Sure, that's what they want to focus on & they have a high-contrast read on "Forbes-certified-billionaire-then-politics".
But without even accusing Sandberg of any "official corruption", she was already in the sort of "feeder roles" towards politics (Ivy-league Economics BA, MBA, position at global QUANGO World Bank) – that I find this paper under-considers as useful comparison-classes – before her first US government position.
And, she was already potentially a centi-millionaire (via her Yahoo exec then SurveyMonkey CEO late husband) before her roles at Google & Facebook. (If there were enough data, it might be found that centi-millionaires are in even more of a "sweet spot" for politics than "billionaires", given the extra attention/resentment towards the upperest-top.)
So while I don't blame the authors too much for their choice of what to emphasize, & data-limitations, she's indicative of other parts of the full picture.
Characterizing the full probabilistic 'state-machine' of people's transitions between [education, inheritances of money or name-recognition, levels-of-wealth, private-sector-offices, public-offices, etc] could be a valuable extension of this tiny cross-sectional analysis.
And, given that they did enough analysis to exclude Sandberg-types from their counts, it'd be good to have seen how many such people were so-excluded – a salient detail I didn't notice from a skim of their paper.
But without even accusing Sandberg of any "official corruption", she was already in the sort of "feeder roles" towards politics (Ivy-league Economics BA, MBA, position at global QUANGO World Bank) – that I find this paper under-considers as useful comparison-classes – before her first US government position.
And, she was already potentially a centi-millionaire (via her Yahoo exec then SurveyMonkey CEO late husband) before her roles at Google & Facebook. (If there were enough data, it might be found that centi-millionaires are in even more of a "sweet spot" for politics than "billionaires", given the extra attention/resentment towards the upperest-top.)
So while I don't blame the authors too much for their choice of what to emphasize, & data-limitations, she's indicative of other parts of the full picture.
Characterizing the full probabilistic 'state-machine' of people's transitions between [education, inheritances of money or name-recognition, levels-of-wealth, private-sector-offices, public-offices, etc] could be a valuable extension of this tiny cross-sectional analysis.
And, given that they did enough analysis to exclude Sandberg-types from their counts, it'd be good to have seen how many such people were so-excluded – a salient detail I didn't notice from a skim of their paper.