In 1970s, the all-powerfull state government came under practical and academic attack. The proposed alternative argued for “steering, not rowing”, which consequently opened the political sphere to companies … and ultimately private governance.

As modern societies of the 20th century have become more critical and demanding of the political sphere, the existing traditional model of governing society was challenged. It came “under practical and academic attack as an appropriate means of providing steering for the economy and society” (Peters, 2003: 6). Critics emphasised its lack of public involvement and limited influence of public on decision-making and opposed “the model of integration ‘from above’ associated with ‘Fordist compromises’ to the welfare-state during the years of strong economic growth” (Jouve, 2005: 290; see also Mayer, 1995). Proposed responses put forward the use of societal actors and networks of actors to shape public policies (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992; Kooiman, 1993; Kickert et al., 1997), arguing for “steering, not rowing” (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992), and – in extreme cases – believed in a “governance without government”. Moreover, the delivery of public services was proposed to be altered – by including non-profit and sometimes even for-profit civil society in it (Peters, 2003, 6).

This new division of labour between scales (local, regional, national, transnational, global) led to the transfer of certain elements of political regulation to new political territories – mostly cities (Brenner, 1999). Nevertheless, re-territorialisation (Brenner, 1999) has not only shifted the focus of politics from the state to other levels but has been also accompanied by a shift in the essence of politics. “The appreciation of local contexts represents a major shift away from the model of reform based on mechanisms of centralised, bureaucratic, ‘top-down’ implementation that dominated until the 1970s” (Jouve, 2005: 290). The managerial logic of the Fordist-Keynesian welfare state compromise was supplemented with an entrepreneurial logic (Harvey, 1989a; Hall and Hubbard, 1998), which promised a better delivery of collective services in the times of constraining budgetary policies and a strive for the competitiveness of cities. The new public management (Larbi, 1999) promised to mobilise the civil society and enable a larger number of local actors to participate in this new collective decision-making process. Governance in normative terms thus aims at incorporating civil society in participatory projects of cities, and by this transforming cities into pluralist political spaces within a new political culture (Clark and Hoffmann-Martinot, 1998).

Urban regimes with influential private sector

Nevertheless, as the capacity to govern is not equally distributed in space or in time (Dror, 2000), this governance “appears to enhance public participation in decision-making within the public sector” only on the surface (Peters, 2003: 7). Jouve (2005, 290) lists two reasons: “(i) the opening of urban institutions to civil society was effected through a process of institutionalising public participation, which has had direct effects on the real capacity of all segments of civil society to influence the definition of collective choices. Second, (ii) this institutionalisation has benefitted a particular group of local actors: the business community.” As argued by Jouve (2005), paradoxically, the characteristics of the political system were reinforced by the institutionalised consultation of citizens, leading to a confrontation between elected political representatives and legitimate groups of citizens, in which the first is winning. “Everything is changed (in the discourse) in order that everything remains unchanged in the hierarchy of positions and roles” (Jouve, 2005: 291). Nevertheless, one group is profiting from this illusory change – namely, the business community (Duchastel and Canet, 2005). Once detached, the political sphere is now – through institutionalised consultation and legitimised ad hoc private-public partnerships – easily accessible by companies that have the interest to affect the decision-making processes. This newly established relationship between public and private actors has caught the attention of Marxist analysts (Pickvance, 1995), neo-pluralists (Lindbolm, 1977) and neo-elitists (Bachrach, 1967; Lukes, 1974), and was conceptualised in the theories of growth machines (Logan and Molotch, 1987) and, most popularly, urban regimes (Stone, 1993).

Stone’s (1993) concept of urban regime rejects both pluralist assumptions of powerful government authorities and structuralist assumptions of the determining effect of economic forces, and views power as fragmented. An urban regime is thus an assemblage of public and private actors, each possessing resources needed to govern (legitimacy on the one hand and capital on the other) – but it is only the joint partnership that can gather the capacity to govern (Mossberg and Stoker, 2001: 812). These “regimes overcome problems of collective action and secure participation in the governing coalition through the distribution of selective incentives” (Mossberg and Stoker, 2001: 812), whether it be purposive or material. Urban regimes can take several forms: maintenance or caretaker regimes (focused on routine service delivery and low taxes), development regimes (concerned with changing land use to promote growth), middle-class progressive regimes (focused on inclusion of environmental protection, historic preservation, affordable housing, and linkage funds), and lower-class opportunity expansion regimes (emphasising human investment policy and widened access to employment and ownership) (Mossberg and Stoker, 2001: 813).

Nevarez (2000: 199) lists three domains of this public-private governance regime – political, civil, and economic domain. The political domain entails direct relations between the business community and elected/appointed officials, whether it be by electoral coalitions supporting candidates (see also Ferman 1996; Whelan et al., 1994) or by working together in private-public partnerships that give private actors more autonomy and less political accountability (see also Squires, 1989). The civic domain entails relations between community organizations, the business community, and political actors, either by networking and deal-making opportunities that complement the activities of civic groups (see also Domhoff, 1998; Useem, 1984), by constructing a “we feeling” with financial gifts and personal service, or by empowering favourable civic groups and neglecting controversial groups through philanthropy (see also Silver, 1998; Jenkins, 1998; Haines, 1984; DiMaggio, 1983; Wright, 1985; Powell and Friedkin, 1983; Pertschuk, 1982). The business domain entails the interrelations of firms and business leaders involved in a regime governance, producing shared practices, interorganizational networks, and a common understanding about the nature of community politics.

Involvement of companies in politics

From the firm’s perspective, we can distinguish two fundamental corporate political behaviours (Meznar and Nigh, 1995): “political ‘buffering’ behaviours include proactive political actions on the part of firms, such as informing government decision makers about the impact of possible legislation, trying to actively reduce government regulation of the firm, and working alone or in trade associations to make campaign contributions, lobby, or otherwise influence legislative/regulatory processes”, while “bridging, on the other hand, is a more reactive form of behaviour. It includes such activities as tracking the development of legislation/regulation so to have compliance in place when passed and exceeding compliance levels for regulation”( Meznar and Nigh, 1995).

Nevertheless, not all companies are equally active in political activities and a wide variety of scholars has tried to research this topic. While economists typically study industry factors, political scientists focus on institutional and political factors. However, an interdisciplinary approach to researching CPA (Corporate Political Activity, defined as “firms’ efforts to influence or manage political entities” (Hillman et al., 2004) adds further complexity (Lux et al., 2011). A recent meta-analysis of 78 studies with a sample size of 72,265 (Lux et al., 2011) “indicate[s] that antecedents at the institutional level (i.e., incumbent politicians, ideology, political competition, government regulation, government sales, and dependent politicians), market and industry level (i.e., industry concentration), and firm level (i.e., firm size and competitive strategy) have positive and significant relationships with CPA”. Lux et al. (2011) thus conclude that the biggest drivers of CPA are, not surprisingly, politician incumbency (as often suggested by political scientists), government regulation, and firm size (as advocated by economists, see Salamon and Siegfried, 1977). Scholars suggest that firms involved in CPA have several motives for engaging in political behaviour: a desire to pursue the firm’s private interest (i.e. domain advantage), to manage public policy that might be at odds with the firm’s strategic goals (i.e. domain defence), or to influence public policy that might threaten the means by which a firm achieves it goals (i.e. domain maintenance) (Baines and Viney, 2010). Benefits of these activities can include reduced environmental uncertainty, reduced transaction costs, and increased long-term sustainability (Hillman et al., 1999). One of the key assumptions in many theoretical perspectives is also that firms engage in CPA in order to obtain and/or maintain economic returns, but empirical evidence shows that “economic opportunities are not significantly related to CPA” (Lux et al., 2011: 237).

This can be explained by the inclusion of CPA in the firm’s non-market strategy that is understood as “the firm’s efforts to manage the institutional or societal context of economic competition” (Boddewyn, 2003) and through which a firm can influence the extent to which it obtains or maintains economic advantages. A non-market strategy is especially needed in companies with greater social exposure (the ones that come into contact with a greater number and diversity of social groups) (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) due to the firm’s market strategy, as it “enables firms to better manage their social exposure by countering constituent and special interest political actions, not in the interest of the firm” (Lux et al., 2011: 231). Similarly, “firms pursuing diversification strategies are more likely to engage in CPA” (Lux et al., 2011: 231; see also Hillman et al., 2004).

Company-led governance and private governance

With the global growth and diversification of companies’ portfolios, corporate political activities are increasing (as argued above) and several companies are assuming primal positions within urban regimes (see discussion on “pro-growth governance model” by Pierre, 1999), a result of the changing nature of urban governance under neoliberalism. Moreover, three substantive shifts (((1) absence of problem-solving powers with governments; (2) complementation of confrontation between companies, governments and civil society with partnerships; and (3) institutionalized cooperation) are leading to the emergence of private governance) are leading to the emergence of private governance (Haufler, 1993; Pattberg, 2005). For Pattberg (2005: 592), private governance consists of three analytical dimensions: “first, the procedural dimension of governance, which emphasizes the activities of private transnational actors; second, the structural dimension of governance, which highlights the distinct ‘architecture’ of a governance arrangement, including norms and rules, networks and actor constellations, as well as formal or informal links to other areas of governance; and third, the functional dimension of governance, which focuses on the material and ideational outcome of a private governance arrangement as a functional equivalent to forms of national or international public governance.” This conceptualisation goes beyond privatisation of provisions of public services and includes “new actor constellations and uncommon alliances between a wide range of actors that go beyond coordination or cooperation” (Pattberg, 2005: 592). Private governance thus does not necessarily mean a takeover of public (or public-private) governance structure, but rather a different approach to governing, springing from “a mismatch between markets and politics in terms of governance,” in which the “demand for rules to govern commerce has given rise to a variety of sources of supply, and one of the most significant […] is the private sector itself” (Haufler, 2000: 121). These private governance regimes might – similarly to public regimes – provide collective goods, reduce transaction costs, decrease uncertainty (Keohane, 1984), incorporate all elements of urban governance (articulating a common set of priorities for society, coherence, goal achievement, feedback and accountability (Peters, 2003: 3), and in some cases achieve a hegemonic position over public regime.


Bachrach P. (1967) The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique. Boston: Little Brown.

Baines, P. and Viney, H. (2010) ‘The Unloved Relationship? Dynamic Capabilities and Political-Market Strategy: A Research Agenda’. Journal of Public Affairs, 10: 258-264.

Boddewyn, J. J. (2003) ‘Understanding and advancing the concept of “nonmarket”’. Business and Society, 42: 297-327.

Brenner, N. (1999) ‘Globalisation as Reterritorialisation: The Re-scaling of Urban Governance in the European Union’. Urban Studies, 36 (3): 431-451.

Clark, T.N. and Hoffmann-Martinot, V. (1998) The New Political Culture. Boulder: Westview Press.

DiMaggio, P. (1983) ‘Can culture survive the marketplace?’ Journal of Arts Management and Law, 13: 61-87.

Domhoff, G.W. (1998) Who rules America? Power and politics in the year 2000. 3d ed. Mountain View: Mayfield.

Dror, Y. (2000) The Capacity to Govern (London: Frank Cass).

Duchastel J, Canet R. 2005. From local to global. Citizenship and transformation of democratic forms. In Metropolitan Democracies. State Transformations and Urban Policies in Canada, France and Great-Britain, Jouve B, Booth P (eds). Ashgate: Aldershot.

Ferman, B. 1996. Challenging the growth machine: Neighborhood politics in Chicago and Pittsburgh. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Haines, H. H. (1984) ‘Black radicalization and the funding of civil rights 1957-1970’. Social Problems, 32: 31-43.

Hall, T. and Hubbard, P. (1998) The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation. Chichester: John Wiley.

Harvey, D. (1989a) ‘From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism’. Geografiska Annaler. Series B. Human Geography, 3-17.

Haufler, V. (1993) ‘Crossing the Boundary between Public and Private: International Regimes and Non-State Actors’. In: Rittberg, V. ed. Regime Theory and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hillman, A., Zardkoohi, A. and Bierman, L. (1999) ‘Corporate political strategies and firm performance: Indications of firm-specific benefits from personal service in the US government’. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 67–81.

Hillman, A.J., Keim, G.D. and Schuler, D. (2004) ‘Corporate Political Activity: A Review and Research Agenda’. Journal of Management, 30(6): 837–857.

Jenkins, J. C. (1998) ‘Channeling social protest: Foundation patronage of contemporary social movements’. In: Powell, W. W. and Clemens, E.S. eds. Private action and the public good. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jouve, B. (2005) ‘From government to urban governance in western Europe: a critical analysis’. Public administration and development, 25: 285-294.

Keohane, Robert O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kickert, W. J. M., E.-H. Klijn and J. F. M. Koppenjans (1997) Managing Complex Networks. London: Sage.

Kooiman, J. (1993) Modern Governance. London: Sage.

Larbi, A. (1999) ‘The New Public Management Approach and Crisis States George.’ UNRISD Discussion Paper, 112.

Lindblom C.E. (1977) Politics and Markets. New York: Basic Books Publishers.

Logan, J. and Molotch, H. (1987) Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley University of California Press.

Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View. London and New York: Macmillan.

Lux, S., Crook, T.R. and 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.

Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. A. W. (1992) Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Mayer, M. (1995) ‘Urban governance in the Post-Fordist City’. In: Healey, P., Cameron, S., Davoudi, S., Graham, S., Madani-Pour, A. eds. Managing Cities. The New Urban Context. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.”

Meznar, M. and Nigh, D. (1995) ‘Buffer or bridge? Environmental and organizational determinants of public affairs activities in American firms’. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 975–996.

Mossberg, K. and Stoker, G. (2001) ‘The Evolution of Urban Regime Theory: The Challenge of Conceptualization’. Urban Affairs Review, 36 (6): 810-835.

Nevarez, L. (2000) ‘Corporate Philantropy in the New Urban Economy: The Role of Business-Nonprofit Realignment in Regime Politics. Urban Affairs Review, 36 (2): 197-227.

Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler (1992) Reinventing Government. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Pattberg, P. (2005) ‘The Institutionalization of Private Governance: How Business and Nonprofit Organizations Agree on Transnational Rules’. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 18 (4): 589–610.

Pertschuk, M. (1982) Revolt against regulation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Peters, B. G. (2003) ‘The Capacity to Govern: Moving Back to the Center?’. VIII Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública, Panamá, 28-31 Oct. 2003.

Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978) The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.

Pickvance C. (1995) ‘Marxist Theories of Urban Politics’. In: Judge, D., Stoker, G., Wolman, H. eds. Theories of Urban Politics. London: Sage.

Pierre, J. (1999) ‘Models of Urban Governance: The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics’. Urban Affairs Review, 34 (3): 372-396.

Powell, W. W. and Friedkin, R. (1983) ‘Political and organizational influences on public television programming’. In: Wartella, E. and Whitney, D. C. eds. Mass communication review yearbook, vol. 4. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Salamon, L. M. and Siegfried, J.J. (1977) ‘Economic Power and Political Influence: The Impact of Industry Structure on Public Policy.’ The American Political Science Review, 71 (3): 1026-1043.

Silver, I. (1998) ‘Buying an activist identity: Reproducing class through social movement philanthropy’. Sociological Perspectives, 41 (2): 303-21.

Squires, G. D. (1989) Unequal partnerships: The political economy of urban redevelopment in postwar America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Stone, C. (1993) Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: A political economy approach. Journal of Urban Affairs, 15 (1): 1-28.

Useem, M. (1984) The inner circle: Large corporations and the rise of business political activity in the U.S. and U.K. New York: Oxford University Press.

Whelan, R. K., Young, A. H. and Lauria, M. (1994) ‘Urban regimes and racial politics in New Orleans’. Journal of Urban Affairs, 16 (1): 1-21.

Wright, T. (1985) ‘Corporate interests, philanthropies and the peace movement’. Monthly Review, 36: 19-31.