Other Captures
In general, the seven distinct categories of capture currently included in the ghost management framework do a decent job of describing much of the corporate activity that makes up the ghost management landscape. However, not all ghost management actions fit neatly into these groupings. There are other forms of capture that fall outside the parameters of the seven categories, but which are still important to identify and document. Thus far, these activities have been assigned to a miscellaneous “Other Captures” category. However, there is emerging evidence to suggest that an eighth distinct category may be warranted – “legal capture”.
“Legal capture” may eventually be defined as including actions which involve the strategic deployment of judicial resources, in which existing laws and regulations are used to impose specific perspectives and actions over the judicial process itself. Legal capture may differ from regulatory capture in that it does not involve the explicit modification of existing rules, laws and regulations. Rather, it would describe actions that include navigating existing laws and regulations in ways that serve commercial interests at the expense of public interest. One example of this potential new category may be how the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) can have significant impacts on the outcomes of socio-technical controversies (Voisard, 2018). It could also potentially apply to cases where corporations have been found to willfully break the law because they do not fear legal consequences (Coleman, 2012), or use legal intimidation against whistleblowers (Breggin, 2006).
There is a pressing need for more research on legal capture as a self-contained category for ghost management, particularly concerning the burden of proof. The ghost management framework will continue to be refined and enhanced as research continues. For now, “Other Captures” continues to house corporate activities that do not otherwise fit well into the other categories, but the framework will continue to be adapted to the evidence as necessary.
References
Breggin, P. R. (2006). Court filing makes public my previously suppressed analysis of Paxil’s effects. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 8(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1891/ehpp.8.1.77
Coleman, J. J. (2012). The supply chain of medicinal controlled substances: Addressing the Achilles heel of drug diversion. Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy, 26(3), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.3109/15360288.2012.703294
Voisard, A.-M. (2018). Le droit du plus fort; Nos dommages, leurs intérêts (Ecosociété). http://ecosociete.org/livres/le-droit-du-plus-fort