dependency on state power, eroding incentives for productivity as connected entities prioritize influence over operational excellence. Empirical analyses reveal cronyism's role in resource misallocation, where capital flows to politically favored projects irrespective of profitability, diminishing aggregate efficiency. For instance, studies of Egyptian firms under Mubarak-era favoritism showed crony-connected enterprises commanding 80% of privatized assets despite comprising only 10% of listed companies, yielding lower returns on assets than non-connected peers.^[51] In the U.S., the sugar program's distortions have been quantified to impose consumer costs exceeding $2.5 billion yearly while benefiting a narrow producer base.^[48] Such patterns underscore cronyism's causal link to suboptimal investment, as firms allocate efforts toward political maneuvering—U.S. lobbying reached $3.5 billion in 2022—over market adaptation.^[52]

Institutional Enablers

Government institutions enable cronyism by centralizing authority over economic decisions, such as regulation, subsidies, and contracts, which creates rents that connected parties can capture through influence rather than market competition. The expansion of the regulatory state in the 20th century amplified these opportunities, as agencies gained broad discretion to shape industries, often tilting outcomes toward incumbents who invest in lobbying to secure favorable rules.^[53] Empirical analyses confirm that cronyism correlates with high-regulation sectors, where firms with political ties outperform unconnected rivals by exploiting barriers to entry and protections like tariffs or subsidies.^[54]^[55] Regulatory agencies serve as prime enablers through capture, where regulated entities shape policies to their benefit, undermining public interest mandates. George Stigler's theory of regulatory capture posits that regulators respond to industry pressures, leading to outcomes like reduced competition; tests of this include assessing whether proposed rules favor incumbents over innovators.^[56] In practice, concentrated interests in finance, energy, and telecom lobby to entrench advantages, with connected firms gaining higher profits via mechanisms such as energy subsidies or trade protections.^[54]^[55] This dynamic erodes agency independence, as personnel often cycle between regulators and the industries they oversee, fostering conflicts of interest.^[48] Subsidy programs and government lending further institutionalize favoritism by directing public funds to select recipients based on connections rather than economic merit. For instance, agricultural support systems, such as U.S. sugar program loans, benefit a narrow set of producers through price supports and import quotas, distorting markets and raising consumer costs.^[48] Similarly, quasi-governmental entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, tasked with housing finance, have channeled implicit guarantees and funding to allied mortgage originators, amplifying risks during crises like 2008.^[12] These structures incentivize rent-seeking, as firms lobby for allocations that exceed competitive returns, with empirical links showing politically tied enterprises securing disproportionate shares.^[55] Lobbying frameworks and campaign finance regulations enable cronyism by allowing well-resourced entities to dominate policy access, often at the expense of broader stakeholders. Organizations affording lobbyists skew legislative debates on taxes, permits, and grants, creating loopholes or exemptions for insiders; data indicate regulated industries form coalitions to capture processes, correlating with policy outcomes favoring donors.^[57]^[54] Procurement systems exacerbate this, as opaque bidding and sole-source contracts reward political allies, evident in sectors where government spending—totaling trillions annually—prioritizes connections over efficiency.^[48] Such institutions perpetuate inequality in influence, where small firms or outsiders face systemic disadvantages.^[58]

Distinction from Merit-Based and Free-Market Systems

Cronyism vs. Meritocracy

Cronyism entails the allocation of roles, resources, or opportunities based on personal connections, loyalty, or affiliations rather than individual competence or achievement, leading to suboptimal selection processes. Meritocracy, conversely, prioritizes advancement through verifiable skills, qualifications, and performance metrics, aiming to match the most capable individuals to positions where they can maximize value creation. This contrast arises from differing incentives: cronyism rewards relational proximity, often insulating underperformers from accountability, while meritocracy enforces competition and evaluation, fostering efficiency and innovation. Empirical analyses of organizational dynamics reveal that cronyistic practices erode performance by undermining fair procedures, with perceived nepotism—favoring kin or associates—deemed procedurally unfair and detrimental to attracting top talent.^[59] At the firm level, studies document that nepotism and cronyism correlate with diminished productivity, as they prioritize relational ties over ability, resulting in mismatched human capital deployment and reduced output. For example, econometric models indicate that higher cronyism levels directly suppress skill acquisition efforts and productivity, as beneficiaries face lower pressure to perform while others disengage due to perceived inequity.^[60] In contrast, merit-based systems enhance firm outcomes by enabling precise talent allocation; research on hiring practices shows that objective assessments yield higher employee engagement, lower turnover among high performers, and superior financial metrics compared to favoritism-driven selections.^[61]^[62] Economically, cronyism distorts markets by shielding connected entities from competition, leading to resource misallocation and stifled growth, whereas meritocratic institutions promote human capital development and innovation diffusion. Cross-country analyses link nepotistic governance to hindered economic development, as it impedes merit-driven investment in education and skills, perpetuating lower GDP per capita trajectories.^[63] Meritocracy counters this by incentivizing effort and talent mobility; data from high-merit sectors, such as technology firms emphasizing performance-based promotions, exhibit faster productivity gains and adaptability than crony-dominated industries.^[64] Ultimately, the substitution of connections for competence in cronyism generates systemic inefficiencies, while meritocracy's evidence-based approach sustains long-term prosperity through causal chains of talent optimization and accountability.^[65]

Cronyism vs. Free-Market Capitalism

Free-market capitalism operates through voluntary exchanges between individuals and firms, where success derives from providing goods and services that consumers value, determined by competitive pricing and innovation rather than political influence.^[66]^[67] In this system, government intervention is limited to enforcing contracts, property rights, and basic rules of fair play, preventing any favoritism that could distort resource allocation; firms that fail to meet market demands face losses and potential bankruptcy, ensuring efficiency and consumer sovereignty.^[11]^[68] Cronyism, by contrast, emerges when businesses secure economic advantages through proximity to government officials, such as subsidies, exclusive licenses, or regulatory barriers that shield incumbents from competition, thereby subverting the impartial price signals of a genuine market.^[69]^[70] This reliance on political means for profit—rather than entrepreneurial risk and consumer approval—leads to resource misallocation, as politically connected entities receive unearned benefits at the expense of taxpayers and unconnected competitors.^[71] For instance, crony arrangements enable firms to impose higher prices or evade accountability, fostering inefficiencies that pure market competition would eliminate.^[72]^[13] The fundamental distinction lies in causation: free-market capitalism minimizes state power to curb favoritism, promoting merit-based outcomes where wealth creation stems from voluntary value exchange, whereas cronyism expands government authority, inviting corruption and undermining prosperity by prioritizing connections over competence.^[11]^[72] Empirical observations, such as the success of innovative firms in less interventionist environments versus the persistence of protected monopolies in regulated sectors, underscore how cronyism perverts capitalism's core mechanism of consumer-driven selection, often misattributed to free markets by conflating state-enabled distortions with unfettered enterprise.^[66]^[68]

Economic and Societal Impacts

Inefficiencies and Resource Misallocation

Cronyism distorts resource allocation by favoring politically connected entities over those selected through competitive markets, leading to capital and labor being directed toward lower-productivity uses. In such systems, governments award subsidies, contracts, and regulatory protections based on relationships rather than economic merit, suppressing innovation and efficient investment. This results in deadweight losses, as resources that could generate higher returns in undistorted markets are instead funneled into rent-seeking activities—lobbying and influence-peddling that produce no net output. Empirical analyses of rent-seeking, a core feature of crony arrangements, show it can dissipate the full value of artificially created rents through competitive bidding for favors, effectively wasting societal resources equivalent to the rents' size. ^[73] Studies on crony capitalism reveal that politically connected firms often receive capital at below-market rates or through guarantees, crowding out funding for more productive enterprises and reducing aggregate total factor productivity. For instance, in economies with high cronyism, resource misallocation manifests in elevated energy intensity—higher energy use per unit of output—due to inefficient operations shielded from competition. A 2025 analysis found crony practices exacerbate market failures by granting unfair advantages to connected firms, empirically linking this to distorted capital flows and subdued growth rates. ^[74] ^[75] In developing contexts, crony subsidies for select industries have been shown to lower overall returns on investment by diverting funds from high-yield sectors. ^[76] Concrete cases illustrate these dynamics. The U.S. Department of Energy's $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra in 2009, awarded amid political pressure to support a novel but unviable solar technology, exemplifies crony-driven waste: the firm declared bankruptcy in 2011, leaving taxpayers to absorb the loss as cheaper Chinese imports undercut its inefficient panels. ^[77] Similarly, green energy subsidies under programs like the 2009 stimulus have repeatedly funded connected ventures with high failure rates, diverting billions from market-tested alternatives and inflating costs in subsidized sectors. ^[78] Cross-country evidence ties cronyism to persistent misallocation, where connected firms exhibit lower productivity growth compared to unconnected peers, perpetuating inefficiencies that hinder broad-based prosperity. ^[79]

Corruption and Erosion of Trust

Cronyism facilitates corruption by creating systemic incentives for officials and connected parties to exchange favors, contracts, and regulatory leniency for personal gain, often through mechanisms like kickbacks, influence peddling, and non-competitive bidding processes.^[80] In environments where state economic power intersects with private networks, such practices become pervasive, as empirical analyses of crony capitalism demonstrate elevated corruption levels tied to rent-seeking behaviors rather than market competition.^[22] For instance, studies across regions show that crony exchanges, rooted in loyalty and social ties, enable corrupt acts such as favoritism and nepotism, distorting resource allocation and amplifying bribery opportunities.^[22] This corruption, in turn, erodes public trust in institutions by fostering perceptions of a rigged system where merit and rule of law yield to insider dealings. Survey data indicate that confidence in the federal government has plummeted to below 15 percent, with much of the decline coinciding with expanded government intervention that enables crony favoritism.^[46]^[81] Research on crony capitalism highlights how such arrangements undermine faith in both governmental and market institutions, as citizens observe resources squandered on lobby-driven boondoggles rather than productive ends, leading to broader cynicism about democratic processes.^[48]^[65] The causal link is evident in cases where crony policies result from non-representative influences, diminishing trust as publics attribute institutional failures—such as inefficient public spending—to elite capture rather than incompetence alone.^[48] Longitudinal evidence ties government growth, often a vector for cronyism, to sustained trust erosion, with polling consistently showing correlations between perceived favoritism and reduced legitimacy of authority.^[81] This dynamic not only hampers civic engagement but also perpetuates a vicious cycle, as declining trust reduces oversight and accountability, further entrenching corrupt networks.^[46]

Long-Term Consequences for Prosperity

Cronyism erodes long-term prosperity by systematically misallocating resources toward politically favored entities rather than productive uses, thereby lowering overall returns on investment and stifling economic dynamism. In crony systems, subsidies, credit access, and regulatory protections granted to connected firms divert capital from higher-return opportunities, as evidenced by East Asian cases where credit subsidies to private borrowers in South Korea amounted to 7.5% to 10.8% of GDP between 1968 and 1972, skewing funds away from efficient manufacturing sectors yielding real returns of approximately 37%.^[76] This misallocation mirrors the inefficiencies of state-owned enterprises, where crony-operated establishments persist on non-market criteria, potentially reducing annual growth rates by up to 2.5 percentage points if half of investments yield negative or low returns compared to private sector benchmarks.^[76] Empirical analyses confirm that cronyism hampers innovation, a key driver of sustained growth, by shielding connected firms from competition and reducing incentives for technological advancement. World Bank research across 41 economies demonstrates that politically connected firms enjoy fewer competitors and higher sales but invest less in innovation, constraining private sector job creation and perpetuating low-growth equilibria, particularly in regions like the Middle East and North Africa where privileges exclude non-connected entrepreneurs.^[82] Such distortions foster rent-seeking over productive entrepreneurship, leading to technological stagnation and diminished productivity gains, as resources flow to unproductive activities rather than research and development.^[76] Over time, these effects compound into broader economic sclerosis, undermining trust in institutions and deterring foreign and domestic investment essential for prosperity. Countries with high cronyism exhibit elevated borrowing costs—such as increased municipal bond yields tied to corruption—and fiscal burdens, as seen in Venezuela where unaccounted funds reached hundreds of billions by 2008 amid rising national debt from $22 billion to $70 billion under crony policies.^[83] By eroding economic freedom, cronyism inversely correlates with prosperity metrics, contrasting with freer systems where competition drives efficiency and growth; for instance, India's business freedom score fell to 36.3 in 2010 due to procurement favoritism, signaling reduced long-term competitiveness.^[83]^[83]

Notable Examples and Case Studies

United States Historical Cases

One prominent example of cronyism occurred during the construction of the transcontinental railroad in the 1860s, exemplified by the Crédit Mobilier scandal. Union Pacific Railroad executives, led by Thomas Durant, established the sham construction company Crédit Mobilier in 1864 to inflate costs on federally subsidized projects, pocketing excess profits estimated at $23 million to $44 million through overbilling the government at rates up to 1,200% above actual expenses.^[84] To secure favorable legislation and oversight, insiders like congressman Oakes Ames distributed discounted Crédit Mobilier stock shares worth tens of thousands of dollars to influential politicians, including Vice President Schuyler Colfax, future President James Garfield, and over a dozen other members of Congress, prioritizing personal ties over merit in influencing policy.^[85] The scheme remained hidden until exposed by The New York Sun in September 1872, prompting congressional investigations that revealed how government-backed subsidies for infrastructure enabled such favoritism, though only one congressman was censured and no criminal convictions resulted due to lack of direct evidence of quid pro quo.^[84] During Ulysses S. Grant's administration in the 1870s, the Whiskey Ring scandal illustrated cronyism in tax enforcement. From around 1870 to 1875, distillers in cities like St. Louis colluded with Internal Revenue Service officials and Treasury Department insiders to evade federal excise taxes on whiskey, generating an estimated $3.5 million in annual fraud by falsifying reports and diverting collections; this network included Grant's personal secretary, Orville Babcock, and extended to high-ranking revenue agents appointed through political connections rather than competence.^[86] Treasury Secretary Benjamin Bristow uncovered the ring in 1875 through undercover operations, leading to indictments of 110 individuals, including three IRS supervisors and the St. Louis collector; Babcock was acquitted after Grant testified on his behalf, highlighting how loyalty to associates undermined enforcement. The scandal recovered $3 million in evaded taxes but eroded public trust in Grant's appointments, as convictions focused on lower-level participants while inner-circle protections persisted.^[86] The Teapot Dome scandal under Warren G. Harding in the early 1920s represented cronyism in resource allocation. In 1921, Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall, a longtime Harding associate, secretly leased U.S. naval oil reserves at Teapot Dome, Wyoming, and Elk Hills, California, to private firms owned by cronies Harry Sinclair and Edward Doheny without competitive bidding, violating executive orders requiring such processes; Fall received $409,000 in bribes disguised as "loans" and gifts, including cash and cattle.^[87] Exposed by Wyoming Senator John Kendrick's 1922 inquiries and subsequent Senate investigations, the affair led to Fall's 1929 conviction for bribery—the first cabinet member imprisoned for crimes in office—and Sinclair's brief jail term, underscoring how Harding's reliance on the "Ohio Gang" of poker-playing friends for key posts facilitated abuse of federal assets worth millions in royalties foregone.^[88]^[87] These cases demonstrate recurring patterns where government intervention in private sectors, via subsidies or leases, created opportunities for officials to favor associates, distorting market incentives and concentrating benefits among connected elites.

Contemporary U.S. Instances (Post-2000)

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. government enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act on October 3, 2008, authorizing $700 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which funneled funds predominantly to large banks and financial institutions with deep ties to policymakers, sparing them from potential failure while smaller competitors faced stricter market consequences.^[89] This intervention exemplified cronyism by prioritizing politically influential entities, as evidenced by the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which received approximately $200 billion in taxpayer support starting in September 2008, despite their roles in exacerbating the housing bubble through government-backed risky lending.^[90] Critics, including economists at the Mercatus Center, argue that such selective rescues entrenched moral hazard, rewarding connections over accountability and distorting competitive incentives.^[91] The Department of Energy's loan guarantee program under Section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act, expanded via the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, provided billions in subsidized financing to renewable energy firms, often those with lobbying ties or campaign contributions, resulting in multiple high-profile failures. Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer, secured a $535 million loan guarantee in September 2009 after executives and investors donated over $2 million to Democratic causes, including President Obama's campaign, yet the firm filed for bankruptcy in August 2011, yielding a near-total loss for taxpayers.^[92] Similarly, Fisker Automotive received $529 million in guarantees in 2010 but collapsed in 2013, with funds benefiting politically connected venture capitalists; these cases, analyzed by the Reason Foundation, highlight how lobbying expenditures—Solyndra spent $1.8 million on influence activities from 2008-2010—correlated with approval odds, bypassing rigorous risk assessment.^[93] Broader green energy subsidies post-2000, totaling tens of billions annually by the 2010s, have funneled preferential tax credits and mandates to wind and solar developers, disproportionately benefiting firms like those backed by foreign entities such as Siemens and Iberdrola, which captured $6.8 billion in U.S. supports despite limited domestic innovation contributions.^[94] The Cato Institute documents how these mechanisms, including production tax credits extended through 2021, created barriers for unsubsidized competitors, fostering dependency on government favoritism rather than market viability, with cumulative wind sector subsidies reaching $176 billion by 2016.^[95] During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), launched in March 2020 with $800 billion in forgivable loans, exhibited patterns of favoritism toward applicants with prior banking relationships and political donors, as a Federal Reserve study found banks allocated funds 14% more favorably to long-term clients in the initial rollout phase.^[96] Oversight reports later revealed $122 billion in school-related payouts marred by political allocations, underscoring how expedited processes enabled connected entities to secure disproportionate shares, per analyses from the House Oversight Committee.^[97] These instances collectively illustrate cronyism's persistence through crisis-era interventions, where regulatory discretion amplified opportunities for influence peddling over equitable distribution.

International Examples

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin's consolidation of power since 2000 has fostered a system of crony capitalism where economic assets are allocated to loyal oligarchs and siloviki (security service alumni), often through state-controlled privatization and resource extraction deals. Following the 1990s loans-for-shares schemes, which initially benefited independent oligarchs, Putin restructured the economy by 2003 to favor allies, such as assigning key energy firms like Rosneft and Gazprom to figures like Igor Sechin and Alexei Miller, who rose from obscurity to control trillions in assets. This arrangement, characterized by Anders Åslund as prioritizing regime stability over efficiency, has led to inefficiencies, with state champions capturing 70% of the economy by 2019, stifling competition and innovation.^[98]^[99] China's economic model, blending state capitalism with crony networks, exemplifies cronyism through preferential access to loans, land, and contracts granted to firms connected to Communist Party officials. Since the post-Tiananmen reforms of the 1990s, incomplete liberalization allowed local governments to favor guanxi (relationship-based) enterprises, resulting in over 260 documented cases of collusive corruption by 2020, where officials traded regulatory favors for bribes equivalent to 3-10% of GDP annually in some provinces. Minxin Pei argues this "crony capitalism" distorts resource allocation, as seen in state-owned enterprises receiving 80% of bank credit despite lower productivity, perpetuating inefficiency and elite capture rather than merit-based growth.^[100]^[101] In Malaysia, the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal from 2009 to 2015 illustrates cronyism under Prime Minister Najib Razak, who oversaw the embezzlement of approximately $4.5 billion from the sovereign wealth fund through fraudulent bond issues and joint ventures awarded to allies like Jho Low. Funds were diverted to luxury assets and political payoffs, with Najib personally receiving $700 million into his accounts, enabling a kleptocratic network that prioritized regime loyalty over fiscal prudence; this contributed to Malaysia's third-place ranking in global crony-capitalism indices by 2023, where connected firms dominate sectors like infrastructure. The scandal's exposure led to Najib's 2020 conviction on corruption charges, highlighting how such favoritism eroded public trust and economic stability.^[102]^[103] South Africa's "state capture" under President Jacob Zuma from 2009 to 2018 involved the Gupta family's influence, securing government contracts worth over 100 billion rand ($7 billion) in sectors like energy and transport through appointments of unqualified allies to state entities such as Eskom. The Zondo Commission, concluding in 2022, documented how Zuma's administration facilitated this by centralizing procurement and ignoring competitive bidding, resulting in inflated costs and service failures, such as rolling blackouts that shaved 2-3% off annual GDP growth. This crony network, built on patronage rather than competence, exemplified how political favoritism can hollow out institutions, with the African National Congress's cadre deployment policy evolving into overt nepotism during Zuma's tenure.^[104]^[105]

Criticisms, Defenses, and Misconceptions

Primary Criticisms from Economic and Political Perspectives

Economists contend that cronyism induces resource misallocation by channeling capital, labor, and subsidies toward politically favored entities irrespective of productivity, thereby distorting price signals and impeding efficient market outcomes.^[106] Empirical analyses indicate this can diminish aggregate productivity by 30–50% in economies prone to such distortions, as resources fail to flow to highest-value uses.^[106] For example, tariffs, quotas, and regulatory barriers—often lobbied for by connected firms—protect inefficient incumbents, elevate consumer prices, and suppress innovation by erecting entry barriers for unconnected competitors.^[4] Politically, cronyism is faulted for entrenching corruption through mechanisms like bribery and opaque deal-making, which prioritize elite networks over public interest and foster perceptions of systemic unfairness.^[83] This concentration of influence among a narrow cadre of insiders erodes institutional trust, as government interventions—such as selective bailouts or contracts—signal that merit and competition yield to connections, weakening democratic accountability.^[83] Consequently, it perpetuates power imbalances, where economic policy serves rent-seeking rather than broad prosperity, amplifying inequality via government-enabled privileges like corporate welfare estimated at $100 billion annually in the U.S.^[107]

Limited Defenses and Their Flaws

Some advocates of selective government intervention contend that crony-like arrangements can accelerate economic development in nascent industries by directing subsidized credit and protections to politically connected firms, as observed in South Korea's export-led growth during the 1960s and 1970s, where annual export increases averaged 40% and manufacturing returns reached 37%.^[76] Proponents argue this leverages competent private managers over state-owned enterprises, fostering initial competence and tradable sector expansion from 3% to over 30% of GDP by the 1980s.^[76] Similarly, subsidies for strategic sectors like renewable energy are defended as promoting national security and innovation, such as U.S. wind energy tax credits since 1992 aimed at energy independence under the general welfare clause.^[48] These defenses falter under scrutiny, as short-term gains mask systemic distortions: Korean crony subsidies, equivalent to 7.5%-10.8% of GDP, diverted funds to unprofitable ventures and consumption, yielding negative or zero real returns for many favored firms compared to 10%+ in unsubsidized private sectors, ultimately contributing to the 1997 financial crisis through nonperforming loans and overinvestment.^[76] Empirical cross-country analyses link cronyism to reduced economy-wide growth rates by 2.5 percentage points in severe cases, as monopolistic protections and below-market credit (e.g., 3.7%-13.9% vs. 25%-47.9% curb rates in Korea) stifle competition and innovation.^[76] In the U.S., sugar program subsidies, secured via $9 million in 2013 lobbying and $5 million in 2012 campaign contributions, inflate domestic prices 64%-92% above world levels, imposing $3.7 billion annual consumer costs while yielding outsized returns for insiders, eroding public trust with 69% of Americans viewing government as serving elite interests.^[48] Financial incentives like the carried interest rule, taxing private-equity returns at 15% capital gains rates to reward risk, are critiqued for entrenching advantages without broad productivity gains, as sector lobbying expenditures ($3.4 billion from finance, 1998-2008) correlate with policy favoritism rather than merit-based outcomes.^[48] Overall, such mechanisms prioritize connected entities over efficient allocation, with studies showing crony systems parallel state-owned enterprise losses (e.g., 5.8% of GDP in Turkey, 1980), perpetuating instability and foregone growth without verifiable net benefits.^[76]

Debunking Equivalence with Capitalism

Critics of capitalism often equate cronyism with the system itself, portraying business success as inherently reliant on political favoritism rather than market merit. This equivalence overlooks the definitional distinction: free-market capitalism operates through voluntary exchanges, private property rights, and competition driven by consumer preferences, without government-granted privileges or barriers to entry.^[67] Cronyism, by contrast, emerges precisely when governments wield coercive power to allocate resources selectively, subsidize allies, or erect regulatory hurdles that protect incumbents from rivals—mechanisms absent in a laissez-faire framework where no such authority exists to confer advantages.^[11] For instance, under pure capitalism, firms like innovative startups thrive by delivering value, not by securing bailouts or tariffs, as consumer sovereignty determines outcomes rather than bureaucratic decree.^[66] The claim that cronyism is inevitable or intrinsic to capitalism conflates state intervention with market dynamics, a fallacy rooted in observing distorted economies and retroactively attributing flaws to the absence of further controls. Historical laissez-faire episodes, such as 19th-century Britain before expansive regulation, featured rapid innovation and wealth creation with minimal evidence of systemic favoritism, as limited government reduced avenues for rent-seeking.^[108] Economists like Adam Smith critiqued such "mercantile" distortions as antithetical to commercial liberty, arguing they unjustly favor the connected few over the productive many, undermining the very prosperity capitalism fosters.^[49] Assertions of inherency often stem from ideological opposition, where any inequality is deemed crony-derived, yet this ignores causal evidence: crony practices correlate with interventionist policies, not private enterprise per se.^[109] Empirical data reinforces the separation, with cross-country analyses showing a strong negative correlation between economic freedom—measured by factors like regulatory efficiency and government size—and corruption indices, including crony manifestations.^[110] For example, the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom of the World index yields correlation coefficients of approximately -0.64 to -0.78 with corruption perceptions, indicating that freer economies exhibit fewer opportunities for officials to trade favors, as reduced state discretion limits graft.^[111] ^[112] Nations ranking high in economic freedom, such as Switzerland or Singapore, demonstrate lower cronyism incidence compared to intervention-heavy peers, where subsidies and licenses breed dependency on political access.^[113] This pattern holds even in high-corruption contexts, where incremental freedom gains measurably curb abuses, debunking the notion that capitalism without qualifiers breeds favoritism.^[114]

Pathways to Mitigation

Policy Reforms for Reducing Cronyism

One key set of reforms involves deregulation to curtail government discretion in allocating resources and permissions, thereby limiting avenues for favoritism. By dismantling regulatory barriers that incumbents lobby to maintain, deregulation fosters competition and diminishes rent-seeking incentives. For example, the U.S. Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 phased out federal oversight of fares and routes previously controlled by the Civil Aeronautics Board, which had granted exclusive privileges to select carriers. This led to over 100 new airline entrants by 1985 and real fare declines of approximately 40% between 1978 and 1997, as market forces supplanted political allocations.^[115] Similar deregulation in telecommunications and trucking sectors during the late 1970s and 1980s reduced entry barriers, boosting productivity and eroding protections that benefited connected firms.^[116] Transparency enhancements in public procurement, lobbying disclosures, and official audits constitute another empirically supported strategy. Research demonstrates that mandatory public reporting of government contracts and interactions reduces corruption by enabling external monitoring and altering behavioral expectations around bribery.^[117] ^[118] In Brazil, randomized audits of municipal expenditures from 2003 to 2005, publicized via media, decreased reported irregularities by up to 14% in audited areas and lowered re-election rates for implicated officials, illustrating accountability's deterrent effect.^[119] Such measures counteract opaque deal-making, though their efficacy depends on independent enforcement and media freedom to amplify disclosures.^[120] Eliminating or reforming targeted subsidies, bailouts, and industry-specific tax preferences addresses cronyism's fiscal roots by neutralizing incentives for influence peddling. These interventions, estimated to impose $100 billion in annual U.S. taxpayer costs as of 2015, distort competition by shielding politically favored entities from market discipline.^[52] Phasing them out, as advocated in analyses of crony capitalism, redirects resources toward productive uses and equalizes access. New Zealand's comprehensive 1984–1990 reforms, including subsidy removals, tariff reductions from an average 25% to near zero, and privatization of state assets, shrank government favoritism and yielded GDP per capita growth averaging 3.5% annually through the 1990s, outperforming prior protectionist eras.^[121] ^[122] Judicial and administrative independence reforms further mitigate crony interference in enforcement. Evidence from judicial restructuring in contexts like post-communist transitions shows that insulating courts from political pressure curtails biased rulings favoring connected parties.^[123] Combined with deterrence-focused public sector changes, such as merit-based appointments and streamlined permitting, these reduce overall corruption levels by enhancing efficiency and accountability.^[124] While no single reform eliminates cronyism absent cultural shifts toward rule adherence, empirical patterns affirm that contracting government scope—via deregulation and subsidy cuts—yields the most sustained reductions by addressing causal drivers at their root.

Role of Limited Government and Deregulation

Limited government structures mitigate cronyism by curtailing the administrative mechanisms through which public officials can dispense selective favors, such as exclusive licenses, subsidies, or protective tariffs that benefit politically connected entities over competitors. In systems with expansive state authority, businesses expend resources on lobbying for regulatory advantages rather than innovation, fostering rent-seeking behavior where economic rents—profits derived from government-granted privileges—supplant market-driven gains. Reducing government's economic footprint diminishes these incentives, as fewer intervention points exist for favoritism; empirical analyses indicate that economies with lower regulatory burdens exhibit less evidence of systemic crony networks, as firms prioritize efficiency over political alliances.^[4]^[116] Deregulation directly addresses cronyism by eliminating barriers to entry and price controls that incumbents exploit to maintain dominance, thereby promoting competitive markets less susceptible to capture by influential lobbies. The U.S. Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which abolished the Civil Aeronautics Board's authority over routes, fares, and market entry, exemplifies this: prior regulations had guaranteed airlines a 12% return on investment and restricted new competitors, enabling cartel-like pricing through political influence. Post-deregulation, the number of major carriers rose from 11 to over 100 by the early 1980s, real airfares fell by about 50% in the subsequent decade, and consumer choice expanded without commensurate increases in safety incidents, underscoring how removing government-mediated protections curbed favoritism toward established players.^[125]^[115] Similar outcomes occurred in trucking deregulation via the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, which ended Interstate Commerce Commission restrictions on routes and rates that had favored unionized incumbents and limited entrants to roughly 10% of applicants annually. Deregulation spurred a tripling of carriers by 1985, freight rates dropped 25-40% in real terms, and small firms gained market share, reducing the premium on political connections for operational approvals. These cases demonstrate that broad deregulation, by leveling access and undermining the value of insider dealings, reallocates resources from influence peddling to productive investment, though selective or incomplete reforms risk entrenching crony elements if not paired with ongoing scrutiny of residual powers.^[126]^[127]

References

[1]
Cronyism - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Cronyism is defined as a practice where personal relationships, particularly those based on reciprocity, lead to favoritism in business outcomes, such as ...
[2]
(PDF) Cronyism: A cross-cultural analysis - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · Cronyism is defined by [18] , as favoritism shown by one member of a social network toward another member with the intention of producing ...
[3]
[PDF] The economics and history of cronyism - Calhoun
Jul 26, 2012 · CRONYISM IS THE substitution of political influence for free markets. It comes about when government has a lot of power over private-sector ...
[4]
The Economics and History of Cronyism | Mercatus Center
Cronyism not only picks winners based on political connections rather than on the extent to which they serve consumers, but also is destructive of wealth, ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[5]
Henderson on Cronyism - Econlib
Jul 27, 2012 · But even “cronyism” requires cooperation (“cronyism ... The article you're reading is part of Econlib's Public Choice Theory collection.
[6]
[PDF] Government and Cronyism - CBS Research Portal
Cronyism is when firms succeed based on political ties, not market outcomes, and when business success depends on relationships with government officials.
[7]
The Outcomes of Organizational Cronyism: A Social Exchange ...
May 5, 2022 · The current research examines the possible outcomes of cronyism like organizational deviance (OD), organizational cynicism (OCy), and counterproductive work ...
[8]
[PDF] The impact of perceived organizational cronyism on decision-making
Feb 28, 2025 · This study highlighted a critical issue affecting organizational decision-making, leading to incompetence and in- ferior consequences that ...
[9]
Does Organizational Cronyism Lead to Lower Employee ... - Frontiers
According to the results of the study, organizational cronyism (workplace stressor) was negatively associated with employee performance (employee behavior). Our ...
[10]
[PDF] Economic Effects of Using Nepotism and Cronyism in the ...
Mar 30, 2016 · Abstract. This study aims to discern the role of nepotism and cronyism in the weakening of economic performance of the government ...<|separator|>
[11]
Why Cronyism Is Antithetical to Capitalism and Free Enterprise
Oct 5, 2021 · Simply put, cronyism is the antithesis of capitalism and free enterprise. Cronyism takes many forms, but ultimately the effect is the government ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[12]
Crony Capitalism: Supreme Court Economic Review: Vol 23
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.Skip main navigation · III. Scholarly Usage of the Term · IV. Crony Capitalism in the...
[13]
[PDF] Introduction: The Political Economy of Crony Capitalism
Crony capitalism is usually thought of as a system in which those close to the political authorities who make and enforce poli- cies receive favors that have ...
[14]
[PDF] Cronyism: Necessary for the Minimal, Protective State
Cronyism is inherent in state activities, especially in a minimal state, because the government must intervene to extract resources and shape economic life.
[15]
(PDF) Antecedents and Consequences of Cronyism in Organizations
Aug 10, 2025 · We examine the consequences of cronyism at the individual level with respect to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and ingratiation.
[16]
Organizational Cronyism as an Antecedent of Ingratiation - NIH
Organizational cronyism is defined as exploiting power and resources for bestowing privileges onto relatives and friends. In organizational cronyism merit ...
[17]
Definitions of Cronyism, Corruption, and Crony Capitalism
A politicized or rigged economic system is dubbed crony capitalist to distinguish it from a system of free markets and limited government.
[18]
What is Cronyism? - Simplicable Guide
Sep 11, 2016 · Cronyism is the extension of unfair economic advantages to friends and allies. Such advantages may include job offers, promotions, contracts, policies, laws ...
[19]
Organizational cronyism and employee psychological withdrawal ...
Aug 19, 2025 · Organizational cronyism is defined as favoring certain individuals in the workplace, typically based on personal relationships rather than merit ...
[20]
CRONY CAPITALISM Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Sep 6, 2025 · an economic system in which individuals and businesses with political connections and influence are favored (as through tax breaks, grants, and other forms of ...
[21]
Indirect cronyism and its underlying exchange logic: How managers ...
However, such practices were found to undermine meritocracy and generate difficulties, including high injustice perceptions, low morale, and various corporate ...
[22]
Definitions of Cronyism, Corruption, and Crony Capitalism
A politicized or rigged economic system is dubbed crony capitalist to distinguish it from a system of free markets and limited government.
[23]
Crony - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
From Greek khronios "long-lasting," chrony means an old familiar friend or intimate companion, reflecting its origin tied to time and longevity.
[24]
crony, n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary
OED's earliest evidence for crony is from 1663, in the writing of Samuel Butler, poet. crony is of unknown origin.
[25]
Cronyism - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating in 1840 from "crony" + "-ism," the term means friendship and the appointment of friends to key roles, an American English usage since 1952.
[26]
It's all about chums, not crones: a short history of 'cronyism' | Politics
Apr 22, 2021 · All we know is that it is 17th-century in origin, and probably university slang for dear friend. (“No connection with 'crone' has been traced,” ...
[27]
What Is a 'Crony'? - Quick and Dirty Tips
Nov 5, 2020 · According to Merriam-Webster, the root of the word “crony” is the Greek word “chronos,” which means “time.” The same root gives us the words.
[28]
The Fall of the Han Dynasty, Part 1—The Yellow Scarves Rebellion
May 17, 2021 · The decadent emperor's authority weakens as Corrupt Eunuchs gain de facto Control of the Court at Luoyang. The Eunuchs here are as much an ...
[29]
Long United, Must Divide: The Fall of Han
Thus, although the corruption of the eunuchs contributed to the decline of the Han Dynasty, the major reasons behind the dynasty's collapse are the ...<|separator|>
[30]
[PDF] Instrumental favoritism and the uses of Roman history
That is, where the Edward II story tends to frame royal favoritism as a problematic gray area built into personal monarchy, sto- ries of early imperial Rome ...
[31]
reflections of ancient roman clientship in contemporary african ...
... ancient and modern times, is often abused. Just as two brothers, in African societies, may assist each other in a host of ways, the patron-client partners ...
[32]
Did You Know? Medieval Popes Gave Rise to the Word 'Nepotism ...
Oct 15, 2024 · Derived from the Latin word nepos, meaning nephew, nepotism originally described the favoring of papal family members within the clergy.
[33]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nepotism-family-favors-named-for-popes-nephews-11671752092
[34]
Land Grants | Articles and Essays | Railroad Maps, 1828-1900
Land grants were public lands given to states and railroad companies between 1850 and 1872 to promote railroad construction, usually in 20- or 50-mile strips.Missing: cronyism | Show results with:cronyism<|separator|>
[35]
https://mises.org/mises-wire/myth-robber-barons-james-hill-versus-crony-competitors
[36]
How the Gilded Age's Top 1 Percent Thrived on Corruption
Jan 27, 2020 · Vast corporate wealth and a fee-based governance structure fueled widespread corruption during America's Gilded Age.
[37]
Lessons from 19th Century Cronyism
Sep 12, 2020 · P.S. Professor Folsom also narrated a video showing how government intervention failed in the 1800s (railroads) and early 1900s (airplanes).
[38]
The Rise Of Crony Capitalism - Hoover Institution
Feb 12, 2016 · A textbook example of wholesale crony capitalism in Vietnam is the practice of employing only party members and their family members and ...
[39]
How the Industrial Revolution Shaped Modern Capitalism
Jan 10, 2023 · Crony Glory Days Attempts to address crony capitalism gave rise to two strong reactions: government regulation and labor unions. The government ...
[40]
[PDF] Political Cronyism
Cronyism is defined as "appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications."1 Emerging empirical ...Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
[41]
Cronyism Overview & Examples | Study.com
Cronyism refers to appointing key positions in both the federal and local governments to friends, associates, and families of politicians.
[42]
That Time Reformers Took on Cronyism, Nepotism and Alcoholism ...
Sep 1, 2022 · That Time Reformers Took on Cronyism, Nepotism and Alcoholism in the Federal Workforce. How the Pendleton Act created the modern civil ...
[43]
The rise of a network: Spillover of political patronage and cronyism ...
The existing literature treats cronyism in the government and private sectors as independent sources of inefficiencies. For example, Khwaja and Mian (2005) ...
[44]
[PDF] moroccan cronyism: facts, mechanisms and impact
The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on Moroccan cronyism by studying its manifestation and impact in the manufacturing sector.
[45]
History of Corruption
... Crony Cafe · Halls of Shame and Honor · Thomas Nast Gallery of Political ... The 1923 Teapot Dome scandal is considered one of the most significant episodes of ...
[46]
Cronyism Is Destroying the Public's Trust | Mercatus Center
Of course, cronyism wastes resources on boondoggle projects and encourages squandering effort on lobbying the government. But it also has the potential to ...
[47]
How Cronyism Harms the Investment Climate - Brookings Institution
Cronyism undermines markets in several ways. It increases the costs of doing business for firms excluded from inner, “favored” circles.
[48]
[PDF] Crony Capitalism, American Style - Harvard Business School
Oct 22, 2014 · Crony capitalism is a problem when innovation, economic efficiency, market pricing, and equal access to government decision makers—that is, ...
[49]
Is the System Rigged? Adam Smith on Crony Capitalism, Its Causes ...
Mar 31, 2018 · For Adam Smith, crony capitalism fails on two grounds: It is unjust, favoring a few at the expense of the many, and it is destructive of the desired end of ...
[50]
How Cronyism is Hurting the Economy | Mercatus Center
They studied the lobbying expenditures and political activities of the 237 firms that received TARP funds. ... This Is What Crony Capitalism Looks Like. By.Missing: United | Show results with:United
[51]
[PDF] Working Papers - The Growth Lab
Abstract: The paper studies the nature and extent of Egyptian “crony” capitalism by comparing the corporate performance and the stock market valuation of ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition<|separator|>
[52]
Republicans and Crony Capitalism | Cato Institute
Aug 12, 2015 · Crony capitalism is an insidious system in which businesses' success is based on a close relationship with government, and specifically with the people in ...
[53]
[PDF] Government and Cronyism - Research@CBS
Nonetheless, the 20th-century emergence of the regulatory state greatly increased the potential gains from cronyism (both for firms seeking to influ- ence ...
[54]
[PDF] Crony Capitalism: By-Product of Big Government - Mercatus Center
Regulatory capture. Regulated industries are often able to form a concentrated interest and actively tilt the regulatory process in their favor. Page 2. 2.
[55]
[PDF] Cronyism, Regulation, and Firm Productivity in Egypt
In our sample, regulatory capture as revealed by energy subsidies and trade protection account for the higher profits of politically connected firms. Do crony ...
[56]
The Mechanisms of Regulatory Capture - ProMarket
Jun 15, 2022 · In a world of expanding government regulation and crony capitalism, the importance of denouncing harmful policy has never been higher. What ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[57]
[PDF] Crony Capitalism: - Committee for Economic Development
Crony capitalism refers to unhealthy relations between business and government, a problem that this policy statement addresses.
[58]
[PDF] We Cannot Let Cronyism Overrun Our Economic Garden
But the state is the great enabler of cronyism. Crony capitalism cannot ... to further entrench unions and to expand government and the crony system.
[59]
On the hiring of kin in organizations: Perceived nepotism and its ...
Nepotism is seen as procedurally more unfair than cronyism. •. Perceived nepotism can hinder an organization's ability to attract qualified personnel. Abstract.
[60]
Cronyism and education performance - ScienceDirect.com
We show that more cronyism certainly leads to less effort in skills acquisition. Cronyism in particular reduces skill acquisition and productivity directly, ...
[61]
Cronyism and Nepotism Are Bad for Everyone: The Research ...
Aug 9, 2025 · Nepotism and cronyism damage employees and their supervisors and produces poorer organizational performance.
[62]
[PDF] Cronyism and Nepotism Are Bad for Everyone: The Research ...
Nepotism and cronyism damage exactly the kinds of so- cial relationships that make for a humane and tolerable workplace and foster organizational performance.
[63]
Nepotism, human capital and economic development - ScienceDirect
This paper suggests that nepotism affects economic development by hindering human capital development.
[64]
[PDF] LIBERALISM AND CRONYISM - Mercatus Center
8 It simply does not pay as much to be a crony in a more liberal, market economy. The tendency of communist systems to devolve into cronyism largely stems from ...
[65]
[PDF] IMPACT OF CRONY CAPITALISM ON INCOME INEQUALITY
Aug 10, 2024 · This empirical study investigates the impact of crony capitalism on income inequality through a comprehensive ... regulatory capture. It ...
[66]
Graphic of the Day: Capitalism Vs. Crony Capitalism
Nov 23, 2018 · Bottom Line: Under free market capitalism, the most innovative, consumer-friendly corporations are successful and make the most money.
[67]
Free Market Capitalism vs. Crony Capitalism
Jul 14, 2014 · Free Market capitalism makes the consumer “king” of the marketplace who determines whether businessmen earn profits or suffer losses, base on ...
[68]
The Two Kinds of Capitalism - The DeVoe L. Moore Center Blog
Feb 12, 2014 · Under crony capitalism, businesses attempt to have laws passed protecting one's business from competition and imposing costs on the competition.
[69]
Free Market Capitalism vs. Crony Capitalism: Unveiling the Key ...
Oct 23, 2024 · Crony Capitalism: A Distortion of the Free Market. Crony capitalism, however, is not a result of market forces but of government meddling.
[70]
Capitalism, True and False: Free Market vs. Crony Capitalism
Crony capitalism is the use of political means to achieve economic ends through the use of government intervention, regulation or redistribution of income to ...
[71]
This Is What Crony Capitalism Looks Like | Mercatus Center
It misdirects resources, impedes genuine economic progress, breeds corruption, and undermines the legitimacy of both the government and the private sector.".Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[72]
[PDF] Crony Capitalism versus Pure Capitalism - Independent Institute
“In short, liberalism—like 'real' capitalism—requires forbearance.” No, it requires jail sentences for criminal crony violators of laissez-faire capitalism.Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
[73]
[PDF] The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society
Rent-seeking is competition for rents from government restrictions, sometimes legal, sometimes through bribery, corruption, smuggling, or black markets.
[74]
Investigating the effects of crony capitalism on energy intensity ...
Jun 1, 2025 · Crony capitalism embodies a form of market failure where politically connected firms gain unfair advantages, leading to resource misallocation ...
[75]
(PDF) What's Bad About Crony Capitalism? - ResearchGate
Dec 14, 2015 · We analyze market impediments to the process of structural adjustment. We focus on incomplete contract inefficiencies in the transactions ...
[76]
[PDF] Why Crony Capitalism Is Bad for Economic Growth
Over time, the real rate of return on investment might fall if the capital-labor ratio rose and there were diminishing returns to capital.Missing: inefficiencies | Show results with:inefficiencies
[77]
The U.S. Department of Energy's Loan Program Puts Crony ...
Aug 3, 2021 · This long track-record of failure includes green companies such as Abound Solar, Range Fuels, and the infamous Solyndra debacle. Despite ...
[78]
Green Energy Cronyism Strikes Out Again at the WTO - Cato Institute
Feb 26, 2016 · The ruling condemns a particular protectionist policy that dilutes the effectiveness of solar subsidies by diverting them to inefficient ...
[79]
Resource Curse or Destructive Creation: A Tale of Crony Capitalism ...
Dec 29, 2012 · This paper explores the “resource curse” problem as a counter-example of creative performance and innovation by examining reliance on ...
[80]
Crony capitalism, the party-state, and the political boundaries of ...
In this characterization, the economic institutions are highly inefficient due to distortionary regulations; corruption between officials and private businesses ...
[81]
Government Cronyism and the Erosion of the Public's Trust
It reviews the undesirable outcomes generated by cronyism with a focus on the possible withdrawal of the public's trust, subsequent decline in government ...
[82]
Publication: Do Politically Connected Firms Innovate, Contributing to ...
This paper presents new evidence that cronyism reduces long-term economic growth by discouraging firms' innovation activities. The analysis is based on ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[83]
Cronyism: Undermining Economic Freedom and Prosperity Around ...
Aug 9, 2010 · Examples of this ancient form of corruption abound. Government intrusions into the private sector as a partner, financier, or outright owner ...
[84]
The Crédit Mobilier Scandal | American Experience - PBS
Durant paid crony Herbert M. Hoxie to submit a construction bid to the Union Pacific. No one else got the call to bid, and as the only bid received, Hoxie's ...
[85]
The Crédit Mobilier Scandal | US House of Representatives
Crédit Mobilier was a sham construction company chartered to build the Union Pacific Railroad by financing it with unmarketable bonds.Missing: cronyism | Show results with:cronyism
[86]
Grant, Babcock, and the Whiskey Ring | National Archives
Fighting scandal was practically a state of being in the Grant White House, but the Whiskey Ring indictment was trouble, perhaps the worst the President—and ...
[87]
John B. Kendrick and the Teapot Dome Scandal: A Historical ...
Oct 23, 2023 · Centered around the illicit leasing of federal oil reserves, the scandal exposed a web of bribery, cronyism, and abuse of power that reached the ...
[88]
Political Scandals: Teapot Dome - 1921 to 1923 - Butler LibGuides
Oct 14, 2025 · 'It infected his entire close friend group and Harding became synonymous with cronyism and corruption. Scrutiny into Harding's personal life led ...
[89]
Trillion Dollar Bailouts Equal Crony Capitalism - Reason Foundation
Dec 12, 2011 · In fact the Treasury Department decided in August 2008 that Fannie and Freddie were so unsound they had to be taken over by the government to ...
[90]
A Reminder of the Corruption That Helped Birth the Biggest Bailout ...
Jul 18, 2013 · The nearly $200 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the biggest, costliest taxpayer-funded bailout in history.
[91]
[PDF] Beyond Bailouts: What Is Cronyism?
While the most common examples of cronyism in modern American history are the bailouts of the. 2008 financial crisis, they were only the tip of the iceberg.
[92]
Solyndra: A Case Study in Green Energy, Cronyism, and the Failure ...
Aug 27, 2015 · Top leaders of a troubled solar panel company that cost taxpayers a half‐ billion dollars repeatedly misled federal officials and omitted information.
[93]
[PDF] Lobbying, Cronyism and Section 1705 Loan Guarantees
Solyndra: After receiving a $535 million DOE loan guarantee, as well as over $1 billion in private investment, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy in the fall of.
[94]
Wind-Energy Sector Gets $176 Billion Worth of Crony Capitalism
About $6.8 billion in subsidies, loans, and loan guarantees went to foreign corporations, including Iberdrola, Siemens, and E.On. Those three companies, and ...Missing: green post-
[95]
Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget | Cato Institute
Mar 4, 2025 · The Obama administration gave billions of dollars to renewable energy businesses. The most famous failure was Solyndra, a maker of solar power ...
[96]
Prior business relationships influence PPP coronavirus lending ...
Feb 17, 2021 · Oversight tightened after Congress approved extra PPP funding in April, potentially reducing bank favoritism, the researchers said. “Our ...
[97]
COVID pandemic bailout was riddled with fraud, political favoritism
Jul 17, 2023 · The whole pandemic bail-out was riddled with mistakes and political favoritism. For example, $122 billion went to the schools, some of it ...<|separator|>
[98]
The Achilles Heel of Putin's Regime by Anders Åslund
Aug 22, 2017 · Russia's crony capitalism is weaker than it seems. In fact, President Vladimir Putin's consolidation of power has created a major potential ...
[99]
Breakingviews - Review: The struggle of Russia's crony capitalists
Jul 12, 2019 · How did Vladimir Putin and his allies take control of Russia's economy? That's the story Anders Aslund sets out to tell in “Russia's Crony ...
[100]
China's Crony Capitalism - Harvard University Press
Oct 3, 2016 · China's Crony Capitalism traces the origins of China's present-day troubles to the series of incomplete reforms from the post-Tiananmen era.
[101]
The Origins and Dynamics of Crony Capitalism in China
By examining the evolution of Chinese economic and political institutions since the early 1990s, we can trace the emergence of crony capitalism to two critical ...
[102]
The Rise of Kleptocracy: Malaysia's Missing Billions
Cynthia Gabriel is founder of the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4), an anticorruption organization in Malaysia. In 2017, she was a recipient of ...
[103]
Malaysia Ranked 3rd Highest in World for Crony-Capitalism by the ...
May 5, 2023 · Malaysia has been ranked third in the latest edition of The Economist's crony-capitalism index, which highlights the levels of cronyism in ...
[104]
A corruption inquiry ends in South Africa. Will justice follow?
Jun 22, 2022 · Its investigators called nearly 300 witnesses, who detailed staggering graft and cronyism in many of South Africa's most powerful government ...
[105]
Thuli Madonsela: South Africa's corruption crusader - BBC News
Oct 14, 2016 · ... cronyism - what's rather clumsily called "state capture" here. 'Extraordinary'. In short, it expected to describe how unelected businessmen ...
[106]
The Causes and Costs of Misallocation
Such provisions are often referred to as “crony capitalism” or even “government corrup- tion.” Examples are subsidies, tax breaks, or low interest rate ...
[107]
Five Myths about Economic Inequality in America | Cato Institute
Sep 7, 2016 · By most measures, cronyism is a far smaller contributor to inequality in the United States than in many other countries, such as Russia, ...
[108]
Laissez-Faire Capitalism Is Not Crony Capitalism - Right Reason
Jul 1, 2014 · By sustaining companies with obsolete or unsustainable business models, the government prevents their resources from being liquidated and made ...
[109]
Is Crony Capitalism Inevitable? - Bleeding Heart Libertarians
Apr 1, 2019 · Crony capitalism is not intrinsic to capitalism itself but is a reaction to government planning of the economy. The larger the government, the ...Missing: debunked | Show results with:debunked
[110]
[PDF] Dimensions of Economic Freedom and Cross-Country Corruption
and Overall Corruption Index (Corruption2), both of which are negatively correlated with Economic Freedom with a correlation coefficient of -0.78 and -0.64 ...
[111]
Unpacking corruption: The role of economic freedom in developing ...
The study finds economic freedom reduces corruption even in countries with the most rampant corruption, which counters findings from other studies. Economic ...
[112]
[PDF] Does Economic Freedom Influence Governmental Corruption? An ...
The slope, 0.975, suggests that for every one unit increase in economic freedom, a country's index of governmental corruption decreases by 0.975 points. A ...
[113]
[PDF] Interplay Between Corruption and Economic Freedom
This paper seeks to examine the nature of the interplay between corruption and economic freedom. Both corruption and economic freedom are in themselves ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[114]
(PDF) The impact of economic freedom on corruption - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · Since there is likely a negative correlation between corruption and economic freedom and a high degree of corruption may hamper the ...
[115]
Deregulation Is Not the Enemy - The Breakthrough Institute
Nov 30, 2021 · For example, in 1978, the US Airline Deregulation Act phased out government control over prices and entry to the air travel market. In a market ...
[116]
Deregulation Archives - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Government regulation of the economy blocks innovation and wealth creation. It also encourages damaging behavior such as rent-seeking and cronyism.
[117]
Transparency to curb corruption? Concepts, measures and ...
Jul 15, 2017 · Policymakers and researchers often cite the importance of government transparency for strengthening accountability, reducing corruption, ...
[118]
Transparency reduces bribery by shaping beliefs in a public goods ...
Jul 1, 2025 · Our findings indicate that when information about corruption is not publicly shared, individuals are more likely to offer bribes, exacerbating a collective ...
[119]
[PDF] Evidence on the Impact of Transparency - The World Bank
Aug 6, 2025 · The work by Ferraz and Finan (2011) evaluating the role of electoral accountability in reducing corruption in Brazil also extends to examining.
[120]
Making Transparency Effective in Reducing Corruption
Aug 5, 2025 · Transparency is presumed to lower corruption. However, research shows that transparency promotion is ineffective in the absence of free media ...
[121]
Economic reform from 1984 - Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand
Mar 4, 2010 · The 1984 Labour government introduced an extensive programme of economic reforms. These aimed in part to improve the responsiveness of New Zealand producers.
[122]
[PDF] Economic Reform in New Zealand :
Under an ostensibly social democratic Labour Government it comprehensively liberalized its economy in a process beginning in the early 1980s and extending into ...
[123]
[PDF] Cronies in the Courtroom: Political Interference and Judicial Reforms*
Oct 14, 2024 · In this paper, we investigate the effects of judicial reforms on judicial bias arising from cronyism. Specifically, our study centers on the ...
[124]
Public sector reforms and their impact on the level of corruption
The findings suggest that policies based on control and deterrence are more effective in curbing corruption in the public sector than interventions based on ...
[125]
Deregulation - Overview, Benefits, Consequences, & Examples
For example, the Civil Aeronautics Board governed routes, set airfare prices, and guaranteed 12% profit for the airline company for flights with more than 50% ...
[126]
Deregulation: Definition, History, Effects, and Purpose - Investopedia
Some of the sectors that have been deregulated in the United States include trucking, railroads, and airlines.1 The financial services industry has been ...
[127]
You Can't Regulate Crony Capitalism Away - FEE.org
Dec 29, 2017 · Increasing the scope of government over business accelerates the problem of crony capitalism. The Solution of Increased Regulation Is No ...