ThompsonJames D., Organizations in Action (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
2.
ChildJohn, “Organization, Structure, Environment and Performance—The Role of Strategic Choice,”Sociology, 6(1972): 1–27; EmeryF.E.TristE.L., “The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments,”Human Relations, 18(1965): 21–32; KatzDanielKahnRobert L., The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York, NY: John Wiley, 1966); PfefferJeffreySalancikGerald R., The External Control of Organizations (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1978).
3.
LipsetSeymour M.SchneiderWilliam, The Evaluation of Basic American Institutions with Special Reference to Business as cited by EellsRichard, The Political Crisis of the Enterprise System (New York, NY: MacMillan, 1980).
4.
WeidenbaumMurray, Business, Government, and the Public, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981).
5.
AnsoffH. Igor, “The Changing Shape of the Strategic Problem,” in SchendelDan E.HoferCharles W., eds., Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1979), pp. 30–44; BrownJames K., Guidelines for Managing Corporate Issues Programs, Research Report No. 795 (New York, NY: The Conference Board, 1981); McGrathPhyllis S., Redefining Corporate-Federal Relations, Research Report No. 757 (New York, NY: The Conference Board, 1979); StokesMcNeill, Conquering Government Regulations (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1982).
6.
Chadwick-BrownDavid, “Litigation as Private Formulation of Public Policy,”Journal of Contemporary Business, 10(1981): 119–127; MilesRobert H., Coffin Nails and Corporate Strategies (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982); PfefferSalancik, op. cit.
7.
MitnickBarry M., “Myths of Creation and Fables of Administration: Explanation and the Strategic Use of Regulation,”Public Administration Review, 40(1980): 275–286; MitnickBarry M., The Political Economy of Regulation (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1980a).
8.
GoldbergVictor P., “Institutional Change and the Quasi-Invisible Hand,”Journal of Law and Economics, 7(1974): 461.
9.
BirnbaumPhilip H.OttensmeyerEdward J., “Organizational Responses to Regulation: A Comparison of High Technology Industrial and Research University Response,” paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Management, New York, NY, 1982; HayesMichael T., “The Semi-Sovereign Pressure Groups: A Critique of Current Theory and an Alternative Typology,”The Journal of Politics, 40(1978): 131–161; JenningsMarianne M.ShipperFrank, “Strategic Management for Managerial-Political Interaction,”Business Horizons, 24(1981): 14–51; WilsonJames Q., “The Politics of Regulation,” in WilsonJames Q., ed., The Politics of Regulation (New York, NY: Basic Books), pp. 357–394.
10.
AckermanRobertBauerRaymond, Corporate Social Responsiveness: The Modern Dilemma (Reston, VA: Reston Publ., 1976); PostJames E., Corporate Behavior and Social Change (Reston, VA: Reston Publ., 1978).
11.
Post, op. cit., suggests four phases in the life cycle of a public issue (gestation phase, political phase, legislative phase, litigation phase) coupled with a three-staged corporate response process (awareness, commitment to action, selection and implementation of response); Sethi proposes a conceptual framework in which corporate political response patterns are related to four stages of a social issue's conflict evolution, SethiS. Prakash, “A Conceptual Framework for Environmental Analysis of Social Issues and Evaluation of Business Response Patterns,”The Academy of Management Review, 4 (1979): 63–74; MacMillan distinguishes four phases of regulation without elaborating upon their impact on the firm's political strategies, MacMillanIan C., “Dealing with Government Regulations,”Journal of Business Strategy, 1(1980): 74–77; Brown, op. cit., cites several corporations which use the life cycle in their issues programs; Renfro gives a detailed description of what he calls the “life cycle of issues,” RenfroWilliam L., “Managing the Issues of the 1980s,”The Futurist, 16/4 (1982):61–66.
12.
BernsteinMarver H., Regulating Business by Independent Commission (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955; DownsAnthony, Inside Bureaucracy (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1967); FarrisMartin T.SampsonRay J., Public Utilities: Regulation, Management and Ownership (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1973); SheperdWilliam G., The Treatment of Market Power: Antitrust, Regulation, and Public Enterprise (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1975); for a review, see Mitnick (1980a), op. cit.
13.
Miles, op. cit.
14.
OlsonMancurJr., The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965); Mitnick (1980), op. cit.
15.
The collective good properties of political goods must be separated from the market structure which determines the number of firms profiting from the policy output. In highly concentrated or fragmented markets, it can occur that only a few or, as an extreme case, only one firm is in a position to reap the benefits.
16.
KrupnickAlan J.MagatWesley A.HarringtonWinston, “Revealed Rules for Regulatory Decisions: An Empirical Analysis of EPA Rulemaking Behavior,” in DowningPaul B.HanfKenneth, eds., International Comparisons in Implementing Pollution Laws (Boston, MA: Kluver-Nijhoff, 1983), pp. 63–84; LeoneRobertJacksonJohn, “The Political Economy of Federal Regulatory Activity: The Case of Water Pollution Controls,” in FrommGary, ed., Studies in Public Regulation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981), pp. 231–271.
17.
SchnappJohn B., Corporate Strategy of Automobile Manufacturers (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1979), p. 129.
18.
McCaffreyDavid P., “Corporate Resources and Regulatory Pressures: Toward Exploring a Discrepancy,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1982): 398–419; MaitlandIan, “Business Divided Against Itself,” paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Management, New York, NY, 1982.
19.
MarcusAlfred A., The Adversary Economy (Westport, CO: Quorum Books, 1984), p. 158.
20.
Regarding the strategic use of litigation and of the courts, see Chadwick-Brown, op. cit; McCaffrey, op. cit.; and Stokes, op. cit.
21.
MitnickBarry M., “The Strategic Uses of Regulation—and Deregulation,”Business Horizons, 24/2(1981): 71–83; ReichRobert B., “Regulation by Confrontation or Negotiation?”Harvard Business Review (May/June 1981), pp. 82–93.
22.
SethiS. Prakash, “Corporate Political Activism,”California Management Review, 24/3 (1982): 32–42; ZeithamlCarl P.KeimGerald D., “The Political Environment of Business and Strategic Management,” paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Management, San Diego, CA, 1981.
23.
Marcus, op. cit.
24.
DeweesDonald N., “Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy,”Economic Inquiry, 21(1983): 53–71.
AckermannBruce A.HasslerWilliam T., Clean Coal/Dirty Air (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981).
28.
Gesetz zum Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Luftverunreinigungen, Geräusche, Erschütterungen und åhnliche Vorgänge vom 15. März 1974 i.d.F. vom 22. April 1977 (BGB1. I, p. 667); Gesetz fiber Abgaben für das Einleiten von Abwasser in Gewässer vom 13. September 1976 (BGB1. I, p. 2721 and 3007).
29.
Das Umweltprogramm der Bundesregierung (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1972).
30.
StitzelMichael, Unternehmerverhalten und Gesellschaftspolitik (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1977).
31.
Erste allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zum Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz (Technische Anleitung zur Reinhaltung der Luft) vom 28. August 1974 i.d.F. vom 18. Oktober 1974 (GMBl., p. 525).
32.
HarmingAugust, Umweltschutz und überbetriebliche technische Normung (Cologne: Heymann, 1976).
33.
HuckeJochen, “Bargaining in Regulative Policy Implementation: The Case of Air and Water Pollution Control,”Environmental Policy and Law, 4(1978): 109–115; UllmannArieh A., “Enforcing Environmental Policies in West Germany,”Northeast Regional Science Review, 12(1982): 13–43.
34.
QuirkPaul J., Industry Influence in Federal Regulatory Agency (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981).
35.
Gesetz zur Ordnung des Wasserhaushalts vom 27. Juli 1957 i.d.F. der Bek. vom 14. Dezember 1976 (BGB1. I, p. 3341).
36.
RinckeGünther, Gutachten über einzel- und gesamtwirtschaftliche Auswirkungen des geplanten Abwasserabgabengesetzes auf Papier- und Zellstoffindustrie (Darmstadt: mimeo, 1975).
37.
HansmeyerKarl-Heinrich, “Die Abwasserabgabe als Versuch einer Anwendung des Verursacherprinzips,”Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, 91 (1976): 65–97.
38.
Marcus, op. cit.
39.
Hansmeyer, op. cit.
40.
UllmannArieh A., Industrie und Umweltschutz (Frankfurt/M: Campus, 1982).
41.
HopkinsonRichard A., Corporate Organization for Pollution Control, Research Report No. 507 (New York, NY: The Conference Board, 1970).