Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

4/25/2015Copyright 2013. Daniel Diermeier1 Daniel Diermeier Kellogg School of Management (MEDS) Northwestern University

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "4/25/2015Copyright 2013. Daniel Diermeier1 Daniel Diermeier Kellogg School of Management (MEDS) Northwestern University"— Presentation transcript:

1 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier1 Daniel Diermeier Kellogg School of Management (MEDS) Northwestern University Private Politics – The Political Science Perspective

2 The Big Picture A very under-researched area What political scientists could contribute (but haven’t) Public opinion Corporate Campaigns Consequences and Legitimacy 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier2

3 Related Areas: NGOs 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier3

4 Q [TRACKING] Below is a list of institutions. For each one, please indicate how much you trust that institution to do what is right using a 9-point scale where one means that you “do not trust them at all” and nine means that you “trust them a great deal”. (Top 2 Box, Trust a great deal and Top 4 Box, Trust) Informed Publics ages in 20-country global total TRUST ACROSS INSTITUTIONS (EDELMAN TRUST BAROMETER) TRUST A GREAT DEAL NGOS BUSINESS MEDIA GOVERNMENT Trust Total: 43% Trust Total: 48% Trust Total: 53% Trust Total: 58% Trust Total: 52% Trust Total: 57% Trust Total: 58% Trust Total: 63% TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS - GLOBAL 4

5 TRUST OVER TIME TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS – INFORMED PUBLICS AGES GLOBAL Q [TRACKING] Below is a list of institutions. For each one, please indicate how much you trust that institution to do what is right using a 9-point scale where one means that you “do not trust them at all” and nine means that you “trust them a great deal”. (Top 4 Box, Trust) Informed Publics ages in 18-country global total (excludes Argentina, Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Turkey and UAE) point gap between business & government trust point gap between business & government trust Back to 2011 highs

6 6

7 Q [NGOs TRACKING] Below is a list of institutions. For each one, please indicate how much you trust that institution to do what is right using a 9-point scale where one means that you “do not trust them at all” and nine means that you “trust them a great deal”. (Top 4 Box, Trust) Informed Publics ages in 20 country global total (excludes Argentina, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Turkey and UAE) and across 26 countries N/A 50% NGOS REMAIN MOST TRUSTED INSTITUTION; FOUR OUT OF FIVE MARKETS WITH HIGHEST TRUST IN APAC REGION TRUST IN NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOS) % of markets surveyed have a trust score above 50% % of markets surveyed have a trust score above 50% China: 48%

8 Related Areas: NGOs NGOs as Interest groups (e.g. Rothenberg 2010) Non-profits (Prakash and Gugerty 2010) Main questions Collective action Impact on policy “It is not surprising that, with rare exceptions (e.g. Vogel 2005), political scientists tend to have professional blinders on, in the sense that their natural inclination is to consider what environmental NGOs do with respect to government.” Rothenberg (2010; p. 125). Credibility (Feddersen and Gilligan 2001) 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier8

9 Related Areas: Private Regulation 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier9

10 Related Areas: Private Regulation Disciplinary Context: International Political Economy (IPE) Main Focus: comparison to other international organizations (e.g. UN, WTO). Main domain: Standard setting International Accounting Standards Board International Organization for Standardization International Electrotechnical Commission Main Questions Emergence (when private – when public) Impact Governance Accountability and legitimacy 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier10

11 Private Politics in Political Science Points of Departure Involve firms Include individual firm behavior, not just industry-wide issues Interactions between NGOs and firms are “mixed motive” (confrontation-cooperation) Agreements/outcomes must be self-enforcing (equilibria) 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier11

12 Private Politics in Political Science 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier12 Special issue on Global Private Politics (2010)

13 Werner (2011) 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier13 Regression Approach (linear or duration analysis) Three main cases KLD (Kinder Lydenburg Domini)-based stakeholder engagement metric Adoption of pollution prevention and environmental reporting standards (based on KLD) [Cox-Proportional Hazard Model] Adoption of Nondiscrimination Policies for sexual orientation and domestic partner benefits (based on Human Rights Coalition) [Cox-Proportional Hazard Model] Bunch of independent variables “reputation” (difference of market versus book value) Public opinion data (e.g. Gallup Poll on support for equal opportunity for gays) Regulatory/political context (e.g. state gay rights law, Democratic governor) Others

14 Werner (2011): Main Findings Reputation (as measured) always matters Public Opinion always matters Interest group presence sometimes matters (more in environmental than in gay rights) Other firms sometimes matter Firm specific factors sometimes matter (e.g. firm culture only for full benefits, not non-discrimination) Many Problems Various endogeneity issues (e.g. interest group activity, others firms) Many questions unexplored (e.g. contentious versus consensual issues) 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier14

15 NGOs and Public Opinion Credibility (Feddersen and Gilligan, JEMS 2001) 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier15

16 Possible Directions: Drivers of Public Opinion Attention and agenda setting Kinder and Iyengar (1989) Iyengar (1994) Baumgartner and Jones (1993) Boydstun (2013) Competitive Framing Chong and Druckman (2010) Cognitive Approaches Lakoff (2005) Zaller (1992) Lodge and Taber (2013) Social influence and networks Sinclair (2012) 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier16

17 Public Opinion: Example Companies as Moral Agents Moral Foundations Theory (e.g. Haidt 2013) Person-Based Morality (e.g. Tannenbaum, Uhlman, and Diermeier 2012) Perceptions of Moral Agency (e.g. Gray, Young, and Waytz 2012) Value Congruence (Heinze, Uhlman, and Diermeier Forthcoming) Risk Perception Slovic (2010) Framing (Chong and Druckman 2011) 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier17

18 Possible Future Directions: Campaigns 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier18 Relevant political science literature: International Relations and Conflicts Bargaining (Fearon 1995) Alliances (Smith 1995) Terrorism (de Mesquita 2005, 2008) Treaties, Agreements, and Cooperation (Fearon 1998) Extortion (Dal Bo and Di Tella 2003)

19 Campaigns: Examples 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier19 Baron (2003a, 2003b, 2012) Baron and Diermeier (2007) Abito, Besanko, and Diermeier (2012)

20 Possible Future Directions: Consequences and Legitimacy 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier20 Relevant political science literature: normative analysis and political theory Classical welfare analysis NGOs as regulatory systems in response to market failures (e.g. Yaziji and Doh 2009) NGO Governance Lack of accountability (little internal democracy) Agency problems Influence of patrons and founders Relation between public and private institutions Substitute or complement?

21 The Cottage Cheese Boycott The Israeli Cottage Cheese Boycott (August 2011). Copyright Daniel Diermeier21 : LIVELINESS: 4/25/2015 Cottage cheese prices fell by 20% and stayed low for over 2 years (Hendel, Lach, and Spiegel 2013).

22 The Nike Agreements Harrison and Scorse (2010) Wage growth in Indonesia Compare exporting textile, footwear, apparel (TFA) compared to other manufacturing Impact 10-20% Compare TFA suppliers to Nike, Reebok, Addidas to other TFA firms Impact 30% No evidence of significant employment losses, but profits fell (forced profit sharing) 4/25/2015Copyright Daniel Diermeier22


Download ppt "4/25/2015Copyright 2013. Daniel Diermeier1 Daniel Diermeier Kellogg School of Management (MEDS) Northwestern University"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google