Small networked elite groups can dominate policy debates without being a majority
Evidence
Though not in the majority, neoliberals were especially influential because, as initiators, keynote speakers, and organizers, they held key positions and, in contrast to the other participants, acted as an organizationally networked epistemic community. These “ ‘vital few’ in the great battle for ideas” were supported by an entire network of MPS economists and politicians, all promoting free capital movements and exchange rates with similar arguments at these conferences and beyond, who could be characterized as “the many disciples.” — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 443
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to Milgrom’s private-judge reputation networks and the general pattern of how small coordinated epistemic communities out-organize dispersed majorities. — connects to: Elite tech status requires acceptance by a small closed inner network — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 202; Economists’ self-denying neutrality limited their influence on popular political debate — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 125; Familial political ties in elite networks shaped how the Lippmann colloquium agenda developed — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 375 (+7 more)
Broader Connections
- A dedicated single-issue group can dominate an apathetic electorate
#exemplifies(0.85) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1106 - Liberal democracies are not direct-access societies but elite-mediated ones
#corroborates(0.80) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 26 - Effective minority influence requires coalition dominance, not representation alone
#corroborates(0.70) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 2156 - Consensus is shaped and structured by unequal power rather than freely formed
#qualifies(0.70) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 919