According to recent research from academics at The University of Manchester and Edinburgh Napier University, MPs who are deeply ingrained in corporate networks outside of Westminster may be too busy to successfully carry out their legislative obligations.
Using information from Companies House, the study examined all currently serving MPs’ professional affiliations. When MPs were examined in the context of larger corporate networks, it was discovered that their membership in these networks had a variety of effects on their legislative participation.
- Parliamentary activity is less likely among MPs who are deeply ingrained in corporate networks, i.e., those who collaborate with numerous well-connected businesses.
- On the other side, those who hold “brokerage” positions, i.e., connecting organizations that wouldn’t otherwise be connected, are more likely to be active.
Initial interpretations suggest that strongly entrenched MPs may be too busy to assist their constituents, but MPs in brokerage roles may have additional motivations to be active in parliament, though further study is required to fully understand this.
In an age of declining trust in politics, it is so important that politicians focus on their day job and don’t get distracted by commitments to other organizations. This is an important first step in understanding the impact of MP’s outside interest on their capacity to serve.
Dr. Matthew Smith
The results cast doubt on the fundamental tenet of parliament that a member of parliament “should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or groups that may influence them in the discharge of their official duties.”
Republican lawmakers are more deeply ingrained in corporate networks, according to study. Actually, the likelihood of a Conservative or Labor MP serving as a company director is identical, but Conservative MPs have a much greater number of directorships.
The majority of these firm directorships in both parties are for organizations that are not in the MP’s district, indicating that these positions are not justified by their obligations to their constituents.
“There is a growing debate about whether MPs should have roles beyond Parliament,” said The University of Manchester’s Dr. Jack Newman, co-author of the research. “They all sign up to a set of principles that say they shouldn’t be influenced by outside interests. Our paper is an important piece of evidence that this principle may not be realized in reality.”
“In an age of declining trust in politics, it is so important that politicians focus on their day job and don’t get distracted by commitments to other organizations. This is an important first step in understanding the impact of MP’s outside interest on their capacity to serve,” said Edinburgh Napier University’s Dr. Matthew Smith, another co-author of the research.
“However, further work is needed to understand if these corporate directorships shapes different behaviors within Parliament, such as what MPs say on key issues and their voting record.”
