We argue that because one of the key intentions of lobbying is to develop knowledge about the inner workings of the government, a crucial type of governmental interaction—government contracting—is associated with firms’ level of lobbying activity. We argue that firms’ contract scope (the number of governmental agencies in which they contract) is negatively related to firms’ lobbying activity because it provides firms with broader knowledge of the government. We further argue that the relationship between government contract scope and firms’ lobbying activity is moderated by the extent of government contract dispersion (distribution of contracts across government agencies), firms’ government contract dependence (proportion of firms’ revenue that is derived from the government), and firms’ industry contract scope (availability of new government agencies for contracting). We find support for most of our theoretical arguments in a sample of S&P 1500 firms for years 2008–2018.
AbdurakhmonovMRidgeJHillA (2021) Unpacking firm external dependence: How government contract dependence affects firm investments and market performance. Academy of Management Journal64(1): 327–350.
2.
AbdurakhmonovMRidgeJWHillAD, et al. (2022) Strategic risk and lobbying: Investigating lobbying breadth as risk management. Journal of Management48(5): 1103–1130.
3.
ACQUISITION.GOV (2022) Reports of Suspected Antitrust Violations.
4.
AdlerPSKwonS-W (2002) Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review27(1): 17–40.
5.
AgrawalAKnoeberCR (2001) Do some outside directors play a political role?The Journal of Law and Economics44(1): 179–198.
6.
AnandBNKhannaT (2000) Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal21(3): 295–315.
7.
ArgoteLBeckmanSLEppleD (1990) The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science36(2): 140–154.
8.
BarberBIVDiestreL (2019) Pushing for speed or scope? Pharmaceutical lobbying and Food and Drug Administration drug review. Strategic Management Journal40(8): 1194–1218.
9.
BarringerBRHarrisonJS (2000) Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management26(3): 367–403.
10.
BaucusMSBaucusDA (1997) Paying the piper: An empirical examination of longer-term financial consequences of illegal corporate behavior. Academy of Management Journal40(1): 129–151.
BaumgartnerFRBerryJMHojnackiM, et al. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
BerriosR (2006) Government contracts and contractor behavior. Journal of Business Ethics63(2): 119–130.
14.
BliesePDSchepkerDJEssmanSM, et al. (2020) Bridging methodological divides between macro- and microresearch: Endogeneity and methods for panel data. Journal of Management46(1): 70–99.
15.
BlumentrittTP (2003) Foreign subsidiaries’ government affairs activities: The influence of managers and resources. Business & Society42(2): 202–233.
16.
BonardiJ-P (2011) Corporate political resources and the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Organization9(3): 247–255.
17.
BonardiJ-PHolburnGVanden BerghR (2006) Nonmarket strategy performance: Evidence from U.S. Electric Utilities. Academy of Management Journal49: 1209–1228.
18.
BosBFaemsDNoseleitF (2017) Alliance concentration in multinational companies: Examining alliance portfolios, firm structure, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal38(11): 2298–2309.
19.
BurrisV (2001) The two faces of capital: Corporations and individual capitalists as political actors. American Sociological Review66(3): 361–381.
20.
CastrogiovanniGJ (1991) Environmental munificence; a theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review16(3): 542–565.
21.
Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) (2021) OpenSecrets.
22.
CertoSTWithersMCSemadeniM (2017) A tale of two effects: Using longitudinal data to compare within- and between-firm effects. Strategic Management Journal38(7): 1536–1556.
23.
ClawsonDNeustadtlAWellerM (1998) Dollars and Votes: How Business Campaign Contributions Subvert Democracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
24.
CohenJCohenPWestSG, et al. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
25.
CookAGlassC (2015) Do minority leaders affect corporate practice? Analyzing the effect of leadership composition on governance and product development. Strategic Organization13(2): 117–140.
26.
CoopeyJBurgoyneJ (2000) Politics and organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies37(6): 869–886.
27.
DekkerHCVan den AbbeeleA (2010) Organizational learning and interfirm control: The effects of partner search and prior exchange experiences. Organization Science21(6): 1233–1250.
DrutmanL (2010) CONGRESSIONAL FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM: The complexities of lobbying: Toward a deeper understanding of the profession. PS: Political Science & Politics43(4): 834–837.
30.
DrutmanL (2015) The Business of America Is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
DyerJHNobeokaK (2000) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal21(3): 345–367.
32.
EmersonRM (1962) Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review27(1): 31–41.
33.
FaccioM (2006) Politically connected firms. American Economic Review96(1): 369–386.
34.
FerrisSPHanousekJHoustonR (2021) Contractor default: Predictions, politics, and penalties in the procurement process. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics. Epub ahead of print16November. DOI: 10.1111/apce.12359.
35.
FichmanMLevinthalDA (1991) Honeymoons and the liability of adolescence: A new perspective on duration dependence in social and organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review16(2): 442–468.
36.
FiolCMLylesMA (1985) Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review10(4): 803–813.
37.
GodwinKAinsworthSHGodwinE (2013) Lobbying and Policymaking: The Public Pursuit of Private Interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
GoldmanERochollJSoJ (2013) Politically connected boards of directors and the allocation of procurement contracts. Review of Finance17(5): 1617–1648.
39.
GollIRasheedAMA (1997) Rational decision-making and firm performance: The moderating role of the environment. Strategic Management Journal18(7): 583–591.
40.
GollIRasheedAMA (2004) The moderating effect of environmental munificence and dynamism on the relationship between discretionary social responsibility and firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics49(1): 41–54.
GrantRM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(Suppl. 2): 109–122.
43.
GreeneWH (2000) Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
44.
HadaniM (2007) Family matters: Founding family firms and corporate political activity. Business & Society46(4): 395–428.
45.
HadaniMSchulerDA (2013) In search of El Dorado: The elusive financial returns on corporate political investments. Strategic Management Journal34(2): 165–181.
46.
HadaniMBonardiJ-PDahanNM (2017) Corporate political activity, public policy uncertainty, and firm outcomes: A meta-analysis. Strategic Organization15(3): 338–366.
47.
HadaniMDahanNMDohJP (2015) The CEO as chief political officer: Managerial discretion and corporate political activity. Journal of Business Research68(11): 2330–2337.
48.
HaleyUCVSchulerDA (2011) Government policy and firm strategy in the solar photovoltaic industry. California Management Review54(1): 17–38.
49.
HansenWLMitchellNJ (2000) Disaggregating and explaining corporate political activity: Domestic and foreign corporations in national politics. American Political Science Review94(4): 891–903.
50.
HartDM (2001) Why do some firms give? Why do some give a lot? High-tech PACs, 1977–1996. Journal of Politics63(4): 1230–1249.
51.
HeZ-LWongPK (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypo. Organization Science15: 481–494.
52.
HeimeriksKH (2010) Confident or competent? How to avoid superstitious learning in alliance portfolios. Long Range Planning43(1): 57–84.
53.
HeinzJPLaumannEONelsonRL, et al. (1993) The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
HillmanAJ (2003) Determinants of political strategies in U.S. multinationals. Business & Society42(4): 455–484.
56.
HillmanAJ (2005) Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line?Journal of Management31(3): 464–481.
57.
HillmanAJKeimGDSchulerD (2004) Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management30(6): 837–857.
58.
HillmanAJZardkoohiABiermanL (1999) Corporate political strategies and firm performance: Indications of firm-specific benefits from personal service in the U.S. government. Strategic Management Journal20(1): 67–81.
59.
HolmqvistM (2004) Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science15(1): 70–81.
60.
HuberGP (1991) Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science2(1): 88–115.
61.
KatilaRAhujaG (2002) Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. The Academy of Management Journal45(6): 1183–1194.
62.
KeatsBWHittMA (1988) A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal31(3): 570–598.
63.
KelmanS (2001) The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. In: SalamonL (ed.) Contracting. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.282–318.
64.
KershR (2000) State autonomy & civil society: The lobbyist connection. Critical Review14(2–3): 237–258.
65.
KhandwallaPN (1973) Effect of competition on the structure of top management control. The Academy of Management Journal16(2): 285–295.
66.
KhannaT (1998) The scope of alliances. Organization Science9(3): 340–355.
67.
LavieDRosenkopfL (2006) Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal49(4): 797–818.
68.
LavieDStettnerUTushmanML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals4(1): 109–155.
69.
LeiDHittMABettisR (1996) Dynamic core competences through meta-learning and strategic context. Journal of Management22(4): 549–569.
70.
LiMSimerlyRL (1998) The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the ownership and performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal19(2): 169–179.
71.
LordMD (2000) Corporate political strategy and legislative decision making: The impact of corporate legislative influence activities. Business & Society39(1): 76–93.
72.
LuechingerSMoserC (2014) The value of the revolving door: Political appointees and the stock market. Journal of Public Economics119: 93–107.
73.
LumineauFFréchetMPuthodD (2011) An organizational learning perspective on the contracting process. Strategic Organization9(1): 8–32.
74.
LuxSCrookTRWoehrDJ (2011) Mixing business with politics: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity. Journal of Management37(1): 223–247.
75.
MayerKJArgyresNS (2004) Learning to contract: Evidence from the personal computer industry. Organization Science15(4): 394–410.
76.
MillerDFriesenPH (1983) Strategy-making and environment: The third link. Strategic Management Journal4(3): 221–235.
77.
MilyoJDavidPGrosecloseT (2000) Corporate PAC campaign contributions in perspective. Business and Politics2(1): 1–15.
78.
NownesAJ (2006) Total Lobbying: What Lobbyists Want (And How They Try to Get It). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79.
OcasioW (1997) Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal18(Suppl. 1): 187–206.
80.
OliverC (1990) Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review15(2): 241–265.
81.
PalepuK (1985) Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measure. Strategic Management Journal6(3): 239–255.
82.
ParentRRoyMSt-JacquesD (2007) A systems-based dynamic knowledge transfer capacity model. Journal of Knowledge Management11(6): 81–93.
83.
RajagopalanNRasheedAMADattaDK (1993) Strategic decision processes: Critical review and future directions. Journal of Management19(2): 349–384.
84.
RandolphWADessGG (1984) The congruence perspective of organization design: A conceptual model and multivariate research approach. Academy of Management Review9(1): 114–127.
85.
RaudenbushSW (2009) Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects models. In: CooperHHedgesLVValentineJC (eds) The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2nd edn.New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 295–315.
86.
RidgeJWIngramAAbdurakhmonovM, et al. (2019) Market reactions to non-market strategy: Congressional testimony as an indicator of firm political influence. Strategic Management Journal40(10): 1644–1667.
87.
RidgeJWIngramAHillA (2017) Beyond lobbying expenditures: How lobbying breadth and political connectedness affect firm outcomes. Academy of Management Journal60: 1138–1163.
88.
RoomeNWijenF (2006) Stakeholder power and organizational learning in corporate environmental management. Organization Studies27(2): 235–263.
89.
RyallMDSampsonRC (2009) Formal contracts in the presence of relational enforcement mechanisms: Evidence from technology development projects. Management Science55(6): 906–925.
90.
SchlozmanKLTierneyJT (1986) Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
91.
SchulerDARehbeinKCramerRD (2002) Pursuing strategic advantage through political means: A multivariate approach. Academy of Management Journal45(4): 659–672.
92.
ShafferBQuasneyTJGrimmCM (2000) Firm level performance implications of nonmarket actions. Business & Society39(2): 126–143.
93.
ShepherdDAPatzeltHBaronRA (2013) “I care about nature, but. . .”: Disengaging values in assessing opportunities that cause harm. Academy of Management Journal56(5): 1251–1273.
94.
ShleiferADjankovSLopez-de-SilanesF, et al. (2010) Disclosure by politicians. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics2: 179–209.
95.
SlaterSFNarverJC (1995) Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing59(3): 63–74.
96.
SpenderJ-C (1989) Industry Recipes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
97.
TahounA (2014) The role of stock ownership by US members of Congress on the market for political favors. Journal of Financial Economics111(1): 86–110.
98.
ThaiKV (2001) Public procurement re-examined. Journal of Public Procurement1(1): 9–50.
99.
TyllströmA (2021) More than a revolving door: Corporate lobbying and the socialization of institutional carriers. Organization Studies42(4): 595–614.
100.
TzabbarDLeeJSeoD (2022) Collaborative structure and post-mobility knowledge spillovers: A dyadic approach. Strategic Management Journal43(9): 1728–1762.
101.
UhlenbruckKMeyerKEHittMA (2003) Organizational transformation in transition economies: Resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Journal of Management Studies40(2): 257–282.
102.
ValentiniGDi GuardoMC (2012) M&A and the profile of inventive activity. Strategic Organization10(4): 384–405.
103.
WeberLBaumanCW (2019) The cognitive and behavioral impact of promotion and prevention contracts on trust in repeated exchanges. Academy of Management Journal62(2): 361–382.
104.
WernerT (2017) Investor reaction to covert corporate political activity. Strategic Management Journal38(12): 2424–2443.
105.
WiersemaMFZhangY (2011) CEO dismissal: The role of investment analysts. Strategic Management Journal32(11): 1161–1182.
106.
WowakAJMannorMJWowakKD (2015) Throwing caution to the wind: The effect of CEO stock option pay on the incidence of product safety problems. Strategic Management Journal36(7): 1082–1092.
107.
WuFCavusgilST (2006) Organizational learning, commitment, and joint value creation in interfirm relationships. Journal of Business Research59(1): 81–89.
108.
YuFF (2008) Analyst coverage and earnings management. Journal of Financial Economics88(2): 245–271.
