1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 26, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 26, 2023

The Political Role of Business Leaders

Abstract

What role do business leaders play in American democracy? The dominant narrative in political science holds that business leaders have disproportionate influence; this influence has increased over time; the public opposes business engagement in politics; and a reform agenda could counteract business influence. I contrast this narrative with a second narrative that also emerges from the literature: Business leaders are fragmented and fail to achieve many of their goals; their power has weakened over time; the public wants more business engagement with politics, not less; and no viable reform agenda would fundamentally alter business power. The juxtaposed narratives reveal several insights, including a profound ambivalence among the public about the role of business in democracy. Survey evidence confirms that Democrats in particular are both especially opposed to and especially supportive of business engagement in politics, indicative of the veracity of the competing narratives.

Keyword(s): business, CEO activism, civic engagement, corporate social responsibility, lobbying, money
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102505
2023-06-15
2024-05-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/26/1/annurev-polisci-051921-102505.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102505&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Altshuler AA, Luberoff DE. 2003. Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Political Investments Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press
  2. Ansolabehere S, De Figueiredo JM, Snyder JM. 2003. Why is there so little money in politics?. J. Econ. Perspect. 17:105–30
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barber MJ, Canes-Wrone B, Thrower S. 2016. Sophisticated donors: What motivates individual campaign contributors?. Am. J. Political Sci. 61:271–88
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartels LM. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  5. Baumgartner FR, Leech BL. 2001. Interest niches and policy bandwagons: patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. J. Politics 63:1191–213
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Berry JM. 2013. Business politics in an era of demographic change. Forum 11:47–62
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Berry JM, Portney KE, Thomson K. 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press
  8. Bonica A. 2016. Avenues of influence: on the political expenditures of corporations and their directors and executives. Bus. Politics 18:367–94
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonica A, McCarty N, Poole K, Rosenthal H. 2013. Why hasn't democracy slowed rising inequality?. J. Econ. Perspect. 27:103–24
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brady HE, Drutman L, Schlozman KL, Verba S. 2007. Corporate lobbying activity in American politics Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Chicago, IL: Aug. 30–Sep. 2
  11. Branham JA, Soroka SN, Wlezien C. 2017. When do the rich win?. Political Sci. Q. 132:43–62
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Broockman DE, Ferenstein G, Malhotra N. 2019. Predispositions and the political behavior of American economic elites: evidence from technology entrepreneurs. Am. J. Political Sci. 63:212–33
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Broockman DE, Malhotra N. 2020. What do partisan donors want?. Public Opin. Q. 84:104–18
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Canes-Wrone B, Gibson N. 2019. Developments in congressional responsiveness to donor opinion. Can America Govern Itself? FE Lee, N McCarty 69–92. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Carnes N. 2016. Why are there so few working-class people in political office? Evidence from state legislatures. Politics Groups Identities 4:84–109
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Carnes N, Lupu N. 2016. Do voters dislike working-class candidates? Voter biases and the descriptive underrepresentation of the working class. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 110:832–44
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Carroll A, Lipartito K, Post J, Werhane P, Goodpaster K. 2012. Corporate Responsibility: The American Experience Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  18. Chatterji AK, Toffel MW. 2015. Starbucks’ “race together” campaign and the upside of CEO activism. Harvard Bus. Rev. Mar. 24
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chatterji AK, Toffel MW. 2019a. The new CEO activists. HBR's 10 Must Reads: The Definitive Management Ideas of the Year from Harvard Business Review, 201947–65. Reprinted from Harvard Bus. Rev., 2018, Jan.–Feb.:78–89. https://chools.in/wp-content/uploads/2019.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chatterji AK, Toffel MW. 2019b. Assessing the impact of CEO activism. Organ. Environ. 32:159–85
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Chu JSG, Davis GF. 2016. Who killed the inner circle? The decline of the American corporate interlock network. Am. J. Sociol. 122:715–54
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Crosson JM, Furnas AC, Lorenz GM. 2020. Polarized pluralism: organizational preferences and biases in the American pressure system. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 114:1117–37
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Culpepper PD. 2010. Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  24. Dahl RA. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  25. Dahl RA, Lindblom CE. 1976. Politics, Economics, and Welfare New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
  26. De Figueiredo JM, Richter BK. 2014. Advancing the empirical research on lobbying. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 17:163–85
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dreier P. 1983. The Vault comes out of darkness. Boston Bus. J. 3:1–4
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Druckman JN, Valdes J. 2019. How private politics alters legislative responsiveness. Q. J. Am. Politics 14:115–30
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Drutman L. 2015. The Business of America Is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  30. Drutman L, Grossman M, LaPira T. 2019. The interest group top tier. Can America Govern Itself? FE Lee, N McCarty 45–68. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Edelman 2020. Edelman Trust Barometer 2020. https://www.edelman.com/trust/2020-trust-barometer
  32. Enns PK. 2019. Relative policy support and coincidental representation. Perspect. Politics 13:1053–64
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Fishman N, Davis A. 2017. Americans still see big government as top threat. Gallup News Jan. 5
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Fouirnaies A, Hall AB. 2018. How do interest groups seek access to committees?. Am. J. Political Sci. 62:132–47
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Fowler A, Garro H, Spenkuch JL. 2016. Quid pro quo? Corporate returns to campaign contributions. J. Politics 82:844–58
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Gallup 2021. In depth: topics A to Z: big business. Gallup News https://news.gallup.com/poll/5248/big-business.aspx. Accessed June 14, 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gilens M. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  38. Gilens M, Page BI. 2014. Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspect. Politics 12:564–81
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Global Strategy Group 2016. Business and politics: Do they mix? Annual Business & Politics Study, Dec. 16 Global Strategy Group New York, NY: https://live-gsg-new.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/112016_BusinessPolitics_forward.pdf
  40. Global Strategy Group 2018. Call to action in the age of Trump. Business and politics: Do they mix? 5th Annual Study. https://live-gsg-new.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/020518_BusinessPolitics_FINAL.pdf
  41. Graham MH, Svolik M. 2020. Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in America. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 114:392–409
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Grumbach JM. 2020. Interest group activists and the polarization of state legislatures. Legis. Stud. Q. 45:5–34
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Grumbach JM, Pierson P. 2019. Are large corporations politically moderate? Using money in politics to infer the preferences of business Work. Pap., Univ. Calif. Berkeley, CA:
  44. Hacker JS, Pierson P. 2002. Business power and social policy: employers and the formation of the American welfare state. Politics Soc. 30:277–325
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hacker JS, Pierson P 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics New York: Simon & Schuster
  46. Hacker JS, Pierson P. 2016. American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper New York: Simon & Schuster
  47. Haeder SF, Yackee SW. 2015. Influence and the administrative process: lobbying the U.S. president's Office of Management and Budget. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109:507–22
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hanson R, Wolman H, Connolly D, Pearson K, McManmon R. 2010. Corporate citizenship and urban problem solving: the changing civic role of business leaders in American cities. J. Urban Aff. 32:1–23
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hart O, Zingales L. 2017. Companies should maximize shareholder welfare not market value. J. Law Finance Account. 2:247–74
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Hassell HJG, Holbein JB, Miles MR. 2020. There is no liberal media bias in which news stories political journalists choose to cover. Sci. Adv. 6:eaay9344
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Henderson R. 2020. Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire New York: Public Affairs
  52. Hersh E 2020. Politics Is for Power: How to Move Beyond Political Hobbyism, Take Action, and Make Real Change New York: Scribner
  53. Hersh E, Schaffner B. 2017. Motivations of political contributors: an audit Work. Pap., Bipartisan Policy Cent. Washington, DC:
  54. Hertel-Fernandez A. 2018. Politics at Work: How Companies Turn Their Workers into Lobbyists Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  55. Hertel-Fernandez A. 2019. State Capture: How Conservative Activists, Big Businesses, and Wealth Donors Reshaped the American States—and the Nation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Heying CH. 1997. Civic elites and corporate delocalization. Am. Behav. Sci. 40:657–68
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Hojnacki M, Marchetti KM, Baumgartner FR, Berry JM, Kimball DC, Leech BL. 2015. Assessing business advantage in Washington lobbying. Interest Groups Advocacy 4:205–24
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Jacobs LR, Soss J. 2010. The politics of inequality in America: a political economy framework. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 13:341–64
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Jaschik S. 2017. Professors and politics: what the research says. Inside Higher Ed, Feb. 27
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kalla JL, Broockman D. 2020. Campaign contributions facilitate access to congressional officials: a randomized field experiment. Am. J. Political Sci. 60:545–38
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Kanter P. 1990. The political economy of business politics in U.S. cities: a developmental perspective. Stud. Am. Political Dev. 4:248–68
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Kirkland PA. 2020. Mayoral candidates, social class, and representation in American cities. J. Political Inst. Political Econ. 1:105–36
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Kourvetaris GA. 1982. Political power and conventional political participation. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 8:289–317
     [Google Scholar]
  64. La Raja RJ, Schaffner BF 2014. The effect of campaign finance spending bans on electoral outcomes: evidence from the states about the potential impact of Citizens United v. . FEC. Electoral Stud. 33:102–14
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Larcker DF, Miles SA, Tayan B, Wright-Violich K. 2018. The double-edged sword of CEO activism. Stanford Closer Look Ser. Nov. 8. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication-pdf/cgri-closer-look-74-double-edged-sword-ceo-activism.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Lax JR, Phillips JH, Zelizer A. 2019. The party or the purse? Unequal representation in the U.S. Senate.. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 113:917–40
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Leadership Now Proj 2019. State of democracy in the US according to executives and MBAs. Rep., Jan. 3 Leadership Now Proj. Washington, DC: https://www.leadershipnowproject.org/research-and-reports/2022/10/12/mbas-and-executives
  68. Leighley JE, Oser J. 2017. Representation in an era of political and economic inequality: how and when citizen engagement matters. Perspect. Politics 16:328–44
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Li Z. 2018. How internal constraints shape interest group activities: evidence from access-seeking PACs. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 112:792–808
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Lindblom CE. 1982. The market as prison. J. Politics 44:324–36
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Lyon TP, Maxwell JW. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and the environment: a theoretical perspective. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2:240–60
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Malhotra N, Monin B, Tomz M. 2019. Does private regulation preempt public regulation?. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 113:19–37
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Martin CJ. 2000. Stuck in Neutral: Business and the Politics of Human Capital Investment Policy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  74. McCubbins M, Noll RG, Weingast BR. 1987. Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. J. Law Econ. Organ. 3:243–77
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Mizruchi MS. 2013. The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  76. Mizruchi MS. 2017. The Power Elite in historical context: a reevaluation of Mills's thesis, then and now. Theor. Sociol. 46:95–116
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Neblo MA, Esterling KM, Kennedy RP, Lazer DMJ, Sokhey AE. 2019. Who wants to deliberate—and why?. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 104:566–83
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Newport F, Witters D, Agrawal S. 2011. Democrats lead ranks of both union and state workers. Gallup News Mar. 24
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Nownes AJ, Aitalieva NR. 2013. The political activities of American corporate leaders. Bus. Politics 15:493–527
     [Google Scholar]
  80. O'Connor TH. 1995. Building a New Boston: Politics and Urban Renewal, 1950–1970 Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press
  81. Page BI, Bartels LM, Seawright J. 2013. Democracy and the policy preferences of wealthy Americans. Perspect. Politics 11:51–73
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Page BI, Gilens M. 2017. Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  83. Page BI, Seawright J, Lacombe MJ. 2018. Billionaires and Stealth Politics Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  84. Pastor M Jr., Lopez-Garza M, Dreier P, Grigsby JE III 2000. Regions That Work: How Cities and Suburbs Can Grow Together Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  85. Pew Res. Cent 2015. Beyond distrust: how Americans view their government Rep., Nov. 23 Pew Res. Cent. Washington, DC:
  86. Pew Res. Cent 2019. Key findings about Americans’ declining trust in government and each other Rep., July 22 Pew Res. Cent. Washington, DC:
  87. Piketty T. 2013. Capital in the Twenty-First Century Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  88. Porter M, Rivkin JW, Desai MA, Gehl KM, Kerr WR. 2019. A recovery squandered: the state of U.S. competitiveness 2019 Rep., Harvard Bus. School, Cambridge, MA
  89. Powell EN, Grimmer J. 2016. Money in exile: campaign contributions and committee access. J. Politics 78:974–88
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Ramanna K. 2015. Political Standards: Corporate Interest, Ideology, and Leadership in the Shaping of Accounting Rules for the Market Economy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  91. Rhodes JH, Schaffner BF, La Raja RJ 2018. Detecting and understanding donor strategies in midterm elections. Political Res. Q. 71:503–16
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Richter BK, Samphantharak K, Timmons JF. 2009. Lobbying and taxes. Am. J. Political Sci. 53:893–909
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Schaffner B, Rhodes JH, La Raja RJ 2020. Hometown Inequality: Race, Class, and Representation in American Local Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  94. Schattschneider E. 1960. The Semisovereign People Boston: Wadsworth
  95. Schiefeling T, Mizruchi M 2014. The decline of the American corporate network, 1960–2010. The Power of Corporate Networks T David, G Westerhuis 31–47. New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Schlozman KL, Verba S, Brady HE. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  97. Skocpol T, Cobb RV, Klofstad CA. 2005. Disconnection and reorganization: the transformation of civic life in late-twentieth century America. Stud. Am. Political Dev. 19:137–56
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Swenson PA. 2019. Health care business and historiographical exchange. Stud. Am. Political Dev. 33:36–49
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Teles SM. 2010. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  100. Useem M. 1979. The social organization of the American business elite and participation of corporation directors in the governance of American institutions. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44:17–25
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Vogel D. 1983. The power of business in America: a re-appraisal. Br. J. Political Sci. 13:19–43
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Vogel D. 1987. Political science and the study of corporate power: a dissent from the new conventional wisdom. Br. J. Political Sci. 17:385–408
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Vogel D. 1996a. Kindred Strangers: The Uneasy Relationship Between Politics and Business in America Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  104. Vogel D. 1996b. The study of business and politics. Calif. Manag. Rev. 38:146–65
     [Google Scholar]
  105. von Hoffman A. 2013. Calling upon the genius of private enterprise: the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and the liberal turn to public-private partnerships. Stud. Am. Political Dev. 27:165–94
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Waterhouse BC. 2013. Lobbying America: The Politics of Business from Nixon to NAFTA Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  107. Weber Shandwick 2018. CEO activism in 2018: the purposeful CEO Rep., Weber Shandwick Vancouver, WA: https://www.webershandwick.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CEO-Activism-2018_Purposeful-CEO.pdf
  108. Winters JA, Page BI. 2009. Oligarchy in the United States?. Perspect. Politics 7:731–51
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Wright GC, Rigby E. 2020. Income inequality and state parties: Who gets represented?. State Politics Policy Q 20:395–415
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Yackee JW, Yackee SW. 2014. A bias toward business? Assessing interest group influence on the U.S. bureaucracy. J. Politics 68:128–39
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102505
Loading
The Political Role of Business Leaders
Annual Review of Political Science 26, 97 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102505
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102505
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102505
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error