In politics, a revolving door denotes a situation where legislators, regulators, or personnel in the public sector move to a similar position in the private sector, where many work in fields related to lobbying. It is analogous to the movement of people in a physical revolving door, hence its name. Critics assert that such a relationship between the government and private sector can lead to conflict of interest and regulatory capture, based on the granting of reciprocated privileges between them.
The term has also been used to refer to the constant switching and ousting of political leaders from office, such as in Australia (which changed its Prime Ministers six times from 2007 to 2018), interwar Yugoslavia, and Japan (which also changed its Prime Ministers six times from 2006 to 2012).
Overview
Previous work The revolving door phenomenon has been a concern at least since the late 1800s, when attempts were made to restrict the movement of individuals between the government and private sector. Congressional Research Service. October 7, 2019 In the United States, the federal government enacted the first conflict of interest and ethics laws, including imposing cooling-off periods, in the 1950s. Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society.
There was renewed public interest in the 2010s with research by Andrew Baker, Simon Johnson and James Kwak, and with the 2008 crisis, when prominent government figures insinuated that previous and future hirings in the financial sphere manipulate the decision-making of eminent government members when it comes to financial matters.
Governments hire industry professionals for their private sector experience, their influence within corporations that the government is attempting to regulate or do business with, and to gain political support (donations and endorsements) from private firms.
Industry, in turn, hires people out of government positions to gain personal access to government officials, seek favorable legislation/regulation and government contracts in exchange for high-paying employment offers, and get inside information on what is going on in government.
In fact, the regulator, while in office, takes actions and makes decisions enabling him to cash in later when joining a firm he has regulated. These actions are termed as bureaucratic capital. It is essentially inside knowledge of the system, including any loopholes that might exist. 'Bureaucratic capital' also consists of a good relationship with the lower-level bureaucracy. 'Bureaucratic capital' therefore enables the bureaucrat to cash in later thereon, after exiting the public sector and joining a firm in the sector he previously regulated. Thus, the bureaucrat can abuse the previous position to increase income in a legal way.
The lobbying industry is especially affected by the revolving door concept, as the main asset for a lobbyist is contacts with and influence on government officials. This industrial climate is attractive for ex-government officials. It can also mean substantial monetary rewards for the lobbying firms and government projects and contracts in the hundreds of millions for those they represent.Timothy J. Burger, "The Lobbying Game: Why the Revolving Door Won't Close" Time (February 16, 2006). Retrieved May 12, 2011"Revolving Door: Methodology" OpenSecrets. Retrieved May 12, 2011
A 2023 study of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services appointees showed that 15% had been employed by private health care industries immediately prior to their appointment to government service, and 32% exited the industry at the end of their appointment. Health Affairs (Millwood); 42(9):1298-1303. Among the health agencies, CDC, CMS, and FDA had the highest rates of industry exit. A 2016 study of 55 FDA reviewers of oncology drugs found that 27% were in biopharmaceutical employment or consulting after leaving the FDA. BMJ 2016;354:i5055.
A 2014 study of U.S. Department of Defense appointees showed that 28% exited to industry. As of 2023, 80 per cent of U.S. four-star retirees are employed in defense industry.
Consequences Scientific papers have demonstrated the consequences of the revolving doors practice and the side effects of those movements are numerous. These can be beneficial either for the companies or for the regulatory bodies.
Authors, such as David Miller and William Dinan, have claimed that there are risks when going in and out of revolving doors.Miller, David, Dinan, William (2009) Revolving doors, accountability and transparency - emerging regulatory concerns and policy solutions in the financial crisis. In: Dutch National Integrity Office organized Global Forum on Public Governance, 2009-05-04 - 2009-05-05, Paris The consequences of this movement can be a conflict of interest or the loss of confidence in the regulating institutions. Another possible side effect of the revolving door practice is that regulators could give away confidential information held by the financial institutions, which would give companies the possibility to get access to information and people involved in the decision-making process of regulating authorities. Revolving doors can also lead to unfair competition advantage as well as an unfair distribution of influencing power. Economic distortion can be explained through the fact that so-called too-big-to-fail firms generate their power in the market through the mechanism of the revolving door and not through salient choices. This is due to the fact that big companies have more money than smaller ones and can thus allow themselves to hire more revolvers.
Another aspect of the revolving door practice is that regulators might be incentivized to push for softer regulation in order to gain access later on in the private sector. Vice versa, regulators can also be influenced to demand stronger stances in policy fields that will benefit the regulator if he aims at a future career in the private sector.
Furthermore, revolving doors make it easier for regulatory agencies to find adequate and qualified workers.
In practice, banks can gain unlawful advantages by legally and illegally manipulating the different stages of policy-making. They can have an impact on the formulation, adoption and implementation of laws, public policies or regulations in different ways:
Firstly, if (former) Members of Parliament have links to private companies, they can have an influence on the adoption of laws and regulations in their favour. Moreover, they may be reluctant to vote on proposals that would harm corporate interests. Secondly, if companies have connections to (former) ministers and their advisors, they may affect the formulation and implementation of policies and regulations in advance or take advantage of non-public information about the regulated industry. This means that the companies can get in advance notice of incoming regulations and that they can be warned of further consequences, negative as well as positive. In most European countries, but also in the US, the use of insider information is punishable by law. In practice, insider trading is most often observed on the stock exchange and also plays a role in revolving doors.
Jurisdictions Regulation relating to this phenomenon and the related issues of lobbying and the funding of political parties varies considerably around the world. Here are details for a few sample jurisdictions:-
Australia In Australia, this is a significant public debate as many state leaders have become private consultants for corporations. There is no legislation against doing so. Post-separation employment is instead governed by the administrative Lobbying Code of Conduct, which bars former ministers and parliamentary secretaries from lobbying on matters they dealt with officially for 18 months after leaving office, and former ministerial advisers, agency heads and senior public servants for 12 months. The Grattan Institute and the Centre for Public Integrity have described the restrictions as weak, noting that they bind only lobbyists listed on the federal register of lobbyists—which covers third-party lobbying firms but not people employed directly by a company as in-house lobbyists—and that the only sanction is removal from the register. The 2018 Grattan Institute study found that about a quarter of federal ministers who left politics after 1990 subsequently took roles with special interests, and that more of them became in-house lobbyists than joined commercial lobbying firms.
In 2015, Port Darwin in Australia's Northern Territory was leased for 99 years to Shandong Landbridge, a Chinese company closely aligned with the Chinese Government's trade policy. The deal was approved by Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb, a member of the governing Liberal Party. In 2016, Robb left politics and accepted a "consultant" position at Shandong Landbridge, with an $880,000 per year salary. In 2019, Robb left the position, shortly before a new "foreign interference" law took effect in Australia.
The airline Qantas, whose commercial position depends on government decisions about international traffic rights, airport slots and foreign ownership limits, has been described in these terms. In October 2024 The Australian Financial Review reported a "revolving door" between the airline's government and media relations teams and the ministerial wing of Parliament House, involving staff from both major parties and moving in both directions. David Epstein, a former chief of staff to prime minister Kevin Rudd and to opposition leader Kim Beazley, was Qantas's group executive for government and corporate affairs from 2008 to 2010 and in March 2024 became principal private secretary to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Olivia Wirth joined Qantas in 2009 after working for the Liberal frontbencher Joe Hockey and went on to run its loyalty business. Moksha Watts, an adviser to Albanese, had earlier been head of government affairs at Jetstar, head of sustainability and industry affairs at Qantas, and corporate affairs chief at Virgin Australia. The newspaper reported in August 2025 that another of Albanese's senior advisers had joined Qantas's government and public affairs team, among the staff who left Parliament after that year's federal election.
Because such staff are employed in-house they are not listed on the federal register of lobbyists, and the Lobbying Code's cooling-off periods do not apply to them. The reporting followed a controversy over free flight upgrades and Chairman's Lounge memberships accepted by politicians. The independent senator David Pocock called for the system to be overhauled, saying it facilitated a "cosy relationship between politicians who are meant to be making the rules for industry and industry who don't want those rules made".