Firms and Political Activity

• Democracies can be viewed as markets where different public policies are demanded and supplied.
• Firms might engage in political markets to seek out new policies or maintain existing ones that influence their operations.
• A firm's decision to be politically active is influenced by how appealing the political market is.
• Political markets can be more or less attractive for firms wanting to compete and promote their interests.

Why Firms Engage in Political Activities

• Firms that depend on government regulations or contracts for economic survival tend to be more politically active.
• Larger firms and those in highly concentrated industries are also more politically active.
• Political activity is more likely when the government significantly affects a firm's business.
• The dependence on government for sales and protection from foreign competition explains steel companies' political activity.
• Steel firms are politically active due to high concentration and large size.
• U.S. Steel increased political lobbying in 2001, leading to a 30% tariff on steel imports in 2002.

Attractiveness of Political Market

• The decision to be politically active depends on how attractive the political market is, not just the impact of public policy.
• Industry attractiveness influences a firm's entry into markets and affects competition and strategies.
• Firms engage in political activity when the political market is attractive, increasing the likelihood of success.
• This article explores competition in advanced democracies by explaining the concept of a political market and identifying conditions.
• Competition in markets is a key strategic management idea but is not broadly applied to firm activities in political arenas.
• The public policy process can be viewed as competition among self-interested actors, in economics and political science.

Scope of Inquiry

• The study focuses on elements of the external environment that define attractive political markets, not internal firm resources.
• The aim is to analyze the degree of attractiveness, characterize rivalry, and assess political markets.

Paper Structure

• The presentation conceptualizes political markets by reviewing their political economy origins and identifying suppliers and demanders.
• There is a discussion political exchange and describes competition in political markets.
• Identifies the conditions under which political markets are more or less attractive for firms.
• The study diverges from Porter's model, which analyzes attributes of industry markets.
• The dimensions are different from economic markets, implying differences between them.
• Provides a new explanation for the timing of political strategies or why firms act as followers or leaders.
• Discusses implications for firm strategy and suggests future research directions.

The Public Policy Process As A Market

• Viewing the public policy process as a market comes from political economy, with Buchanan's Nobel Prize work being key.
• His work explained how different decision-making rules affect collective decisions.
• The work emphasized competition among organized interest groups as a driver of public policy outcomes in democracies.

Exchange Conception

• The political process involves exchange between actors, where parties enter markets to exchange things.
• The difference between economic markets and politics lies in the conditions under which interests are pursued.
• There is no "public interest" independent of aggregating individual interests.
• The public policy process is where different and competing interests interact to advocate policy proposals.

Emotional Content

• The view unpacks much of the emotional content in policy discussions in a democratic society.
• There's no uniquely determined common good that everyone agrees on through rational argument.
• The actual public interested in policy choices has various interests that conflict partially.
• Analysis cannot create a 'public interest' out of divergent private interests.
• Buchanan notes that behavior is predicted by examining constraints and opportunities faced by individual decision makers.

Decision Makers

• Individual decision makers in government can be modeled as self-interested actors like competitors or investors.
• Economists define markets around products, straightforwardly referring to goods or services.
• The market boundary in a political market is a public policy issue like a regulation.
• Public policy issues have demanders, suppliers, and competitive dynamics.
• The economic/political "marketplace" is multiple "markets" encompassing the range of products/issues.
• The term political market refers to an individual market defined by a political issue.
• Political markets or political marketplace refers to the multiple markets and the political system overall.

Demanders and Suppliers

• Hillman and Keim present individual voters, interest groups, firms, political parties, and other governments as demanders.
• Individual actors have different demands for various public policy outcomes.
• Individuals' public policy demands are organized through aggregation mechanisms.
• Corps can aggregate interests of their stakeholders even though they don't have a vote themselves.
• Institutions differ in their interest aggregation mechanisms, but groups and associations compete in democracies.
• The study focuses on firms, competition discussions involve interactions with other demanders (allies, partners, rivals).
• Relations with other demanders may change across issues.

Public Policy Suppliers

• Suppliers of public policy: those in government who make decisions.
• Include prime ministers, presidents, their staffs, members of parliaments/legislatures, judiciary members, and bureaucrats.
• Can operate at national, subnational, or supernational levels.
• The study focuses two types of public policy suppliers:
  • bureaucrats.
  • elected officials, including appointees made by elected parties or individuals.

Exchange in Political Markets

• Viewing the political marketplace as a collection of individual markets implies exchange is at the core.
• In economic markets, currency or goods and services are exchanged.
• Demanders participate in a political market by offering information, votes, and financial support.
• Elected officials seek votes to gain office or remain in office.
• Elected officials also seek information on policy preferences of voters and the resources.
• Bureaucrats are not after votes but cabinet members need legislators' votes to pass agendas.
• These votes reflect preferences of voters who support the legislators and their party.

Resources for Bureaucrats

• The preferences of the public and organized interest affect budgets, jurisdiction range, and prestige of agencies or bureaus.
• Constituent support and information are key resources for bureaucrats.
• Bureaucrats respond to financial incentives and travel.
• Votes and financial support are goods that are hard to differentiate (i.e., dollars are dollars and votes are votes).
• Information is more heterogeneous, varying in analysis quality or provider reputation.
• Exchange in a political market can be conceptualized along lines similar to an economic market.
• Economic and political markets differ/compare.
• The political marketplace focuses on competition within supply and demand sides.
• Firms operate only on the demand side, the supply side's competition still impacts business strategies.

Competition in a Political Market

• Firms operating in a political market offer information, money, and votes.
• Legislative/bureaucratic suppliers offer information and/or policy positions.
• A political market's attractiveness depends on competition on both supply and demand sides.

Demand-Side Competition

• The attractiveness of a political market is a function of the rivalry degree among demanders.
• Rivalry in political markets affects votes, financial support, and information quality needed to influence policy.
• A high degree of demand rivalry greatly reduces chances of success for any individual demander.
• Attractive markets for public policy are characterized by low rivalry among demanders.
• Counterintuitively, high demand-side rivalry may be undesirable for political suppliers.
• In economic markets suppliers benefit from demanders.
• High rivalry constraints Suppliers by making creating public policy that meets one groups interest will disappoint the other groups interests.
• Monopolistic groups suit the needs of interventionist states because they can give group leaders freedom from members' control for alliances.
• Public policy suppliers can be more effective when there is low demand-side rivalry.
• High demand-side rivalry makes it difficult to create responsive policy.
• Conditions that cause for low demand side rivalry can be three relevant characteristics: election issues vs non, benefits vs costs, or new regulation

Nonelection Issues vs. Elections

• Citizens have preferred positions on some issues, especially about prices or genetically modified foods.
• They feel strong for solvency of Social Security or abortion.
• Individuals don't have strong preferences for all decisions made by officials during legislative term.
• Most voters are rationally ignorant about most public policy issues, as it is expensive to gather details.
• Individual action has a small impact on most public decisions.
• A cost-benefit calculation does not allow voters to incur info costs.

Voters' Rational Ignorance

• Voters' rational ignorance assumption has implications on demand side competition related to politics.
• Even when individuals are interested in an issue, gathering info has a cost.
• Only issues highly salient to voting pop. receive attention through media.
• Those issues appeal to voters as "election issues"

Competition on Election Issues

• Election issues involve most demand-side competition in political market.
• Media attention, campaign speeches, and advertising create inexpensive information that increases rivalry among demanders.
• The cost of becoming informed is reduced, making more able to participate in political debate over issues.
• In non-election issues, can expect relatively fewer rivals, cost of knowing is higher.
• Firms will have relative advantage on non-election issues and can shape the decision due to reduced rivalry.
• Political markets for non-election issues are more attractive than elections issue markets.

Nature of Costs & Benefits of Issues

• Distribution of costs/benefits for a specific non-election issues also may affects rivalry among demanders.
• Benefits are diffused through large number of groups/people enjoy small benefit for a propsal.
• If benefits concentrate, then small number of groups/people will enjoy a passed proposal.
• Costs are distinguished through diffused or concentrated too.
• Wilson used the matrix to identify potential political environments
• Representation affects relative attractiveness of political markets.
• Policy issues any of the four cells.
• Organized interests have an advantage when they support issues lead to concentrated.

Trade Barriers for Sugar

• Trade barriers that protect domestic sugar producers provide concentrated benefits by reducing foreign competition.
• This type of public policy may not have much opposition as the costs are spread across consumers.
• Consumers have consumer prices insignificantly affected, therefore, opposition would likely not be strong.
• Firms can oppose issues with costs concentrated among their members and benefits widely diffused (Cell 3) wide population.
• Markets are attractive and potential demanders will face less opposition in these cases stated above.

Other Opposition & Market Types

• Firms will face tough opposition advocating an issue for concentrated costs (Cell 3).
• Firms lobbying to deregulate face these conditions.
• There is likely strong opposition when employee monopolies suffer lay-offs.
• Results in decreased new political/market entrants and delayed many deregulation.
• Cell 3 is dependent on issue advocating/opposing.

Rational & Irrational Markets

• Political markets for Cells 1 and 4 are consistently unnatractive.
• Rational ignorance and action costs play important role.
• Where the cost/benefits concentrated, organizations face limited/intense rivalry for both of the public policy.
• Issues with costs/benefits are widely diffused: national defense/social security.
• Political markets are more attractive for firms advocating issues with concentration w/ diffused costs, concentrated costs w/ diffused benefits.
• Political market are less attractive when there's issues of concentration costs and diffusing of benefits (or the opposite).

New vs. Existing Issues

• Kindleberger states firm's political power is retained longer than economics because politics is less than economic/market changes.
• Modern research indicates public policies are generally stable over time.
• Society build constraints onto policy change, cost difficulty builds.
• There are existing interests compete demand side of the political market, status quo maintainers become more successful than laws.
• Current policies often have investments that develop specific cap.

More on Issues, Changes, and Political Success

• Bias for status quo comes from groups side that resists change and rivalry from supply (Truman, Wilson).
• Making means failure could come in multiple steps, proposals alter existing regulations that are difficult.
• Requires that steps be negotiated successfully (Wilson).
• New issue can mean different meaning on political market.
• Generally means political market does not impact existing interests which makes it easier.
• When defending existing regs or advo/opp, then markets are generally new.

Supply-Side Competition

• Supply-side competition like in economic, however, less straightforward.
• We limit to two public policy suppliers: bureaucrats or elected.
• As on market, rivalry between increases the political for firms.
• Bureaucratic make is less because in general.
• Bureaucratic effects market attractive and side both for rivals and.
• Opposites terms market attractiveness.

Issue Scope

• This explores conditions under low and between and arousing among officials occur.
• Characteristics indicative of low and officials, competition identify by partisan identification.

Bureaucrats' Competition

• Can although and day to implementation one/several agencies.
• Policies, set standards officials prices similarly no officials.
• Authorities and often of asymmetry.
• They discretion favors interests.
• The attempts their constraints in case related resources.

Election Process

• More determine models that of try size by parameters scope.
• Akin with might enter into different they from diversify that the their of.
• To for this of.
• Therefore as those multiple jurisdictions Shaffer.
• This changing a market.
• Firms are they for for individual.
• Markets are policies markets those advocate.

Issues Facing Elected Officials

• Issue on for threatened.
• Is an a numbers and of those for.
• Parties with be issues, this of public.
• The less from generate.
• With that to constitute and.
• Political markets when issues not identification markets when issues identification.

Interacting With Each Other

• To by.
• Do some on from and to can on been in a may may or.
• Will prevent the public and.
• One but to to and.

Strategy Factors

• Here an will will but.
• A a with but of now and and that that.