During the euro crisis of June 2011, 51 representatives of major French and German corporations launched a political campaign in support of the euro. This study shows that firm size facilitated high-quality business contacts but that variables of economic interest were not associated with a higher probability of campaign participation when controlling for relational variables. Instead, the empirical analysis suggests that Franco-German business leaders joined the campaign because (1) their central network position provided them with informational resources to transcend the interest of their firm, and (2) their social and political embeddedness either led to an internalization of pro-euro values or gave them an incentive to improve their long-term reputation with political decision makers who strongly support the euro as part of the European integration project. Thus, the directors’ corporate and political ties facilitated and motivated corporate political action in support of the euro.
AlfaranoSMilakovicM (2009) Network structure and N-dependence in agent-based herding models. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control33(1): 78–92.
2.
AndresG (1985) Business involvement in campaign finance: Factors influencing the decision to form a corporate PAC. Political Science and Politics18: 215–219.
3.
ApeldoornB(2001) The struggle over European order: Transnational class agency in the making of ‘embedded neo-liberalism’. In: BielerAMortonAD (eds) Social Forces in the Making of the New Europe, New York: Palgrave, pp. 47–69.
4.
BDI (Bund der Deutschen Industrie) (2011) BDI-Aussenwirtschafts-Report 03/2011, Berlin: BDI.
5.
BechtelMSchneiderG (2010) Eliciting substance from ‘hot air’: Financial market responses to EU summit decisions on European defense. International Organization64: 199–223.
6.
BeyersJ (2004) Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics5(2): 211–240.
7.
BlythM (2006) Great punctuations: Prediction, randomness, and the evolution of comparative political science. American Political Science Review100(4): 493–498.
8.
BlythM (2009) Coping with the black swan: The unsettling world of Nassim Taleb. Critical Review21(4): 447–466.
9.
BondM (2004) Social influences on corporate political donations in Britain. British Journal of Sociology55(1): 55–77.
10.
BondM (2007) Elite social relations and corporate political donations in Britain. Political Studies55: 59–85.
11.
BondMGlouharovaSHarriganN (2010) The political mobilization of corporate directors: Socio-economic correlates of affiliation to European pressure groups. British Journal of Sociology61(2): 306–335.
12.
BorgattiSP (2005) Centrality and network flow. Social Networks27: 55–71.
13.
BorgattiSPFosterPC (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management29(6): 991–1013.
14.
BorgattiSPHalginDS (2011) On network theory. Organization Science22(5): 1168–1181.
15.
BorgattiSPEverettMGFreemanLC(2002) UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis, Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
16.
BouwenP (2002) Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy9(3): 365–390.
17.
BrandesUPichC (2007) Centrality estimation in large networks. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos17(7): 2303–2318.
18.
BrozLFriedenJA (2001) The political economy of international monetary relations. Annual Review of Political Science4: 317–343.
19.
BurrisV (2005) Interlocking directorates and political cohesion among corporate elites. American Journal of Sociology111: 249–283.
20.
BurrisV(2009) Corporations, capitalists, and campaign finance. In: LeichtKTJenkinsJG (eds) Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective, New York: Springer Publishing, pp. 246–264.
21.
BurtRS (1987) Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology92(6): 1287–1335.
22.
Büschemann KH (2011) Deutsche Wirtschaft: Anzeigenkampagne Bitte, bitte, rettet doch den Euro. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 20 June.
23.
CollignonSSchwarzerD(2003) Private Sector Involvement in the Euro: The Power of Ideas, London: Routledge.
24.
ConversePE (2006) The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Critical Review18(1–3): 1–74.
25.
CowlesM(2001) The transatlantic business dialogue and domestic business-government relations. In: CowlesMCaporasoJRisseT (eds) Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 159–179.
26.
De BoissieuCPisani-FerryJ(1998) The political economy of French economic policy in the perspective of EMU. In: EichengreenBFriedenJA (eds) Forging an Integrated Europe, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 49–89.
27.
De GregorioJGiovanniniAWolfHC (1994) International evidence on tradables and nontradables inflation. European Economic Review38: 1225–1244.
28.
DinçIS (2005) Politicians and banks: Political influences on government-owned banks in emerging markets. Journal of Financial Economics77: 453–479.
29.
DuckenfieldMAspinwallM (2010) Private interests and exchange rate politics: The case of British business. European Union Politics11(3): 381–404.
30.
EmirbayerM (1997) Manifesto for relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology103(2): 281–317.
31.
FaccioMMasulisRWMcConnellJJ (2006) Political connections and corporate bailouts. Journal of Finance61(6): 2597–2635.
32.
FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) (2011) Der Euro ist notwendig. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 21 June.
33.
FismanR (2001) Estimating the value of political connections. American Economic Review91: 1095–1102.
34.
FriedenJA (2002) Real sources of European currency policy: Sectoral interests and European monetary integration. International Organization56(4): 831–860.
35.
FriedmanJ (2009) A crisis of politics, not economics: Complexity, ignorance, and policy failure. Critical Review21(2–3): 127–183.
36.
GranovetterM (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology91(3): 481–510.
37.
GrierKBMungerMCRobertsBE (1994) The determinants of industry political activity, 1978–1986. American Political Science Review88: 911–926.
38.
HannemanRARiddleM(2005) Introduction to Social Network Methods, Riverside: University of California.
39.
HansenWLMitchellNJ (2000) Disaggregating and explaining corporate political activity: Domestic and foreign corporations in national politics. American Political Science Review94(4): 891–903.
40.
HartDM (2004) Business is not an interest group: On the study of companies in American national politics. Annual Review of Political Science7: 47–69.
41.
Henkel HO (2011) Währungsunion: Es gibt ein Leben nach dem Euro. Handelsblatt, 22 June.
42.
HillmanAJ (2003) Determinants of political strategies in U.S. multinationals. Business & Society42(4): 455–484.
43.
HillmanAJHittMA (1999) Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review24(4): 825–842.
44.
HillmanAJKeimGDSchulerD (2004) Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management30(6): 837–857.
45.
HöpnerMKrempelL (2004) The politics of the German company network. Competition & Change8(4): 339–356.
46.
KingGTomzMWittenbergJ (2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 347–361.
47.
KnokeD(1990) Political Networks: The Structural Perspective, New York: Cambridge University Press.
48.
KnokeDYangS(2008) Social Network Analysis, Los Angeles: Sage.
49.
KruegerA(1990) The political economy of controls: American Sugar. In: LalDScottM (eds) Public Policy and Economic Development: Essays in Honour of Ian Little, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
50.
KuranT(1997) Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
LaumannEOMarsdenPVPrenskyD(1983) The boundary-specification problem in network analysis. In: BurtRMinorM (eds) Applied Network Analysis, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 18–34.
52.
McKnightPTomkinsC (2004) The implications of firm and individual characteristics on CEO pay. European Management Journal22(1): 27–40.
53.
MarshD(2011) The Euro. The Battle for the New Global Currency, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
54.
MilakovicMAlfaranoSLuxT (2010) The small core of the German corporate board network. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory16: 201–215.
55.
MilnerHVKeohaneRO(1996) Internationalization and domestic politics: An introduction. In: KeohaneROMilnerHV (eds) Internationalization and Domestic Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–24.
56.
MitchellNJHansenWLJepsenEM (1997) The determinants of domestic and foreign corporate political activity. Journal of Politics59(4): 1096–1113.
57.
MizruchiMS(1982) The American Corporate Network: 1904–1974, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
58.
MizruchiMS(1992) The Structure of Corporate Political Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59.
MizruchiMS (1994) Social network analysis: Recent achievements and current controversies. Acta Sociologica37(4): 329–343.
60.
MizruchiMS (1996) What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology22: 271–298.
61.
MizruchiMS (2007) Political economy and network analysis: An untapped convergence. Sociologica1(2): 1–27.
62.
MoravcsikA(1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
63.
NewmanMEJ(2008) The mathematics of networks. In: DurlaufSNBlumeLE (eds) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
64.
NorthD (1990) A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics2(4): 355–367.
65.
OlsonM(1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
66.
PfefferJSalancikGR(1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, New York: Harper & Row.
67.
PlümperTTroegerV (2006) Monetary policy autonomy in European non-euro countries, 1980–2005. European Union Politics7(2): 213–234.
68.
RogowskiJCSinclairB (2012) Estimating the causal effects of social interaction with endogenous networks. Political Analysis20(3): 316–328.
69.
Santella P, Drago C, Polo A and Gagliardi E (2009) A comparison of the director networks of the main listed companies in France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. MPRA Paper 16397, Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
70.
Schmidt VA (2008) Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326.
71.
SchulerDRehbeinK (1997) The filtering role of the firm in corporate political involvement. Business & Society36: 116–139.
72.
SpenceJ(1997) The European Union: A View from the Top, Waver, Belgium: EOS Gallup Europe.
73.
StiglerGJ (1971) The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science2(1): 3–21.
74.
StokmanFNZieglerRScottJ(1985) Networks of Corporate Power: A Comparative Analysis of Ten Countries, Cambridge: Polity Press.
75.
Taleb NN and Pilpel A (2004) On the unfortunate problem of the nonobservability of the probability distribution. Unpublished manuscript.
76.
TetlockPE(2005) Expert Political Judgment, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
77.
TomzMWittenbergJKingG (2003) CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Journal of Statistical Software8(1.
78.
UseemM(1984) The Inner Circle, New York: Oxford University Press.
79.
Van VeenKKratzerJ (2011) National and international interlocking directorates within Europe: Corporate networks within and among fifteen European countries. Economy and Society40(1): 1–25.
80.
VerdunA(2000) European Responses to Globalization and Financial Market Integration, London: Macmillan Press.
81.
Weingast BR and Wittman DA (2008) The reach of political economy. In: Weingast BR and Wittman DA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–25.
82.
WiltsA (2006) Identities and preferences in corporate political strategizing. Business & Society45(4): 441–463.
83.
WollC(2008) Firm Interests: How Governments Shape Business Lobbying on Global Trade, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
84.
WonkaABaumgartnerFRMahoneyCBerkhoutJ (2010) Measuring the size and scope of the EU interest group population. European Union Politics11(3): 463–476.
85.
YeoHJPochetCAlcouffeA (2003) CEO reciprocal interlocks in French corporations. Journal of Management and Governance7: 87–108.
86.
YoffieDBBergensteinS (1985) Creating political advantage: The rise of the corporate political entrepreneur. California Management Review28(1): 124–139.
87.
ZallerJ(1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88.
ZallerJ(2009) A political view of political ideology. In: KingGSchlozmanKLNieNH (eds) The Future of Political Science: 100 Perspectives, New York: Routledge, pp. 78–81.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
