Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:10:22.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wining and Dining Government Officials: What Drives Political Networking in Chinese Private Ventures?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2020

Jianjun Zhang ,
Pei Sun  and
Kunyuan Qiao Open the ORCID record for Kunyuan Qiao [Opens in a new window]
Jianjun Zhang*
Affiliation:
Peking University, China
Pei Sun
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, UK
Kunyuan Qiao
Affiliation:
Cornell University, USA
*
Corresponding author: Jianjun Zhang ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Managerial networking with political actors has long been recognized as a crucial co-option strategy to navigate the challenging institutional environment in emerging economies. However, we know much less about what drives the variation of political networking investment by private ventures. Drawing on resource dependence theory, we unpack the dyadic business-government relations and identify the key organizational and environmental factors that shape the power dependence relationships between private ventures and the government. By examining power imbalance and mutual dependence in this dyadic relationship and considering both the necessity and the capability of political networking, we develop hypotheses regarding the ways in which size-, connection-, and location-based dependencies affect firms’ political networking intensity. These hypotheses are tested through a unique survey of Chinese private ventures. Our study finds that political networking intensity (1) has an inverted U-shaped relationship with firm size, (2) is negatively associated with the presence of embedded political ties while positively associated with that of achieved political connections, and (3) is smaller when the focal firm is located in business development zones. This research bears rich implications for our understanding of corporate political activity in emerging economies from a resource dependence lens.

摘要

建立与维系密切的政商关系一直被认为是在新兴经济体中应对具有挑战性制度环境的重要战略。然而，既有研究并未深入探讨民营企业为何在投资政治联系的强度上会存在显著差异。基于资源依赖理论，我们把政商二元关系做了进一步分解，并从组织和环境两方面因素入手探究民营企业和政府的相互依存关系。具体而言，基于此二元关系中权力对比和相互依赖两个维度，考虑到企业建立、维系政治联系的必要性和能力，我们提出了基于企业规模、关系以及地区的资源依赖如何影响企业政治联系投资强度的研究假说。我们使用一个对中国民营企业调研的数据库对这些假说进行了检验，此调研数据中包含了企业针对政府官员和其他利益相关者的商业招待费比例的独特信息。我们的研究发现企业在政治联系上的投资强度（1）与企业规模呈现一个倒U型关系；（2）与企业的网络嵌入性政治联系负相关，但与企业后天获得的政治联系正相关；（3）在经济开发区中更低。本研究从资源依赖角度丰富了我们对于新兴经济体中企业政治战略的理解。

Аннотация

Управленческое взаимодействие с политическими деятелями уже давно признано важнейшей стратегией кооптации, которая позволяет ориентироваться в сложной институциональной среде в странах с развивающейся экономикой. Однако, гораздо меньше известно о том, что способствует разнообразию инвестиций в политические связи со стороны частных предприятий. Опираясь на теорию ресурсной зависимости, мы изучаем диадическую модель отношений между бизнесом и правительством, а также определяем ключевые организационные и внешние факторы, которые формируют отношения взаимосвязи между частными предприятиями и государством. Изучая дисбаланс сил и взаимозависимость в этих диадических отношениях, а также принимая во внимание как необходимость, так и возможности политических связей, мы разрабатываем гипотезы относительно того, каким образом факторы, основанные на размере, связях и местоположении, влияют на интенсивность развития политических отношений в компаниях. Эти гипотезы проверяются в уникальном исследовании китайских частных предприятий. Наше исследование показывает, что интенсивность политического взаимодействия (1) имеет перевернутую U-образную зависимость от размера компании, (2) обратно зависит от существующих политических связей, и при этом напрямую зависит от приобретенных политических связей, и (3) уменьшается в том случае, если компания расположена в зоне развития бизнеса. Это исследование имеет большое значение для понимания корпоративной политической активности в странах с развивающейся экономикой через призму теории ресурсной зависимости.

Resumen

El relacionamiento gerencial con actores políticos ha sido reconocido durante mucho tiempo como una estrategia de cooptación crucial para navegar en el ambiente institucional retados en economías emergentes. Sin embargo, sabemos mucho menos sobre qué impulsa la variación de las inversiones en relacionamiento político por parte de empresas privadas. Basándonos en la teoría de dependencia de recursos, desentrañamos las relaciones diádicas entre empresas y gobierno e identificamos factores organizacionales y ambientales clave que moldean las relaciones de dependencia al poder entre los factores ambientales privados y el gobierno. Al examinar el desequilibrio de poder y la dependencia mutua en esta relación diádica y considerando tanto la necesidad y la capacidad del relacionamiento político, desarrollamos hipótesis en relación a las maneras en las cuales el tamaño-, conexión-, y las dependencias basadas en ubicación afectan la intensidad del relacionamiento político de las empresas. Estas hipótesis son probadas mediante una encuesta única de empresas privadas chinas. Nuestro estudio encuentra que la intensidad del relacionamiento político (1) tiene una relación en forma de U invertida con el tamaño de la empresa, (2) está negativamente asociado con la presencia de lazos políticos arraigados, mientras que se asocia positivamente con las conexiones políticas logradas, y (3) es menor cuando la empresa focal está ubicada en zonas de desarrollo empresarial. Esta investigación trae repercusiones profundas para nuestro entendimiento de la actividad política corporativa en economías emergentes de una perspectiva de dependencia de recursos.

Keywords

Chinapolitical networkingprivate venturesresource dependence theory (RDT)企业政治联系资源依赖理论民营企业中国Китайполитические связичастные предприятиятеория ресурсной зависимости (RDT)Chinarelacionamiento políticoempresas privadasteoría de dependencia de recursos (RDT)
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 16 , Issue 5 , December 2020 , pp. 1084 - 1113
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Bilian Sullivan

References

REFERENCES

Ai, C., & Chen, X. 2013. Efficient estimation of models with conditional moment restrictions containing unknown functions. Econometrica, 71(6): 1795–1843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, H. E., & Auster, E. R. 1986. Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8: 165–198.Google Scholar
Armanios, D. E., Eesley, C. E., Li, J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2017. How entrepreneurs leverage institutional intermediaries in emerging economies to acquire public resources. Strategic Management Journal, 38(7): 1373–1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, H., Fang, H., & Xu, L. C. 2011. Eat, drink, firms, and governments: An investigation of corruption from entertainment expenditures in Chinese firms. Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1): 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. 2005. Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2): 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, J. 1994. Management in China during the age of reform. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Deng, Z., Yan, J., & Sun, P. 2020. Political status and tax haven investment of emerging market firms: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(3): 469-488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, B. J. 2003. Red capitalists in China: The party, private entrepreneurs, and prospects for political change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511510045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, J., Guariglia, A., & Newman, A. 2015. Do social capital building strategies influence the financing behavior of Chinese private small and medium-sized enterprises? Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 39(3): 601–631.Google Scholar
Fan, G., Wang, X., & Zhu, H. 2011. NERI index of marketization of China's provinces. Beijing, China: Economics Science Press.Google Scholar
Fernandez, J. A., & Underwood, L. 2006. China CEOs: Voices of experiences from 20 international business leaders. Singapore: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. 2007. Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer's performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 32–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haans, R. F., Pieters, C., & He, Z.-L. 2016. Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U- shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7): 1177–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haveman, H. A., Jia, N., Shi, J., & Wang, Y. 2017. The dynamics of political embeddedness in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1): 67–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilmann, S., Shih, L., & Hofem, A. 2013. National planning and local technology zones: Experimental governance in China's Torch Programme. The China Quarterly, 216(4): 896–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, A. J. 2005. Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line? Journal of Management, 31(3): 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. 2004. Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6): 837–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. 2009. Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6): 1404–1427.10.1177/0149206309343469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, R. H., Hillman, A. J., Zardkoohi, A., & Cannella, A. A. 2008. Former government officials as outside directors: The role of human and social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5): 999–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., & Zhang, Y. 2007. The role of managers’ political networking and functional experience in new venture performance: Evidence from China's transition economy. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8): 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., & Zhou, L.-A. 2005. Political turnover and economic performance: The incentive role of personnel control in China. Journal of Public Economics, 89(9): 1743–1762.10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.06.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. X., Yao, X., Sue-Chan, C., & Xi, Y. 2011. Where do social ties come from: Institutional framework and governmental tie distribution among Chinese managers. Management and Organization Review, 7(1): 97–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. 2010. With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1): 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, C., & Yang, B. 2014. Regional tax preference policies: from reform-stimulus to normalizing object (in Chinese). Financial Economics Review: 99–114.Google Scholar
Lux, S., Crook, T. R., & 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): 223–24710.1177/0149206310392233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, D., & Parish, W. L. 2006. Tocquevillian moments: Charitable contributions by Chinese private entrepreneurs. Social Forces, 85(2): 943–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2014. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25(1): 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qiao, K. 2020. Waking from Mao's dream: Communist ideological imprinting and the internationalization of entrepreneurial ventures in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, DOI: 10.1177/000183921879283710.1177/0001839218792837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, M.-H., & Werner, T. 2016. Blacklisted businesses: Social activists’ challenges and the disruption of corporate political activity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4): 584–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellahi, K., Frynas, J. G., Sun, P., & Siegel, D. 2016. A review of the nonmarket strategy literature: Toward a multi-theoretical integration. Journal of Management, 42(1): 143–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, E. 2007. Lawyers, political embeddedness, and institutional continuity in China's transition from socialism. American Journal of Sociology, 113(2): 352–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nee, V., & Opper, S. 2012. Capitalism from below: Markets and institutional change in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okhmatovskiy, I. 2010. Performance implications of ties to the government and SOEs: A political embeddedness perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6): 1020–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. M. 1996. Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rate. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6): 619–632.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, S. H., & Luo, Y. 2001. Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5): 455–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. 2000. Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 486–501.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978/2003. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ridge, J. W., Ingram, A., & Hill, A. D. 2017. Beyond lobbying expenditures: How lobbying breadth and political connectedness affect firm outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3): 1138–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rithmire, M. 2013. Land politics and local state capacities: The political economy of urban change in China. The China Quarterly, 216(4): 872–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1): 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, D. A., Shi, W., Hoskisson, R. E., & Chen, T. 2017. Windfalls of emperors' sojourns: Stock market reactions to Chinese firms hosting high ranking government officials. Strategic Management Journal, 38(8): 1668–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, H. 2018. Place-based policies, agglomeration economies, and upgrading of export development – Empirical studies based on development zones in China (in Chinese). PhD dissertation, Jinan University.Google Scholar
Sheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., & Li, J. J. 2011. The effects of business and political ties on firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Marketing, 75(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, W. S., Sun, S. L., & Peng, M. W. 2012. Sub-national institutional contingencies, network positions, and IJV partner selection. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7): 1221–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, P. 2019. Corporate political ties in emerging markets. In Grosse, R. & Meyer, K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of management in emerging markets: 291–308. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, P., Hu, H. W., & Hillman, A. J. 2016. The dark side of board political capital: Enabling blockholder rent appropriation. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5): 1801–1822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, P., Mellahi, K., & Thun, E. 2010a. The dynamic value of MNE political embeddedness: The case of the Chinese automobile industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7): 1161–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, P., Mellahi, K., & Wright, M. 2012a. The contingent value of corporate political ties. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(3): 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, P., Mellahi, K., Wright, M., & Xu, H. 2015. Political tie heterogeneity and the impact of adverse shocks on firm value. Journal of Management Studies, 52(8): 1036–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, P., Qu, Z., & Liao, Y. 2018. How and when do subnational institutions matter for R&D investment? Evidence from the Chinese pharmaceutical sector. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 65(3): 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, P., Wright, M., & Mellahi, K. 2010b. Is entrepreneur-politician alliance sustainable during transition? The case of management buyouts in China. Management and Organization Review, 6(1): 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, P., Zhang, J., & Mellahi, K. 2012b. Dining and drinking with government officials: Organizational and environmental determinants of political networking during transition. Paper presented at the Strategic Management Society 32nd Annual International Conference, Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Tsai, K. S. 2007. Capitalism without democracy: The private sector in contemporary China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, D., Du, F., & Marquis, C. 2019. Defending Mao's dream: Politicians’ ideological imprinting and firms' political appointment in China. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4): 1111–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wank, D. 1999. Commodifying communism: Business, trust, and politics in a Chinese city. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Werner, T. 2015. Gaining access by doing good: The effect of sociopolitical reputation on firm participation in public policymaking. Management Science, 61(8): 1989–2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank. 2011. Special economic zones: Progress, emerging challenges, and future directions. Washington, D. C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
Wry, T., Cobb, J. A., & Aldrich, H. E. 2013. More than a metaphor: Assessing the historical legacy of resource dependence and its contemporary promise as a theory of environmental complexity. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 441–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xin, K. K., & Pearce, J. L. 1996. Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6): 1641–1658.Google Scholar
Xu, C. 2011. The fundamental institutions of China's reforms and development. Journal of Economic Literature, 49(4): 1076–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, D., Zhou, K. Z., & Du, F. 2019. Deviant versus aspirational risk taking: The effects of performance feedback on bribery expenditure and R&D intensity. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4): 1226–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J. 2008. Marketization and democracy in China. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Marquis, C., & Qiao, K. 2016a. Do political connections buffer firms from or bind firms to the government? A study of corporate charitable donations of Chinese firms. Organization Science, 27(5): 1307–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H., & Sonobe, T. 2011. Development of science and technology parks in China, 1988–2008. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 5(6): 1–24.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Zhao, W., & Zhang, Y. 2016b. Institutional transformation and changing networking patterns in China. Management and Organization Review, 12(2): 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar