Crony Capitalism and Rent-Seeking: An Analysis of Market Distortions and Biblical Statesmanship

Introduction

This research paper discusses the factors causing crony capitalism and rent-seeking. Big government combined with big business and little regulation allow this unethical but not illegal practices. It examines the link between statist interventions in the economy and crony capitalism and rent-seeking. These ideologies significantly impacted American history, policies, and practices. In this current government, crony capitalism is a reoccurring practice. Rent-seeking comes from a large corporation with deep pockets spending millions on lobbyists advocating to gain government favors. This paper evaluates current trends in American politics concerning elitism, crony capitalism, and rent-seeking. Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Especially not the god of money, for the Scriptures condemn greed. These ideologies are evaluated in the context of the biblical model of statesmanship. They undermine the benefits of capitalism because they prohibit the exercise of a free and open market that promotes fair competition. These practices under the biblical model of statesmanship are detrimental to a prosperous society. Multiple factors contribute to crony capitalism and rent-seeking.

Theoretical Framework: Understanding Crony Capitalism and Rent-Seeking

Crony capitalism represents a perversion of free-market principles wherein business success depends not on competition, innovation, or efficiency, but rather on political relationships and government favor. This economic system diverges fundamentally from Adam Smith’s conception of capitalism, where the invisible hand of market forces allocates resources efficiently through voluntary exchange (Smith, 1776/1976). Instead, crony capitalism creates an environment where economic opportunities are distributed through political connections rather than merit or market demand (Holcombe, 2015).

Rent-seeking, a concept formally introduced by economist Gordon Tullock in 1967 and later refined and popularized by Anne Krueger in 1974, describes the expenditure of resources to obtain economic gains through political manipulation rather than through trade and production of wealth (Tullock, 1967; Krueger, 1974). Unlike profit-seeking, which creates value for society through innovation and efficiency, rent-seeking merely redistributes existing wealth while consuming valuable resources in the process (Henderson, 2008). These resources—including lobbying expenditures, campaign contributions, and the opportunity cost of entrepreneurial talent diverted toward political maneuvering—represent a deadweight loss to society (Buchanan, Tollison, & Tullock, 1980). The distinction between legitimate profit-seeking and rent-seeking is crucial for understanding the economic inefficiencies that plague modern political economies.

Krueger (1974) demonstrated that rent-seeking behavior imposes costs on society beyond the direct transfer of wealth, as resources are diverted from productive activities toward securing government favors. Her seminal work on import licensing in India and Turkey revealed that the value of import licenses represented significant percentages of national income, suggesting massive resource misallocation (Krueger, 1974, p. 291). Tullock’s insight was that competitive rent-seeking could dissipate the entire value of the rent being sought, creating a complete social waste (Tullock, 1967). As Henderson (2008) notes, “People are said to seek rents when they try to obtain benefits for themselves through the political arena” rather than through productive market exchange.

Historical Context and Development in American Political Economy

The relationship between government power and economic privilege has deep roots in American history. Alexander Hamilton’s financial system, while modernizing American finance, established precedents for government-business collaboration that critics argued favored northern financial interests over agrarian communities (Chernow, 2004). The Second Bank of the United States generated intense political controversy precisely because opponents viewed it as institutionalized favoritism toward moneyed elites (Remini, 1967). President Andrew Jackson’s veto of the bank’s recharter reflected populist opposition to what was perceived as government-sanctioned economic privilege (Hammond, 1957).

The Gilded Age exemplified crony capitalist practices on an unprecedented scale. Railroad barons secured massive land grants and subsidies from federal and state governments, creating fortunes built not primarily on competitive excellence but on political access (White, 2011). The Credit Mobilier scandal revealed how companies could exploit government contracts through corruption and political connections (Bain, 1999). These historical patterns established institutional pathways that continue to facilitate rent-seeking behavior in contemporary politics (McChesney & Shughart, 1995).

The Progressive Era attempted to address these corruptions through regulatory reforms, yet paradoxically, expanded government authority over economic affairs simultaneously created new opportunities for rent-seeking (Kolko, 1963). Regulatory capture—wherein regulatory agencies come to serve the interests of the industries they purportedly oversee—became an unintended consequence of well-intentioned reform efforts (Stigler, 1971). This historical trajectory demonstrates how increasing government intervention, even when motivated by desires to curb corruption, can inadvertently expand opportunities for crony capitalism (Yandle, 1983).

Structural Factors Enabling Crony Capitalism

Several structural characteristics of modern American government facilitate crony capitalist practices. First, the discretionary power vested in regulatory agencies creates opportunities for political influence over economic outcomes (Mitchell & Munger, 1991). When bureaucrats possess authority to grant permits, approve contracts, or provide exemptions, businesses have powerful incentives to invest resources in influencing these decisions. The larger the potential economic impact of regulatory decisions, the greater the incentive for rent-seeking behavior (Posner, 1975).

Second, the complexity of the modern regulatory state creates information asymmetries that advantage established firms with resources to navigate bureaucratic systems (Yandle, 1999). Compliance costs for regulations often function as barriers to entry that protect incumbent businesses from competition. Large corporations can afford specialized legal and regulatory staff, while smaller competitors struggle with compliance burdens (Crews, 2017). This dynamic transforms regulation from a constraint on big business into a competitive advantage, turning potential competitors into allies of expanded regulation that serves as a moat protecting market position (Stigler, 1971).

Third, the campaign finance system creates dependencies between politicians and wealthy donors, including corporate interests (Ferguson, 1995). Although legal restrictions exist, the costs of modern campaigns incentivize politicians to maintain favorable relationships with potential contributors. Political action committees, bundling, and increasingly sophisticated methods of channeling resources into campaigns create pathways for converting economic power into political influence (Lessig, 2011). The revolving door between government service and private sector employment, particularly in regulated industries, further entangles political and economic interests (Laffont & Tirole, 1991).

Fourth, the concentration of government procurement and contracting creates massive stakes for rent-seeking activity (Gordon, 2011). When government purchases represent significant portions of market demand—as in defense, healthcare, and infrastructure—companies have strong incentives to invest in political relationships that secure contracts. Cost-plus contracting arrangements, which guarantee profit margins regardless of efficiency, particularly incentivize rent-seeking over productive entrepreneurship (McNeil, 1997).

The Lobbying Industrial Complex

The modern lobbying industry represents perhaps the most visible manifestation of rent-seeking in American politics. In 2023, lobbying expenditures in the United States reached $4.26 billion, with the total having more than doubled since 2000 (Statista, 2024). By 2024, this figure increased to a record $4.4 billion (Tucson Sentinel, 2025). These expenditures reflect rational calculations by corporations and interest groups that political investments yield higher returns than market competition (Baumgartner et al., 2009). When regulatory decisions or legislative provisions can generate millions or billions in profits or cost savings, spending millions on lobbying becomes economically rational from the firm’s perspective, even as it represents waste from society’s perspective (Tullock, 1967).

Some estimates suggest the actual lobbying industry may be considerably larger than official figures indicate. Analyst James Thurber estimated that the actual number of working lobbyists was close to 100,000 and that the industry brings in approximately $9 billion annually when including unregistered lobbying activities (Thurber, 2011). The health sector alone spent $739.06 million on lobbying in 2023, making it the top lobbying sector, while pharmaceuticals and health products spent approximately $379 million (Statista, 2024).

Lobbying takes multiple forms beyond direct advocacy. Think tanks and research organizations funded by interested parties produce studies supporting favorable policy positions (Rich, 2004). Trade associations coordinate industry-wide political strategies (Drutman, 2015). Public relations campaigns shape public opinion to create political pressure for desired policies (Hacker & Pierson, 2010). Former government officials leverage their expertise, relationships, and insider knowledge on behalf of private clients (Blanes i Vidal, Draca, & Fons-Rosen, 2012). This ecosystem of influence creates self-perpetuating dynamics wherein political access becomes increasingly professionalized and expensive, further advantaging wealthy interests (Drutman, 2015).

The specialization of lobbying around particular policy domains creates information asymmetries favoring organized interests (Hall & Deardorff, 2006). While elected officials must address countless issues, lobbyists develop deep expertise in narrow areas, positioning themselves as invaluable sources of information and analysis. This expertise grants agenda-setting power and the ability to shape how issues are framed and understood (Baumgartner & Leech, 1998). Technical complexity in policy areas like taxation, finance regulation, and telecommunications further advantages those with resources to develop specialized knowledge (Drutman, 2015).

Biblical Perspective on Economic Justice and Governance

The biblical model of statesmanship provides a normative framework for evaluating crony capitalism and rent-seeking. Scripture consistently condemns partiality in judgment, particularly when the powerful receive favorable treatment at the expense of justice. Leviticus 19:15 commands, “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly” (New International Version). This principle applies directly to government decisions regarding economic matters—officials should make decisions based on justice and public welfare, not based on political relationships or financial influence (Wright, 2004).

The prophetic tradition strongly criticizes rulers who abuse power for personal enrichment or to favor the wealthy. Isaiah 1:23 declares, “Your rulers are rebels, partners with thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts” (NIV). Micah 3:11 condemns leaders who “judge for a bribe” and “give decisions for money” (NIV). These passages demonstrate that using public office for private gain or showing favoritism to wealthy interests fundamentally violates biblical standards of governance (Brueggemann, 1982). Rent-seeking behavior, wherein businesses secure benefits through political manipulation rather than productive service, falls squarely within this prophetic critique (Wolterstorff, 2008).

The biblical concern for economic justice particularly emphasizes protection of vulnerable populations from exploitation by the powerful. Proverbs 22:16 warns, “One who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and one who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty” (NIV). Crony capitalism systematically disadvantages those without political connections while transferring resources to well-connected elites (Grudem, 2003). This redistribution contradicts biblical mandates to ensure justice for the poor and marginalized. When regulations create barriers benefiting established firms, when government contracts flow to politically connected companies regardless of merit, when tax codes contain special provisions favoring particular industries—these practices violate biblical principles of impartial justice (Wright, 2010).

The First Commandment’s prohibition against idolatry, cited in Exodus 20:3, extends beyond religious worship to encompass ultimate loyalties and values (NIV). When the pursuit of wealth becomes an overriding priority that corrupts governance and justice, money effectively functions as an idol displacing proper priorities (Beisner, 2001). Jesus warned that “you cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24, NIV), recognizing wealth’s tendency to claim absolute allegiance. Crony capitalism reflects institutional idolatry wherein money’s influence perverts government decision-making (Sider, 2008). The billions spent on lobbying demonstrate how thoroughly the desire for wealth shapes political behavior.

Furthermore, biblical teaching emphasizes stewardship—the responsible management of resources for proper purposes (Block, 2003). Government officials serve as stewards of public authority, accountable for exercising power justly and for public benefit. Rent-seeking represents a fundamental betrayal of stewardship, converting public authority into a commodity exchanged for private benefit (Grudem, 2010). This misappropriation of public trust parallels Jesus’ condemnation of religious leaders who “devour widows’ houses” (Mark 12:40, NIV), using positions of authority for exploitation rather than service.

Economic and Social Consequences

The economic consequences of widespread crony capitalism and rent-seeking are substantial. First, these practices misallocate resources by directing entrepreneurial talent and capital toward political maneuvering rather than productive innovation (Baumol, 1990). When the highest returns come from securing government favor rather than serving customers better, society loses the innovations and efficiencies that drive prosperity. The opportunity cost of resources devoted to rent-seeking represents genuine economic loss (Tullock, 1967).

Second, crony capitalism reduces economic dynamism by protecting incumbent firms from competition (Holcombe, 2013). When established businesses can use political influence to create regulatory barriers, subsidies, or favorable tax treatment, new entrants face artificial disadvantages. This protection of incumbents reduces the competitive pressure that drives innovation and efficiency (Djankov et al., 2002). Economic research demonstrates that economies with higher levels of crony capitalism experience slower growth, less innovation, and reduced productivity gains compared to more competitive markets (Krueger, 1990; Murphy, Shleifer, & Vishny, 1993).

Third, these practices increase inequality in ways that undermine social cohesion. Unlike market-generated inequality, which at least theoretically reflects productive contributions to society, inequality resulting from political favoritism reflects pure redistribution toward those with access to power (Piketty, 2014). This political inequality breeds resentment and undermines faith in both market systems and democratic governance. When success depends more on political connections than merit or effort, societies lose the legitimacy that comes from perceived fairness (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

Fourth, crony capitalism corrodes civic trust and political legitimacy (Rothstein & Teorell, 2008). When citizens perceive that government serves wealthy special interests rather than the common good, cynicism about democratic institutions increases. This erosion of trust creates vicious cycles wherein decreased civic engagement further empowers organized special interests, accelerating the deterioration of institutional quality (Putnam, 2000).

Contemporary Manifestations and Policy Implications

Modern American politics displays numerous examples of crony capitalism and rent-seeking across policy domains. Tax expenditures—special provisions in the tax code benefiting particular industries or activities—represent a clear case (Surrey, 1973). While often justified on policy grounds, these provisions frequently reflect successful lobbying by interested parties rather than sound economic analysis. The mortgage interest deduction, for instance, primarily benefits higher-income homeowners and the real estate industry while distorting housing markets, yet remains politically entrenched due to industry lobbying (Glaeser & Shapiro, 2003).

Financial sector bailouts during economic crises illustrate crony capitalism’s dangers. When government protects large financial institutions from the consequences of excessive risk-taking, it creates moral hazard encouraging further recklessness while imposing costs on taxpayers (Sorkin, 2009). The “too big to fail” doctrine essentially grants large banks an implicit government guarantee worth billions, creating a subsidy for size disconnected from economic efficiency (Stern & Feldman, 2004). Post-crisis regulations, while attempting to prevent future crises, simultaneously increased compliance costs that advantage large institutions over smaller competitors—an outcome reflecting regulatory capture rather than optimal policy design (Peirce, 2014).

Agricultural subsidies provide another example of entrenched rent-seeking (Orden, Paarlberg, & Roe, 1999). Programs ostensibly designed to support family farmers primarily benefit large agricultural operations and landowners, while raising consumer prices and encouraging environmentally damaging practices (Rausser & Goodhue, 2002). These programs persist despite economic inefficiency because concentrated beneficiaries lobby intensively while dispersed costs create little organized opposition (Olson, 1965).

Energy policy reflects competing rent-seeking interests, with fossil fuel industries, renewable energy advocates, and utilities all seeking favorable treatment through tax preferences, subsidies, regulations, and mandates (Duffield, 2012). While legitimate policy debates exist regarding climate change and energy security, the influence of lobbying money shapes outcomes in ways disconnected from optimal policy (Stokes, 2020). The complexity of energy regulation creates numerous opportunities for special provisions benefiting particular interests (Helm, 2010).

Conclusion

Crony capitalism and rent-seeking represent fundamental perversions of both market capitalism and democratic governance. These practices transform government authority into a commodity purchased by wealthy interests, violating principles of justice, fairness, and proper stewardship (Holcombe, 2018). The biblical model of statesmanship, with its emphasis on impartial justice and rejection of favoritism toward the powerful, provides a clear normative framework condemning these practices (Wright, 2010). The First Commandment’s prohibition against idolatry applies to the worship of wealth that drives rent-seeking behavior, while prophetic condemnations of rulers who “judge for a bribe” speak directly to modern corruption of governance by money (Brueggemann, 1982).

The structural factors enabling crony capitalism—including regulatory complexity, discretionary government authority, campaign finance dynamics, and the lobbying industrial complex—create self-perpetuating systems wherein political and economic power become deeply entangled (Mitchell, 2012). These systems generate significant economic costs through resource misallocation, reduced competition, and foregone innovation, while simultaneously corroding social trust and political legitimacy (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). The consequences extend beyond economics to threaten the foundations of democratic governance and social cohesion.

Addressing these pathologies requires institutional reforms that reduce opportunities for rent-seeking while preserving government’s legitimate functions (Buchanan, 1980). This includes simplifying regulations to reduce discretionary authority, reforming campaign finance to decrease dependencies between politicians and wealthy donors, increasing transparency in lobbying and government decision-making, and cultivating civic cultures that demand accountability and reject corruption (Lessig, 2011). Most fundamentally, it requires recovering ethical frameworks—including biblical principles of justice and stewardship—that subordinate wealth accumulation to higher purposes and insist that government serve the common good rather than special interests (Grudem, 2010). Only through such comprehensive reform can societies hope to realize capitalism’s productive potential while maintaining governance consistent with justice and human flourishing (North, Wallis, & Weingast, 2009).

References

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.

Bain, D. H. (1999). Empire express: Building the first transcontinental railroad. Viking.

Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. C., & Leech, B. L. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. University of Chicago Press.

Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (1998). Basic interests: The importance of groups in politics and in political science. Princeton University Press.

Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893-921.

Beisner, E. C. (2001). Prosperity and poverty: The compassionate use of resources in a world of scarcity. Crossway Books.

Blanes i Vidal, J., Draca, M., & Fons-Rosen, C. (2012). Revolving door lobbyists. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3731-3748.

Block, W. (2003). Toward a libertarian theory of inalienability: A critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Smith, Kinsella, Gordon, and Epstein. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 17(2), 39-85.

Brueggemann, W. (1982). The prophetic imagination. Fortress Press.

Buchanan, J. M. (1980). Rent seeking and profit seeking. In J. M. Buchanan, R. D. Tollison, & G. Tullock (Eds.), Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society (pp. 3-15). Texas A&M University Press.

Buchanan, J. M., Tollison, R. D., & Tullock, G. (Eds.). (1980). Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society. Texas A&M University Press.

Chernow, R. (2004). Alexander Hamilton. Penguin Press.

Crews, C. W. (2017). Ten thousand commandments: An annual snapshot of the federal regulatory state. Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). The regulation of entry. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 1-37.

Drutman, L. (2015). The business of America is lobbying: How corporations became politicized and politics became more corporate. Oxford University Press.

Duffield, J. A. (2012). U.S. ethanol policy: Past, present, and future. South Dakota Law Review, 57(3), 396-410.

Ferguson, T. (1995). Golden rule: The investment theory of party competition and the logic of money-driven political systems. University of Chicago Press.

Glaeser, E. L., & Shapiro, J. M. (2003). The benefits of the home mortgage interest deduction. Tax Policy and the Economy, 17, 37-82.

Gordon, D. I. (2011). Fat Leonard: How one man bribed, bilked, and seduced the U.S. Navy. Naval Institute Press.

Grudem, W. (2003). Business for the glory of God: The Bible’s teaching on the moral goodness of business. Crossway.

Grudem, W. (2010). Politics according to the Bible: A comprehensive resource for understanding modern political issues in light of Scripture. Zondervan.

Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics: Public policy, political organization, and the precipitous rise of top incomes in the United States. Politics & Society, 38(2), 152-204.

Hall, R. L., & Deardorff, A. V. (2006). Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100(1), 69-84.

Hammond, B. (1957). Banks and politics in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War. Princeton University Press.

Helm, D. (2010). Infrastructure and infrastructure finance: The role of the government and the private sector in the current world. EIB Papers, 15(2), 8-27.

Henderson, D. R. (2008). Rent seeking. In D. R. Henderson (Ed.), The concise encyclopedia of economics. Library of Economics and Liberty.

Holcombe, R. G. (2013). Crony capitalism: By-product of big government. Independent Review, 17(4), 541-559.

Holcombe, R. G. (2015). Political capitalism: How economic and political power is made and maintained. Cambridge University Press.

Holcombe, R. G. (2018). Political capitalism and the United States constitution. Journal of Private Enterprise, 33(3), 1-18.

Kolko, G. (1963). The triumph of conservatism: A reinterpretation of American history, 1900-1916. Free Press.

Krueger, A. O. (1974). The political economy of the rent-seeking society. American Economic Review, 64(3), 291-303.

Krueger, A. O. (1990). Government failures in development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(3), 9-23.

Laffont, J. J., & Tirole, J. (1991). The politics of government decision-making: A theory of regulatory capture. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1089-1127.

Lessig, L. (2011). Republic, lost: How money corrupts Congress—and a plan to stop it. Twelve.

McChesney, F. S., & Shughart, W. F. (Eds.). (1995). The causes and consequences of antitrust: The public-choice perspective. University of Chicago Press.

McNeil, W. (1997). Federal contracting: Overcoming obstacles to competition. Journal of Contract Management, 29(2), 15-22.

Mitchell, M. (2012). The pathology of privilege: The economic consequences of government favoritism. Mercatus Center, George Mason University.

Mitchell, W. C., & Munger, M. C. (1991). Economic models of interest groups: An introductory survey. American Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 512-546.

Murphy, K. M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1993). Why is rent-seeking so costly to growth? American Economic Review, 83(2), 409-414.

North, D. C., Wallis, J. J., & Weingast, B. R. (2009). Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge University Press.

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.

Orden, D., Paarlberg, R., & Roe, T. (1999). Policy reform in American agriculture: Analysis and prognosis. University of Chicago Press.

Peirce, H. (2014). Dodd-Frank’s living will requirement: Perspectives from the first round. Mercatus Center Working Paper.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.

Posner, R. A. (1975). The social costs of monopoly and regulation. Journal of Political Economy, 83(4), 807-827.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Rausser, G. C., & Goodhue, R. E. (2002). Public policy: Its many analytical dimensions. In B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (Eds.), Handbook of agricultural economics (Vol. 2B, pp. 2057-2102). Elsevier.

Remini, R. V. (1967). Andrew Jackson and the Bank War: A study in the growth of presidential power. Norton.

Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge University Press.

Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165-190.

Sider, R. J. (2008). Rich Christians in an age of hunger: Moving from affluence to generosity. Thomas Nelson.

Smith, A. (1976). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (E. Cannan, Ed.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1776)

Sorkin, A. R. (2009). Too big to fail: The inside story of how Wall Street and Washington fought to save the financial system—and themselves. Viking.

Statista. (2024). Total lobbying spending in the United States from 1998 to 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/257337/total-lobbying-spending-in-the-us/

Stern, G. H., & Feldman, R. J. (2004). Too big to fail: The hazards of bank bailouts. Brookings Institution Press.

Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3-21.

Stokes, L. C. (2020). Short circuiting policy: Interest groups and the battle over clean energy and climate policy in the American states. Oxford University Press.

Surrey, S. S. (1973). Pathways to tax reform: The concept of tax expenditures. Harvard University Press.

Thurber, J. A. (2011). Changing the way Washington works? Assessing President Obama’s battle with lobbyists. In J. A. Thurber (Ed.), Obama in office (pp. 197-216). Paradigm Publishers.

Tucson Sentinel. (2025, February 13). Record-breaking $4.4 billion spent on lobbying efforts in 2024. https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/021325_lobbying_record/

Tullock, G. (1967). The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Economic Journal, 5(3), 224-232.

White, R. (2011). Railroaded: The transcontinentals and the making of modern America. Norton.

Wolterstorff, N. (2008). Justice: Rights and wrongs. Princeton University Press.

Wright, C. J. H. (2004). Old Testament ethics for the people of God. InterVarsity Press.

Wright, C. J. H. (2010). The mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s grand narrative. InterVarsity Press.

Yandle, B. (1983). Bootleggers and Baptists: The education of a regulatory economist. Regulation, 7(3), 12-16.

Yandle, B. (1999). Bootleggers and Baptists in retrospect. Regulation, 22(3), 5-7.