The power to transform structures: power complexes and the challenges for realising a wellbeing economy

The wellbeing economy aims to shift economic activities towards enhancing human and ecological wellbeing with fair resource distribution. While gaining support from various actors, diverging interpretations and approaches exist, ranging from radical transformative visions aligned with post-/degrowth to incremental approaches promoting 'green' and 'inclusive' growth. Current research, however, underestimates the complexities and obstacles, particularly for post-/degrowth visions which challenge hegemonic economic understanding and require a detailed analysis of time-space-specific political-economic conjunctures. This article addresses this gap by exploring the interplay of agential and structural power in hindering or enabling the transition to a wellbeing economy, focusing on the challenges faced by post-/degrowth approaches and the need for strategic action at various levels.

The paper draws on regulationist theory to understand how stability is maintained within the inherently crisis-prone capitalist mode of production. It examines the concept of a 'mode of regulation,' which temporarily stabilizes the accumulation process through social and political means. The authors draw on critical political economy, defining power complexes as part of a hegemonic bloc, encompassing several industry-specific power complexes. The work also uses a heuristic framework for analyzing firm-to-state lobbying, synthesized from existing lobbying theories, to investigate the strategies employed by corporate actors to influence policy.

The study employs a regulationist-inspired historical analysis to trace the rise, fall, and re-emergence of four power complexes: financial, fossil, livestock-agribusiness, and digital. This analysis spans three historical periods characterized by different modes of regulation: colonial-liberal, Fordist, and neoliberal. The analysis identifies how these power complexes have exercised agential power within and through historically specific modes of regulation. The study then focuses on firm-to-state lobbying as a key corporate strategy, utilizing a heuristic framework derived from existing lobbying theories. This framework examines the key actors involved, the spatial dimensions of lobbying, the resources mobilized, and the targeted policies. The framework is then applied to illustrative case studies of Blackstone (financial), BP (fossil fuels), Bayer (livestock-agribusiness), and Alphabet (digital), drawing on secondary sources to exemplify the framework's analytical pillars. The analysis explores proactive and reactive lobbying strategies and how they intersect with specific policy areas and regulatory frameworks.

The historical analysis reveals a co-evolution of structural and agential power, with modes of regulation shaping the power dynamics of specific actor-coalitions. The financial power complex, dominant during the colonial-liberal era, weakened under Fordist regulation but re-emerged strongly during the neoliberal period. The fossil and livestock-agribusiness complexes gained prominence during Fordism, while the digital complex rose alongside neoliberalism. The contemporary context is characterized by an interregnum where neoliberal regulation is weakening, yet the four power complexes are consolidating their power, albeit in altered forms. The case studies highlight how corporate actors use firm-to-state lobbying to shape policy across multiple spatial dimensions (territories, places, scales, networks). They mobilize financial and human resources, exploiting regulatory gaps and leveraging their expertise to influence policy outcomes. Blackstone's real-estate investments show multi-scalar lobbying, influencing local regulations, national tax policies, and even European monetary policies. BP's lobbying efforts focus on maintaining fossil fuel infrastructure, while Bayer works to weaken pesticide regulations. Alphabet's lobbying focuses on self-regulation and limiting data access, illustrated by the aborted Sidewalk Labs project. The analysis shows that contemporary power structures favor multinational corporations, disadvantaging civil society, labor movements, and public bureaucracies due to the technical complexity and multi-scalarity of policy processes and high capital mobility.

The findings demonstrate that the interplay between agential and structural power is crucial for understanding the challenges in transitioning to a wellbeing economy. While actor-coalitions can influence structures, the existing structures are strategically selective, favoring corporate interests. The dominance of multinational corporations, particularly through firm-to-state lobbying, presents a significant hurdle for realizing a wellbeing economy aligned with post-/degrowth visions. The case studies reveal the effectiveness of corporate strategies in shaping policy at multiple scales and across different geographical contexts. The analysis highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of power dynamics to develop effective strategies for transformative change.

This article offers a novel framework for understanding the barriers to a wellbeing economy, highlighting the importance of power complexes and firm-to-state lobbying. The research underscores the need for unconventional strategic alliances that engage both with and against capital fractions, operating across all spatial dimensions simultaneously. Future research should focus on developing effective strategies to institutionalize alternative policy-influencing mechanisms to counter the disproportionate influence of corporate lobbying and empower civil society actors in shaping a more equitable and sustainable future.

The study relies primarily on secondary data and illustrative case studies, limiting the depth of analysis within each power complex. While the framework is broadly applicable, further research is needed to test its generalizability across diverse contexts and political systems. The focus on firm-to-state lobbying as a key strategy does not exclude other important corporate influence tactics, and a more comprehensive analysis of these alternative strategies is warranted.