Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T01:19:11.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Federalism: Implications for the Legitimacy of Corporate Political Activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Sandra L. Christensen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The new push to move political issue activity from the federal to the state and local levels—a new New Federalism—has implications for the ethical and political legitimacy of business political activity. While business political activity at the federal level may be both less costly and less risky than when action shifts to states or localities, at the state or local level it is likely to be more visible, and individual firms may be perceived to have more power. Increased corporate power raises questions about the legitimacy of firm involvement in the political process at the state and local levels. The issue of legitimacy is viewed in the context of the literature on political subcultures being used to study state economic development.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 1997 , pp. 81 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andres, G.J.Business involvement in campaign finance: Factors influencing the decision to form a corporate PAC. PS, 18: 213–220. 1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, R.A., Poole, I.D. & Dexter, L.A.American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade. New York: Atherton. 1963.Google Scholar
Blumquist, W.Explaining state differences in groundwater policy adoptions, 1980–1989. Publius, 21: 101–115. 1991.Google Scholar
Boeckelman, K.Political culture and state development policy. Publius, 21: 49–62. 1991.Google Scholar
Boies, J.L.Money, business, and the state: Material interests, Fortune 500 corporations, and the size of political action committees. American Sociological Review, 54: 821–833. 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, S.N.Corporate political activity: An exploratory study in a developing industry. In Preston, L.E. (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol 2:. 197–236. Greenwich: JAI Press. 1980.Google Scholar
Bykerk, L.G.Business power in Washington: The insurance exception. Policy Studies Review 11: 259–279. 1992.Google Scholar
Cook, R.G. & Barry, D.Shaping the external environment. A study of small firm’s attempts to influence public policy. Business and Society, 34: 317–344. 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derthick, M.Up-to-date in Kansas City: Reflections on American Federalism. PS: Political Science and Politics, 25: 671–675. 1992.Google Scholar
Elazar, D.J.Cities of the Prairie. New York: Basic Books. 1970.Google Scholar
Epstein, E.A., The Corporation in American Politics. Engleweek Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 1969.Google Scholar
Gale, J. & Buchholz, R.A.The political pursuit of competitive advantage: What business can gain from government. In Marcus, A.A.Kaufman, A.M. & Beam, D.R. (Eds.), Business Strategy and Public Policy: Perspectives from Industry and Academia: 31–41. New York: Quorum. 1987.Google Scholar
Grier, K.B., Munger, M.C. & Roberts, B.E.The determinants of industry political activity, American Political Science Review, 88: 911–926.Google Scholar
Hanson, R.L.Political cultural variations in state economic development policy. Publius, 21: 63–81. 1991.Google Scholar
Hedge, D.M., Scicchitano, M.J. & Metz, P.The principal-agent model and regulatory federalism. Western Political Quarterly, 44: 1055–1080. 1991.Google Scholar
Hill, G.Citizenship and ontology in the liberal state. Review of Politics, 55: 67–84. 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, C.M.Excellence vs effectiveness: MacIntyre’s critique of business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5: 499–532. 1995.Google Scholar
Humphries, C.Corporations, PACs and the strategic link between contributions and lobbying activities. Western Political Quarterly, 44: 353–372. 1991.Google Scholar
Keim, G.Corporate grassroots programs in the 1980s. California Management Review, 28: 110–123. 1985.Google Scholar
Kincaid, J.Constitutional federalism: Labor’s role in displacing places to benefit persons. PS: Political Science and Politics, 26: 173–177. 1993.Google Scholar
Krane, D.American federalism, state governments, and public policy: Weaving together loose theoretical threads. PS: Political Science and Politics, 26: 186–190. 1993.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A.After Virtue. Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press. 1981.Google Scholar
Marcus, A.A., Kaufman, A.M. & Beam, D.R.Introduction: The pursuit of corporate advantage and the quest for social legitimacy. In Marcus, A.A.Kaufman, A.M. & Beam, D.R. (Eds.), Business Strategy and Public Policy: Perspectives from Industry and Academia: 1–16. New York: Quorum. 1987.Google Scholar
Martin, C.J.Nature or nurture? Sources of firm preference for national health reform. American Political Science Review, 89: 898–913. 1995.Google Scholar
Masters, M.F. & Keim, G.Determinants of PAC participation among large corporations. Journal of Politics, 47: 1158–1173. 1985.Google Scholar
Masters, M.S. & Keim, G.D.Variation in corporate PAC and lobbying activity: An organizational and environmental analysis. In Preston, L.E. (Ed.), Business and Politics: Research Issues and Empirical Studies: 97–119. Greenwich: JAI Press. 1990.Google Scholar
Mitchell, N.Corporate power, legitimacy, and social policy. Western Political Quarterly, 39: 197–212. 1986.Google Scholar
Morehouse, S.M.State Politics, Parties, and Policy. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1981.Google Scholar
Mullery, C.B., Brenner, S.N. & Perrin, N.A.A structural analysis of corporate political activity. Business and Society, 34: 147–170. 1995.Google Scholar
Olson, M.The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1971.Google Scholar
Parsons, T.Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. 1960.Google Scholar
Quinn, D.P., & Shapiro, R.Y.Business political power: The case of taxation. American Political Science Review, 85: 851–874. 1991.Google Scholar
Sagoff, M.At the shrine of our lady of Fatima, or why political questions are not all economic. Cited in Weber, L., 1996, Citizenship and democracy: A review article. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6: 253–259. 1986.Google Scholar
Schuler, D.A.Corporate political strategy and foreign competition: The case of the steel industry. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 729–737. 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiegel, R.Corporate social performance: Efforts to achieve and maintain legitimacy. In Pasquero, J. & Collins, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society: 115–120. 1993.Google Scholar
Thomas, T.E.Campaign spending and corporate involvement in the California initiative process, 1976–1988. In Post, J.E. (Ed.) Research in Corporate Social Performance, volume 12: 37–61. Greenwich: JAI Press. 1991.Google Scholar
Vogel, D.J.Fluctuating fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America. New York: Basic Books. 1989.Google Scholar
Vogel, D.J.The study of business and politics. California Management Review, 38: 146–165. 1996.Google Scholar
Weaver, G.R., Trevino, L.K., & Cochran, P.L.Ethics initiatives and organizational legitimacy. In Wartick, S. & Collins, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society: 56–61. 1994.Google Scholar
Weber, L.Citizenship and democracy: The ethics of corporate lobbying. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6: 253–259. 1996.Google Scholar
Yoffie, D.B.Corporate strategies for political action: A rational model. In Marcus, A. & Kaufman, A. (Eds.), Business Strategy and Public Policy: 43–60. New York: Quorum Books. 1987.Google Scholar
Yoffie, D.B. & Bergenstein, S.Creating corporate advantage: The rise of the corporate political entrepreneur. California Management Review, 28: 124–139. 1985.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J.F.Congressional regulation of subnational governments. PS: Political Science and Politics, 26: 177–181. 1993.Google Scholar