مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد مدیریت استراتژیک امور دولتی در بروکسل – Sage 2018

This article explores the strategic management of government affairs in companies active in the EU. The article relies on a unique large-N dataset on the functioning and staffing of EU government affairs. The analysis shows that companies delegate government affairs functions to in-house managers with specific competences, who stay in office for long periods and who have an extensive knowledge of the core competences of the company, thanks to their educational background and work experience in the private sector. These findings suggest that how companies strategically manage and staff government affairs in Brussels rests on the distinct structure of business–government relations in the EU, which are based on the exchange of technical information and the establishment of credibility and long-run trust arrangements.

The Rise of Professional Government Affairs

The 1970s witnessed an increase in CPA at the federal level in the United States, with several large American companies establishing a permanent presence in Washington. Previously, CPA was reactive and on an ad hoc basis (Yoffie & Bergenstein, 1985), and its main functions were carried out through personal contacts between businessmen and politicians (Martin, 1994; Vogel, 1978). The few offices or divisions established in Washington were primarily in charge of sales and marketing (Yoffie & Bergenstein, 1985). However, in the 1970s we saw a steady increase in legislative activity at federal level (Martin, 1994; Wilson, 1990) and a more active approach of Presidents in incentivizing business presence in Washington (Martin, 1994), coupled with a more partisan organization of the Congress and the rise of competing interests (Martin, 1994, 1995; Vogel, 1987, 1996a, 1996b). This led, between 1960 and 1980, to a fivefold increase in the number of companies politically active in the capital, as well as in the size of the staff representing these companies (Yoffie & Bergenstein, 1985). Hence, by 1990, most large American companies had established a permanent presence in the capital (Wilson, 1990). The increasing importance of individual action was coupled with the decreasing relevance of collective forms of action, such as membership of national business associations (Wilson, 1990) and, more importantly, with the development of in-house government affairs departments (Marcus & Kaufman, 1988; Martin, 1995; Post, Murray, Dickie, & Mahon, 1983; Wilson, 1990; Yoffie, 1984). In the 1980s, companies witnessed the creation of government affairs functions; separated from legal, public relations, finance, and risk departments; and delegated to professional managers (Marx, 1986; Yoffie & Bergenstein, 1985), in contrast to the activities of the 1960s (Cherington & Gillen, 1962; Miller & Johnson, 1970). As a result, the 1980s saw the emergence of a new professional way of organizing government affairs.