This paper examines corporatocracy — the phenomenon in which corporations effectively control governmental direction and economic policy — through two prominent examples. The first is General Motors' suppression of the EV1 electric car in the 1990s, in which GM and other automakers successfully lobbied to dismantle California's zero-emissions mandate, ultimately repossessing and destroying their own vehicles. The second draws on John Perkins' account of Economic Hit Men operating on behalf of corporations rather than citizens. The paper weighs counterarguments, including job preservation, before concluding that the power corporations wield over democratic institutions poses a serious concern for American society.
The paper demonstrates effective use of case-study evidence to support a sociological claim. Rather than relying solely on theoretical definitions, the author builds the argument inductively — presenting specific documented actions (lease-only policies, vehicle repossession, misleading advertising, federal lobbying) and drawing a broader conclusion about corporate influence on democratic governance. This approach mirrors the evidentiary reasoning expected in social science writing.
The paper opens with a definition of corporatocracy drawn from a sociology textbook, then dedicates the bulk of its body to the GM EV1 narrative, proceeding chronologically from the Sun Raycer through the EV1's creation, lease-only strategy, repossession, and destruction. A secondary example from Perkins provides theoretical reinforcement. A counterargument paragraph follows before the conclusion ties corporate power back to the central democratic concern raised in the introduction.
Corporatocracy occurs when a government is run not by its own people but by corporations or conglomerates within the country. The mixture of business and government allows corporations to control a country by deciding its governmental direction or economic plans (Mooney, Knox, and Schacht 256). Whether a corporation involves itself in a country's government for the good of its people or its profits, corporatocracy affects all involved — from employees and citizens to government and business alike. It is not uncommon for a blurred line to exist between government and business, but it is unfortunately a line that is all too often crossed.
Perhaps one of the strongest and most notable displays of corporatocracy in America was that of General Motors. In 1987, GM produced a solar-powered car named the Sun Raycer, which won the first World Solar Challenge, hosted by Australia. Shortly after winning that race, GM requested its engineers to create an electric car that would serve as an environmentally friendly alternative to the gasoline-powered vehicles already on the road. GM introduced its version of the electric car at a car show in the mid-1990s — the first of its kind in almost a century. While the electric car had existed before, it had long been out of production due to the cost of oil being lower than that of the elements needed to maintain an electric vehicle.
When GM created the EV1 in the 1990s, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) responded positively. Shortly before the EV1 was released, CARB mandated that seven of the major car manufacturers must produce and sell a comparable zero-emissions vehicle in order to sell any of their products in the state of California (Paine).
After production, GM found that the EV1 was not as profitable as expected. Though it had a limitless supply of eager customers, the product was unprofitable because its parts were more durable, more reliable, and did not require oil or gasoline to operate. Consumers could rely on a single charge to travel up to 120 miles — often more than enough for one day. At the end of the night, the customer could charge their vehicle at home. The electric car offered a convenience that the gasoline-powered vehicle did not: it eliminated the constant need to purchase gasoline at gas stations. This made the electric car a threat to oil companies' profits.
GM noticed this issue and went to court alongside other car companies and California dealerships to fight against CARB, seeking to reverse the profit damage caused by the new California mandate. In 2003, it was finally decided that the production of extremely low-emission, natural gas, and hybrid vehicles could take the place of the electric car on dealership sales floors (Paine). However, the strategies that GM and other car manufacturers employed to reach that compromise were unjustified.
GM and other car companies fought against CARB in order to eliminate the electric car and protect the growing profits that gasoline-powered vehicles provided. Because CARB had released the zero-emissions mandate before GM had distributed the EV1 to its sales floors, GM decided that instead of allowing customers to purchase the vehicle outright, it would only offer a lease. It is widely believed that GM offered the lease as a temporary measure to appear compliant with CARB requirements. Once the company succeeded in eliminating the zero-emissions mandate, GM repossessed the vehicles, transported them to its headquarters in Arizona, and had them destroyed. Other car companies followed suit; Toyota went as far as shredding its vehicle, the Th!nk (Paine).
The only condition under which car companies agreed to reconsider was a demonstrated high enough consumer demand. GM stated that the process of creating an electric vehicle was expensive and that sufficient customer demand would need to be established first. After many requests were denied, a group of protestors finally provided proof that four thousand consumers were ready and willing to purchase the vehicle. When contacting these customers, however, GM representatives attempted to steer them toward other vehicles by emphasizing the EV1's limitations. Though only GM knows the full truth, it has been reported that the list of interested buyers dwindled from four thousand to only fifty as a result of this persuasive sales approach (Paine).
When advertising the EV1 on television, GM did not convey the sense of freedom, excitement, or appeal that typically characterizes vehicle advertisements. Instead, GM marketed the EV1 in an almost intimidating manner, using bleak colors, abstract editing, and vague imagery of the vehicle itself. Rather than advertising to attract potential customers, GM did almost the exact opposite. The message was clear: GM did not want more customers purchasing the EV1 (Paine).
GM, oil companies, and other car manufacturers ultimately succeeded in eliminating the CARB mandate and enlisted the federal government's support in doing away with the electric car. Nevertheless, America did achieve a modest gain through the entire process. The creation of the EV1 raised public awareness about the environmental costs of gasoline-powered cars and encouraged greener decision-making. In line with the compromise reached between the car manufacturers and CARB, extremely low-emission, natural gas, and hybrid vehicles were developed and brought to market. In recent years, cars advertised as electric-powered have once again been introduced to consumers.
The most damning evidence against GM and the other car manufacturers is the destruction of the CARB mandate. Had it not been for the elimination of this mandate, the presence of corporatocracy would not be nearly as apparent. It is difficult to deny that vehicle emissions are causing damage to the environment, and there is only so long that the planet can absorb that damage. GM and other car manufacturers created a remarkable product in the electric car, only to destroy it just as quickly once they realized its profit potential was limited.
When the state government of California became involved — requiring seven major manufacturers to produce zero-emission vehicles for their sales floors — those manufacturers pushed back hard. They not only succeeded in eliminating California's mandate but also secured the support of the federal government in doing so. The sheer power that GM holds over American government proved sufficient to dispose of a law that threatened its profit margin. America should be concerned about the degree of power that corporations are able to exercise over their government and their economy.
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.