Slides
description
Transcript of Slides
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 1
Session 10 – Strategies in Regulatory Arenas
SEEK-441 Strategic Management in Non-Market Environments
Daniel Diermeier
IBM Distinguished Professor of Regulation and Competitive Practice
Director of Center for Business, Government, and Society
Kellogg School of Management (MEDS)
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 2
Perceptions about lobbying
Power over actions: persuasion/threats, coercion, cutting deals in smoke-filled rooms -- seldom
Influence over beliefs: strategic provision of politically-relevant information to and from political and public officeholders -- the principal form of lobbying
Politically-relevant information pertains to the interests of officeholders; e.g., constituents and policy interests; rent chain; emphasize jobs--not profits
Strategic in the sense of providing your side of the issue and counteracting the other side’s messages
Strategic in the sense of targeting (whom to lobby) and timing (when to lobby them)
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 3
Levels of Lobbying
Business
CEO
Member/Officeholder
Government
“Restrictions on junk bond financing will cost jobs.”
Interact withthe member and her staff atmultiple levels
Staff
Managers
technical information
political informationcommitteepersonal--administrative assistant--legislative director--legislative assistant--legislative correspondent
Linton senatormessages
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 4
Lobbying – Key Steps
Step 1. Identify the information that stakeholders possess that is decision-relevant for legislators.
Step 2. Determine how to transmit that information to legislators credibly.
Step 3. Get access to pivotal legislators and proposers.
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 5
contact--But why should I act?
Types of lobbying
QualityType of
information Remark
Irresponsible false Not only morally but alsostrategically objectionable
Superfluous true but known Politicians are busy and do not liketheir time wasted.
Good true and unknown A necessary but not sufficientcondition for a successful lobbying
Excellent true, unknown, andimportant to thepolitician’s goals
Sufficient for a contact, plus goodprospects for influence; a vote or,better yet, an ally
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 6
What Makes Information Credible?
1. Record of being truthful and accurate--reputation
2. Relationships of trust
3. Data and analysis
4. Corroboration of position and analysis by others with different interests
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 7
Principles of lobbying
Know the institutional arena--where decisions are made Know its officeholders' interests and incentives; risk averse and
don’t like uncertainty; e.g., about whether constituents will benefit or be hurt and complain or take action;
Respect the officeholder and her staff--most are smart, all are savvy
Don't just talk - Listen to officeholder and her staff for their interests and concerns strategic advice--about process, about likely votes
Explore and exploit coalition building opportunities; e.g.Calgene include sunflower growers (chapter 8) Microsoft included Excite@Home and Icast.com as part of coalition
to lobby FCC to open up AOL’s instant messenger service.
Establish (access), maintain, and use continuing relations use allies that have access: e.g. TribalVoice and the FCC.
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 8
The Interest Group-Matrix
Identifies strategy templates
Tool is best used in conjunction with Distributive Politics Spreadsheet
Depending on an issue’s location in the matrix different approaches are appropriate
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 9
Interest Group Matrix
Opponents of Policy/Law
Proponents of Policy/Law
Organized Not Organized
Org
aniz
edN
ot O
rgan
ized
Interest grouppolitics
Entrepreneurialpolitics
?Client politics
environmental protection
trade liberalization
tax breaks
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 10
Probability of Passing Bill
Entr. Politics
Interest Group Politics
Client Politics
Opponents of Policy/Law
Proponents of Policy/Law
Organized Not Organized
Organized
Not Organized ?
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 11
Opponent Strategy
Organized Not OrganizedO
rgan
ized
Not
Org
aniz
ed
Interest grouppolitics
Entrepreneurialpolitics
?Client politics
Opponents of Policy/Law
Proponents of Policy/Law
environmental protection
trade liberalization
tax breaks
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 12
Proponent Strategy
Organized Not OrganizedO
rgan
ized
Not
Org
aniz
ed
Interest grouppolitics
Entrepreneurialpolitics
?Client politics
Opponents of Policy/Law
Proponents of Policy/Law
environmental protection
trade liberalization
tax breaks
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 13
Client Politics - Overview
Proponents are organized - opponents are not Since opponents are not organized, proponents should win if
their supporters are organized, politically motivated and willing to take action
But:
1. Counteractive strategies are available e.g. information supplied by an opposing group may push
the issue towards interest group politics
2. General public distaste for client politics this may allow opposing interests to portray proponents as
“special interests”
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 14
Client Politics – Proponents
Proponent tactics usually include: Using a low profile strategy to avoid media or public
attention Providing the key decision makers with information
(credible) that points out the public benefits of a policy measure – decision makers may use this information to later justify their vote
Considering the merits of a piggy-back or legislative vehicle strategy such as omnibus bills, riders on appropriations, comprehensive reform measures (e.g. Luxury Tax)
Hurrying the matter to a resolution before media attention or opposition groups can organize
Anticipating opposition tactics (see next slide)
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 15
Client Politics - Opponents
Opponent tactics usually include:
Using a high profile strategy to expose proponents as political clients (a.k.a. “pigs feeding at the public trough”)
The Problem: incentives for collective action against proponents are low by definition and high-profile strategies are costly, so...
Leverage existing social, economic or political infrastructure to minimize organization costs and time
Search for a well-placed politician (e.g. Party Leader/Committee Chair) or political entrepreneur (i.e. Nader) to represent the otherwise inactive and dispersed cost-bearers
Create media interest in issue or the proponents tactics for special interest legislation
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 16
Interest Group Matrix
Opponents of Policy/Law
Proponents of Policy/Law
Organized Not OrganizedO
rgan
ized
Not
Org
aniz
ed
Interest grouppolitics
Entrepreneurialpolitics
?Client politics
environmental protection
trade liberalization
tax breaks
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 17
Entrepreneurial Politics
Entrepreneurial politics is the opposite of client politics and is one of the most difficult strategies
A political entrepreneur can be someone within the political system (e.g. Senator Kennedy of education) or outside of politics (e.g. Ralph Nader on consumer rights)
Additionally, you have to discern whether information exists that can credibly alter perceptions about costs and benefits so that the nature of politics can shift to interest group politics If so, an effective strategy may be possible but
has to be carefully implemented If not, more modest and realistic objectives must
be adopted to minimize losses (e.g. market entry)
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 18
Interest Group Matrix
Opponents of Policy/Law
Proponents of Policy/Law
Organized Not OrganizedO
rgan
ized
Not
Org
aniz
ed
Interest grouppolitics
Entrepreneurialpolitics
?Client politics
environmental protection
trade liberalization
tax breaks
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 19
Interest Group Politics - Overview
Interest group politics is typically highly visible (e.g. oil industry vs. environmentalists)
There may be disagreement within interest groups about the appropriate scope or resolution of the issue (e.g. obesity)
Business interests tend to have relatively high resources and low costs of organizing, and thus may help to represent unorganized interests (e.g. manufacturer organizing suppliers)
Key problem for businesses is translating money into votes!
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 20
Interest Group Politics
Some common tactics by Interest Group Proponents and Opponents:
Coalition-building with other Interest Groups is critical Pharmaceutical companies and patients
Pick an objective in order to build the strongest coalition Disney
Using your rent chain Luxury Tax
Adopting arguments that emphasize the interests of otherwise unrepresented interests / constituents
Drug-Reimports – Drug safety
Seeking diverse groups to coordinate / corroborate messages
internet gambling Scrubbers (see Baron book)
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 21
Interest Group Politics
Proponent Strategies Changing the status quo
is generally more difficult and requires persuasive arguments or evidence
Identify the broadest coalition by strategically defining coalition
Identify strengths and weaknesses of coalition
Opponent Strategies Focusing on doubt and risk
of new law or policy Use delay tactics to
postpone decision (e.g. “Big Five” tactic against SEC chairman’s reform to separate audit and consulting functions)
Identify strengths and weaknesses of coalition
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 22
Interests - Key Take-Aways
Constituency analysis helps predicting which interests will be active and their expected impact.
If more than one interest is active on a given issue, the distributive politics spreadsheet helps to estimate a group’s likely impact as well as coalitional alignments.
Coalitions are highly issue-specific. Which aspect of an issue is emphasized, will determine coalitional alignments.
The interest group matrix helps to identify broad strategy options for different interest group configurations.
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 23
04/10/23 Copyright 2009 D.Diermeier 24
The Solution!
Diebold’s Direct Electronic Voting Machines (DRE’s)
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 25
2002 Elections in Georgia
Senator Max Cleland (D) Governor Roy Barnes (D)
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 26
Update on Diebold
California issued a ban on one model of Diebold voting machine charging that Diebold provided false information and filed suit. Diebold settled the claim for $2.6 million and agreed to make some changes.
In 2005 Diebold’s stock is down 40%, despite 14% sales growth and 7% earnings growth in the past five years. The company experiences significant executive turnover; CEO O’Dell resigns in October 2005.
A Diebold press release cites a 2004 study by Caltech/MIT found that Diebold’s voting machines in Maryland had the lowest voter error rate in the nation.
Diebold rebrands voting division Premier Election Solutions in 2007 and sells Premier to market leader Election Systems & Software for a little over $5 Mil. Diebold takes an estimated pre-tax loss of $55 Mil.
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 27
Diebold Quote
“We probably underestimated the processes involved with purchasing decisions at the state level and the public scrutiny and polarization those decisions tend to create.” Michael Jacobsen, Diebold Spokesman. Financial Times, Jan 04, 2005.
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 28
Diebold in the News Media
Audience Interest
More coverage
3005articles
Rob-Georgia +Hacked Memos(Hint of scandal)
2002
Voting MachinesPre 2000 election
1156 articles
1999
2098articles
2001
Voting machines post 2000
2003 2004
Rob-Georgia +hacked memos+DMCA lawsuit+“deliver Ohio”(conflict of interest)
2463articles
10779articles
Threshold for Negative Adverse Business Effect has been reached
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 29
Bev Harris investigates
Bev Harris finds 40,000 GES files online and a directory named “rob-Georgia”. Puts these online.
A hacker gets access to DESI’s intranet in March 2003 and copies thousands of internal emails and memos written by employees.
A study by Avi Rubin at John’s Hopkins finds security flaws with Diebold’s software and systems.
Activist attention is an opportunity, if handled well…
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 30
Looking Back - Nonmarket Risks for Diebold
Politicians as Customers: Diebold’s customers are county and state election officials—responsive to voters and other elected officials.
Media. Typically voting technology is not of great interest to most people and therefore not a subject of extensive coverage.
The 2000 election changes that. Activists. Unlike ATM transactions, in every election
there is guaranteed to be a group of organized, committed, capable activists who care deeply about election results.
Public. In every election there is large group of people who are going to be extremely dubious about the legitimacy of the result:
the losers. Courts. Election outcomes, voting rules, redistricting etc
are often contested in the legal arena.
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 31
Key information
Stakeholders do not understand the intricacies of voting machines or their vulnerabilities.
Tradeoffs between open source software and proprietary software on dimensions.
Relative error rates of different types of machines (overvotes, undervotes, spoiled ballots etc).
Advantages of ballot layout on touchscreen and the ability to confirm vote choice.
Stakeholders do not understand the role and need for transparency e.g., the ability for the loser to have confidence that he really lost.
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 32
Regulation
Regulation is government intervention in the market place using commands, controls and incentives
Regulatory activity shapes the “rules of the game” in the market place
it can sustain competitive advantages (e.g. Disney) or erode them (e.g. Microsoft)
regulation can also affect entire industries (e.g. tobacco, fire-arms)
To successfully manage regulatory environments managers need to understand:
the motivations for government regulation the politics of regulatory implementation and change
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 33
How regulators think – Drug Approval
SocialCosts
0 Restrictions on Use
Side-effects(“Safety”)
TotalCosts
AB
social optimum
Illness(“Efficacy”)
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 34
Regulation Techniques
Technology-based prescribes specific technology e.g. seat belts, drug approval Problem: choosing efficient technology Case: Thalodomide
Incentive-based Tax incentives Entitlements (trading-based) Liability law Problem: choosing the right incentives Case: Westinghouse
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 35
Background: Celgene Corp. and Thalidomide
In 1957 the drug thalidomide was marketed as a sedative and prescribed for morning sickness
51 brand names in 46 countries (including Canada, UK, Germany) In 1962 the causal link between thalidomide and severe birth defects was
confirmed, and the drug removed from the market The drug had by then caused over 12,000 birth defects and an unknown
number of miscarriages worldwide The incident was a turning point for regulatory practice in the U.S. where the
FDA did not approve the use of the drug [only 17 incidences of thalodimide-induced birth defects in the U.S.]
New evidence showing that Thalidomide helps treat leprosy (over 30 yrs of supporting data), as well as promising results for the treatment of AIDS wasting syndrome, mouth ulcers, and graft vs. host disease (transplant patients), and solid myeloma cancers.
AIDS buyers’ clubs start importing from Brazil and Mexico What should Celgene do?
04/10/23 Copyright 2005 D.Diermeier 36
Celgene’s Marketing Options
Celgene has three options for a market strategy: “Focus on analogue”: Don’t take thalidomide to market; wait for
analogue to be developed How likely are they to come up with a suitable analogue? Will another company take thalidomide to market? What are the 1st- mover
advantages?
“Partnering”: Look for marketing partnership with big pharma Who would partner with Celgene on this product? How much value would Celgene have to surrender to the partner?
“Marketing Thalidomide”: Take it to market themselves Celgene currently has no marketing and sales infrastructure What marketing restrictions would be imposed for “off-label” prescription?
Do these matter?