First, if success is defined by profit, then where do advocacy for justice, safety, and protecting the commons fit in? They are just as important for government to hear about as profit-generating business interests.
Second, that argument sounds like Laissez-Faire economics, where those who succeed are enabled to succeed more. In practice, it leads to imbalances and winner-take-all problems:
On the other hand, excessive regulation can suffocate innovation. So you need a balance. The debate comes when you try to figure out what the balance should be. In academia, that balance includes disclosure, peer-review, and openness. It's far from perfect, but we're working on it.
But this article is mostly about government and policy that is informed by research, and the serious imbalances, information asymmetries, and lack of voice of non-business interests.
Justice, Safety, and protecting the commons are perfectly satisfied by the interests of the wealthy. The absolute first thing that wealth wants is safety and order, and central to that is a well-functioning police force. Unless wealth has been entirely monopolized, that will involve a coalition of monied interests. We're not quite at the point of a private police force, though we're close, due to the raging ineffectiveness that BLM and similar movements are pushing for.
Second, that argument sounds like Laissez-Faire economics, where those who succeed are enabled to succeed more. In practice, it leads to imbalances and winner-take-all problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire#Critiques
On the other hand, excessive regulation can suffocate innovation. So you need a balance. The debate comes when you try to figure out what the balance should be. In academia, that balance includes disclosure, peer-review, and openness. It's far from perfect, but we're working on it.
But this article is mostly about government and policy that is informed by research, and the serious imbalances, information asymmetries, and lack of voice of non-business interests.