Corporate Political Behavior: A Critical Review of Business, Government and Market Relations

Year 2019, Volume: 13 Issue: 19, 2804 - 2826, 30.09.2019

Konuralp Sezgili

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.606141

Abstract

The emergence of
modern organizations and the transitions between the roles of private and
public actors created a complex panorama. Public and private interests are
interdependent. While modern governments implement various types of
interventions over the business, firms attempt to influence the institutional
environment with the market and non-market activities. In line with the
traditional approach of strategic management, corporate political behavior
literature defines the business as a political actor, and display efforts to
understand the processes in the policy environment resulting in performance. By
reviewing the concept of corporate political behavior, this study aims to
assess the contemporary construct and traditional strategy formulations of the
corporate political behavior. Thus, this paper evaluates the
government-business relation in light of controversial results of classical
assumptions of strategic management through narrowing down the recent research
literature within the context of policy and strategy. This paper further aims
to provide future work recommendations.

Keywords

Strategy, Corporate political behavior, Corporate political strategy, Corporate political activity

Kurumsal Politik Davranış: İşletme, Devlet ve Piyasa İlişkileri Ekseninde Eleştirel Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Modern örgütlerin
ortaya çıkışı ile özel ve kamusal aktörlerin rolleri arasında geçişlerin
oluşması, bu aktörlerin yapı ve işlevlerinin incelenmesi konusunda karmaşık bir
tablo yaratmaktadır. Kurumsal politik davranış, kamusal ve özel çıkarların
karşılıklı bağımlılığı içinde, işletmenin kamu politikası süreçlerini kendi
lehine etkilemesi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Stratejik yönetim düşüncesinin
geleneksel olarak etkinliği odağa alan yaklaşımıyla uyumlu olarak kurumsal
politik davranış yazını da devlet etkinliğinin işletme üzerindeki etkilerine
odaklanarak işletmeyi politik bir aktör olarak tanımlamış, politika
çevresindeki süreç ve aktörleri de politik piyasa tasarımı çerçevesinde
anlamaya çalışmıştır. Bnunla birlikte, kamu kesimi ile özel kesim arasındaki
sınırın yapay olduğu; bu yapay sınırın politik kararlar söz konusu olduğunda
bireyler ve kurumlar tarafından aşıldığı ögz önüne alındığında, bu kurgunun
gözden geçirilmesi gerektiği ortaya çıkmaktadır Bu çalışmada, klasik kurumsal
politik davanış varsayımlarının tartışmalı sonuçları ışığında devlet-işletme
ilişkisi incelenmekte, bu alanda ortaya konan araştırma birikimi
politika-strateji bağlamı içinde daraltılarak geleneksel strateji yaklaşımı
değerlendirilmektedir. Yine, iktisadi etkinlik odağının sorun alanları ve bu
alanların sorgulanmasına yönelik kuramsal katkılar da eleştirel bir perspektifle
değerlendirilmekte, ileride yapılacak çalışmalar için öneriler
geliştirilmektedir.  

Keywords

Strateji, Kurumsal politik davranış, Kurumsal politik strateji, Kurumsal politik faaliyet

References

• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99-120.
• Baron, D. P. (1995). Integrated strategy: Market and nonmarket components. California management review, 37(2), 47-65.
• Baron, D. P. (1997). Integrated strategy, trade policy, and global competition. California management review, 39(2), 145-169.
• Baron, D. P. (2001). Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. Journal of economics & management strategy, 10(1), 7-45.
• Baron, D. P. (2016). Strategy beyond markets: A step back and a look forward. İçinde: Strategy beyond markets (ss. 1-54). Emerald group publishing limited.
• Baysinger, B. D. ve Woodman, R. W. (1982). Dimensions of the public affairs/government relations function in major American corporations. Strategic management journal, 3(1), 27-41.
• Boddewyn, J. J. ve Brewer, T. L. (1994). International-business political behavior: New theoretical directions. Academy of management review, 19(1), 119-143.
• Bonardi, J. P., Hillman, A. J. ve Keim, G. D. (2005). The attractiveness of political markets: Implications for firm strategy. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 397-413.
• Bracker, J. (1980). The historical development of the strategic management concept. Academy of management review, 5(2), 219-224.
• Coen, D., Grant, W. ve Wilson, G. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of business and government. Oxford University Press.
• Cook, R. G. ve Fox, D. R. (2000). Resources, frequency, and methods: An analysis of small and medium-sized firms’ public policy activities. Business & Society, 39(1), 94-113.
• De Figueiredo, J. M., Lenox, M., Oberholzer-Gee, F. ve Vanden Bergh, R. G. (2016). İçinde: Strategy beyond markets. (ss. iii). Emerald Group publishing limited.
• Doh, J. P., Lawton, T. C. ve Rajwani, T. (2012). Advancing nonmarket strategy research: Institutional perspectives in a changing world. Academy of management perspectives, 26(3), 22-39.
• Esty, D. C. ve Caves, R. E. (1983). Market structure and political influence: New data on political expenditures, activity, and success. Economic Inquiry, 21(1), 24-38.
• Faccio, M. (2006). Politically connected firms. American economic review, 96(1), 369-386. --- (2010). Differences between politically connected and nonconnected firms: A cross‐country analysis. Financial management, 39(3), 905-928.
• Fisman, R. (2001). Estimating the value of political connections. American economic review, 91(4), 1095-1102.
• Funk, R. J. ve Hirschman, D. (2017). Beyond nonmarket strategy: Market actions as corporate political activity. Academy of management review, 42(1), 32-52.
• Gorostidi-Martinez, H. ve Zhao, X. (2017). Corporate political strategies: a contemporary literature review. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 14(3), 375-404.
• Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American journal of sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
• Greiner, M. (2018). The political landscape: A new approach to understanding corporate political activity. Wayne state university dissertations. 2015.
• Hadani, M. (2016). Corporate political activity and public policy outcomes: New realities and increasing challenges. The SAGE handbook of international corporate and public affairs, 259.
• Hadani, M., Bonardi, J. P. ve Dahan, N. M. (2017). Corporate political activity, public policy uncertainty, and firm outcomes: A meta-analysis. Strategic organization, 15(3), 338-366.
• Hadani, M. ve Schuler, D. A. (2013). In search of El Dorado: The elusive financial returns on corporate political investments. Strategic management journal, 34(2), 165-181.
• Hansen, W. L., ve Mitchell, N. J. (2000). Disaggregating and explaining corporate political activity: Domestic and foreign corporations in national politics. American political science review, 94(4), 891-903.
• Haveman, H. A., Jia, N., Shi, J. veWang, Y. (2017). The dynamics of political embeddedness in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1), 67-104.
• Hillman, A. J. (2005). Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line?. Journal of management, 31(3), 464-481.
• Hillman, A. J., ve Hitt, M. A. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of management review, 24(4), 825-842.
• Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D. ve Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6), 837-857.
• Hoskisson, R. E., Wan, W. P., Yiu, D. ve Hitt, M. A. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of management, 25(3), 417-456.
• Lux, S., Crook, T. R. ve Woehr, D. J. (2011). Mixing business with politics: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity. Journal of management, 37(1), 223-247.
• Keim, G. D. ve Hillman, A. J. (2008). Political environments and business strategy: Implications for managers. Business horizons, 51(1), 47-53.
• Kipping, M., (2003). Business-government relations: Beyond performance Issues, Amatori, F. ve Jones, G. İçinde, Business history around the world (ss. 372-393). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
• Lyon T. P. ve Maxwell, J. W. (2004). Astroturf: Interest group lobbying and corporate strategy. Journal of economics & management strategy, 13(4), 561-597.
• Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M. ve Pitelis, C. N. (2009). Perspective—The interdependence of private and public interests. Organization science, 20(6), 1034-1052.
• Masters, M. F. ve Keim, G. D. (1985). Determinants of PAC participation among large corporations. The journal of politics, 47(4), 1158-1173.
• Mitnick, B. M. (Ed.). (1993). Corporate political agency: The construction of competition in public affairs (Vol. 163). Sage Publications.
• Mizruchi, M. S. (1992). The structure of corporate political action: Interfirm relations and their consequences. Harvard university press.
• OECD (2018). Multinational enterprises in the global economy: Heavily debated but hardly measured. Policy Notes.
• Oliver, C. ve Holzinger, I. (2008). The effectiveness of strategic political management: A dynamic capabilities framework. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 496-520.
• Olson, M. (2008). Collective action. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics: Volume 1–8, 876-880.
• Pfeffer, J. ve Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford university press.
• Rajwani, T. ve Liedong, T. A. (2015). Political activity and firm performance within nonmarket research: A review and international comparative assessment. Journal of World Business, 50(2), 273-283.
• Roskin, M. G. (1995). Countries and concepts: an introduction to comparative politics. Prentice Hall.
• Salamon, L. M. ve Siegfried, J. J. (1977). Economic power and political influence: The impact of industry structure on public policy. American political science review, 71(3), 1026-1043.
• Salorio, E. M., Boddewyn, J. ve Dahan, N. (2005). Integrating business political behavior with economic and organizational strategies. International studies of management & organization, 35(2), 28-55.
• Schuler, D. A., Rehbein, K. ve Cramer, R. D. (2002). Pursuing strategic advantage through political means: A multivariate approach. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 659-672.
• Shaffer, B. (1995). Firm-level responses to government regulation: Theoretical and research approaches. Journal of management, 21(3), 495-514.
• Shapiro, H. ve L. Taylor. (1990). The state and industrial strategy. World development 18(6), 861–878.
• Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell journal of economics and management science, 3-21.
• Sun, P., Mellahi, K. ve Wright, M. (2012). The contingent value of corporate political ties. Academy of management perspectives, 26(3), 68-82.
• Vogel, D. J. (1996). The study of business and politics. California Management Review, 38(3), 146-165.
• Wilson, W. (1913). The new freedom: A call for the emancipation of the generous energies of a people. Doubleday, Page & Company.
• Wilson, G. ve Grant, W. (2010). Business and political parties. İçinde: The Oxford handbook of business and government (ss.191-207). Oxford: Oxford university press.
• Yoffie, D. B.ve Bergenstein, S. (1985). Creating political advantage: The rise of the corporate political entrepreneur. California management review, 28(1), 124-139.
• Zhu, H. ve Chung, C. N. (2014). Portfolios of political ties and business group strategy in emerging economies: Evidence from Taiwan. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4), 599-638.