Abstract Situated within the public will and political will framework, this paper explores frames to address the social issue of gender pay inequity. Specifically, the authors examine whether demographic characteristics affect perceived acceptability of different frames describing gender pay inequity and perceptions of this social issue. First, the authors identified 26 terms used to discuss gender pay inequity; this list was narrowed to 12, representing four categories. Next, the authors solicited sentiment reactions to those frames and perceptions of gender pay inequity. Taken together, the results indicated that although respondents had consistently positive reactions to the frames fair pay, equal pay, and pay fairness, perceptions varied across demographic groups. The biggest effects were consistently for political party-related variables. One frame, strategic compensation practices, emerged as a value-neutral frame that could potentially be used to reframe the issue and re-engage business and political stakeholders who do not perceive gender pay inequity as problematic.
{"title":"Can We Talk About Pay Discrimination/Equal Pay/Strategic Compensation Practices? An Exploratory Study on Framing Gender Pay Inequity","authors":"Amber N. W. Raile, C. Austin, Virginia K. Bratton","doi":"10.1017/bap.2022.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.21","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Situated within the public will and political will framework, this paper explores frames to address the social issue of gender pay inequity. Specifically, the authors examine whether demographic characteristics affect perceived acceptability of different frames describing gender pay inequity and perceptions of this social issue. First, the authors identified 26 terms used to discuss gender pay inequity; this list was narrowed to 12, representing four categories. Next, the authors solicited sentiment reactions to those frames and perceptions of gender pay inequity. Taken together, the results indicated that although respondents had consistently positive reactions to the frames fair pay, equal pay, and pay fairness, perceptions varied across demographic groups. The biggest effects were consistently for political party-related variables. One frame, strategic compensation practices, emerged as a value-neutral frame that could potentially be used to reframe the issue and re-engage business and political stakeholders who do not perceive gender pay inequity as problematic.","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"518 1","pages":"17 - 33"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77153192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Laurel A. Steinfield, Girish Ramani, R. Hill, Rehana Paul
Abstract Legality of abortion has been one of the most controversial political initiatives in modern times, which also impacts the healthcare delivery system especially for women. The debate often devolves into disagreement on either access to services on demand from healthcare providers or service refusal regardless of the circumstances. However, the reality is different from this bipolar conversation. Instead, it varies depending upon location of the potential abortion recipient and a host of factors associated with nation-states. Thus, our purpose is to reveal different legislative protocols that lead to or inhibit availability of this aspect of women's reproductive rights, and to empirically determine what are the underlying series of factors that drive these policy decisions. Together they reveal a complex mosaic of fundamental principles that are rarely considered when formulating public policy. We hope our research across nations will help healthcare providers and policy makers recognize the genealogy of options and opportunities as they continue to debate abortion's provision to women within healthcare systems.
{"title":"An examination of legality of global abortion services and the genesis of public policy","authors":"Laurel A. Steinfield, Girish Ramani, R. Hill, Rehana Paul","doi":"10.1017/bap.2022.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.23","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Legality of abortion has been one of the most controversial political initiatives in modern times, which also impacts the healthcare delivery system especially for women. The debate often devolves into disagreement on either access to services on demand from healthcare providers or service refusal regardless of the circumstances. However, the reality is different from this bipolar conversation. Instead, it varies depending upon location of the potential abortion recipient and a host of factors associated with nation-states. Thus, our purpose is to reveal different legislative protocols that lead to or inhibit availability of this aspect of women's reproductive rights, and to empirically determine what are the underlying series of factors that drive these policy decisions. Together they reveal a complex mosaic of fundamental principles that are rarely considered when formulating public policy. We hope our research across nations will help healthcare providers and policy makers recognize the genealogy of options and opportunities as they continue to debate abortion's provision to women within healthcare systems.","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"43 1","pages":"34 - 52"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88955132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Adrià Albareda, Á. Saz-Carranza, Michiel Van Acoleyen, D. Coen
Abstract This article systematically examines how access of business groups and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to the executive branch of the European Union varies across political heads, civil servants, and an understudied yet critical intermediary figure of the executive branch: political advisers. Building upon exchange theory, we argue that the occurrence of a meeting between public officials and interest groups depends on information and legitimacy sought and offered by both types of actors, the public officials’ public exposure, and the interest groups’ lobbying strategies. The empirical analysis is focused on the executive body of the European Union (i.e., the European Commission). Our results show that, while political advisers and civil servants are more likely to meet with business groups than with NGOs, political heads are not biased in favor of any of these two groups.
{"title":"Lobbying the executive branch: Unpacking access to political heads, political advisers, and civil servants","authors":"Adrià Albareda, Á. Saz-Carranza, Michiel Van Acoleyen, D. Coen","doi":"10.1017/bap.2022.22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.22","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article systematically examines how access of business groups and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to the executive branch of the European Union varies across political heads, civil servants, and an understudied yet critical intermediary figure of the executive branch: political advisers. Building upon exchange theory, we argue that the occurrence of a meeting between public officials and interest groups depends on information and legitimacy sought and offered by both types of actors, the public officials’ public exposure, and the interest groups’ lobbying strategies. The empirical analysis is focused on the executive body of the European Union (i.e., the European Commission). Our results show that, while political advisers and civil servants are more likely to meet with business groups than with NGOs, political heads are not biased in favor of any of these two groups.","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"1 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78842800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"BAP volume 24 issue 4 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/bap.2022.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.20","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"1 1","pages":"f1 - f2"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88471455","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The United States and China have been embroiled in what Beijing has called the “biggest trade war in economic history” since early 2018, when Washington imposed punitive tariffs on Chinese products to challenge perceived unfair Chinese practices, prompting Beijing to retaliate with its own tariffs on US exports to China. The trade war was not an independent event, but part of a broader effort initiated by the Trump administration to confront serious challenges from China in not only the economic but also the political and security realms. The trade war has had a tremendous impact on global economic activities and geopolitical relations. Although the two sides reached a partial truce in January 2020 with the signing of the Phase One trade agreement, the conflict is far from over. The enormous political and economic differences between the two countries have impacted and will likely continue to impact how the trade war will play out in the future. This special issue explores the politics of the US–China trade war, focusing on economic statecraft, the role of multinational corporations in the dispute, and public opinion toward the trade war. The introduction to the special issue first provides an overview of the origins of the US–China trade war and surveys existing literature on this topic. It then proceeds to highlight the key themes and contributions of the issue and concludes by identifying questions for future research.
{"title":"The US–China Trade War: Economic Statecraft, Multinational Corporations, and Public Opinion","authors":"Shiping Hua, K. Zeng","doi":"10.1017/bap.2022.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.18","url":null,"abstract":"The United States and China have been embroiled in what Beijing has called the “biggest trade war in economic history” since early 2018, when Washington imposed punitive tariffs on Chinese products to challenge perceived unfair Chinese practices, prompting Beijing to retaliate with its own tariffs on US exports to China. The trade war was not an independent event, but part of a broader effort initiated by the Trump administration to confront serious challenges from China in not only the economic but also the political and security realms. The trade war has had a tremendous impact on global economic activities and geopolitical relations. Although the two sides reached a partial truce in January 2020 with the signing of the Phase One trade agreement, the conflict is far from over. The enormous political and economic differences between the two countries have impacted and will likely continue to impact how the trade war will play out in the future. This special issue explores the politics of the US–China trade war, focusing on economic statecraft, the role of multinational corporations in the dispute, and public opinion toward the trade war. The introduction to the special issue first provides an overview of the origins of the US–China trade war and surveys existing literature on this topic. It then proceeds to highlight the key themes and contributions of the issue and concludes by identifying questions for future research.","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"27 1","pages":"319 - 331"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86656586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article examines the responses of the US Chamber of Commerce and state- and local-level chambers of commerce to Black Lives Matter (BLM). The US Chamber of Commerce's Equality of Opportunity Initiative stresses the business case for racial equity and the economic benefits that can be attained by overcoming race-related inequalities. Many chambers are adopting racially progressive positions, often at some cost to themselves. This article contributes a typology of stances and actions and draws on interviews with American business leaders to characterize American business organization responses to BLM. There is some movement beyond a progressive neoliberal vision of nondiscrimination to acknowledge that it is necessary to “level the playing field.” And the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives of state- and regional-level chambers suggest that they are making genuine and, in some cases, bold and meaningful attempts to advance the cause of racial equity. The evidence suggests that popular mobilization and social pressure following George Floyd's brutal murder played a critical role in enabling this progress. However, the parallels and similarities between current chamber and business DEI efforts and business stances in the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s raise the question: Can current efforts succeed where previous efforts have failed?
{"title":"The US chamber and chambers of commerce respond to Black Lives Matter: Cheap talk, progressive neoliberalism, or transformative change?","authors":"Daniel Kinderman","doi":"10.1017/bap.2022.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.17","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the responses of the US Chamber of Commerce and state- and local-level chambers of commerce to Black Lives Matter (BLM). The US Chamber of Commerce's Equality of Opportunity Initiative stresses the business case for racial equity and the economic benefits that can be attained by overcoming race-related inequalities. Many chambers are adopting racially progressive positions, often at some cost to themselves. This article contributes a typology of stances and actions and draws on interviews with American business leaders to characterize American business organization responses to BLM. There is some movement beyond a progressive neoliberal vision of nondiscrimination to acknowledge that it is necessary to “level the playing field.” And the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives of state- and regional-level chambers suggest that they are making genuine and, in some cases, bold and meaningful attempts to advance the cause of racial equity. The evidence suggests that popular mobilization and social pressure following George Floyd's brutal murder played a critical role in enabling this progress. However, the parallels and similarities between current chamber and business DEI efforts and business stances in the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s raise the question: Can current efforts succeed where previous efforts have failed?","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"48 1","pages":"491 - 516"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86383322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The ongoing trade war between the United States and China represents one of the most severe deteriorations of trade cooperation in modern times. In this context, the ferocious trade rhetoric accusing China of breaking promises in trade policy is striking. A previously unexamined question in this context arises: How does this rhetoric shape individual attitudes toward bilateral trade cooperation? My analysis of original survey experiments from the United States and China (n = 4181) suggests that this type of rhetoric has important ramifications. Experimental evidence from both countries suggests that individuals react more strongly to rhetoric emphasizing negative than positive past behaviour of the trading partner. Overall, this pattern prevails independently of the identity of the trading partner. Promise-breaking trade narratives, a key contextual dimension of the US-China trade war, diminish the perceived level of trustworthiness of the other country. A conjoint analysis suggests that individuals’ trade cooperation attitudes are also shaped by rhetoric targeting issue areas beyond trade, such as military affairs and human rights. These findings highlight the importance of contextual factors accompanying the US-China trade war context. Thereby, this article emphasizes the potential for political elites to effectively leverage fundamental individual fairness principles for invigorating opposition to open trading relations.
{"title":"How promise breaking in trade rhetoric shapes attitudes toward bilateral US-China trade cooperation","authors":"Tanja Schweinberger","doi":"10.1017/bap.2022.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.16","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The ongoing trade war between the United States and China represents one of the most severe deteriorations of trade cooperation in modern times. In this context, the ferocious trade rhetoric accusing China of breaking promises in trade policy is striking. A previously unexamined question in this context arises: How does this rhetoric shape individual attitudes toward bilateral trade cooperation? My analysis of original survey experiments from the United States and China (n = 4181) suggests that this type of rhetoric has important ramifications. Experimental evidence from both countries suggests that individuals react more strongly to rhetoric emphasizing negative than positive past behaviour of the trading partner. Overall, this pattern prevails independently of the identity of the trading partner. Promise-breaking trade narratives, a key contextual dimension of the US-China trade war, diminish the perceived level of trustworthiness of the other country. A conjoint analysis suggests that individuals’ trade cooperation attitudes are also shaped by rhetoric targeting issue areas beyond trade, such as military affairs and human rights. These findings highlight the importance of contextual factors accompanying the US-China trade war context. Thereby, this article emphasizes the potential for political elites to effectively leverage fundamental individual fairness principles for invigorating opposition to open trading relations.","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"32 1","pages":"463 - 490"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85136799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article develops a conceptual framework for explaining variation in the United States’ economic statecraft in the Cold War and the present day, focusing on how US officials perceived the type of geoeconomic capability that its rivals possessed and the type of national security challenge that they posed. This framework specifies four ideal-type strategies on the part of the United States: economic containment, national economic competition, technological containment, and national technological competition. Analyses of U.S. strategy toward the Soviet Union, China, and Japan support the theory. These ideal types explain why, in the rivalry with Japan in the 1980s, the United States openly engaged in competition but did not adopt containment, relying on Voluntary Export Restraints, currency devaluation agreements, and bilateral semiconductor agreements rather than placing Japan on something historically analogous to the Commerce Department's contemporary Entity List or targeting Japan with comprehensive export controls through an institution like CoCom. These ideal types (and the theory behind them) also explain why the United States has implemented containment measures against specific Chinese companies but has not pursued a systematic “decoupling” of the US and Chinese economies.
{"title":"US economic statecraft and great power competition","authors":"James Lee, Richard A. Maher","doi":"10.1017/bap.2022.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.19","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article develops a conceptual framework for explaining variation in the United States’ economic statecraft in the Cold War and the present day, focusing on how US officials perceived the type of geoeconomic capability that its rivals possessed and the type of national security challenge that they posed. This framework specifies four ideal-type strategies on the part of the United States: economic containment, national economic competition, technological containment, and national technological competition. Analyses of U.S. strategy toward the Soviet Union, China, and Japan support the theory. These ideal types explain why, in the rivalry with Japan in the 1980s, the United States openly engaged in competition but did not adopt containment, relying on Voluntary Export Restraints, currency devaluation agreements, and bilateral semiconductor agreements rather than placing Japan on something historically analogous to the Commerce Department's contemporary Entity List or targeting Japan with comprehensive export controls through an institution like CoCom. These ideal types (and the theory behind them) also explain why the United States has implemented containment measures against specific Chinese companies but has not pursued a systematic “decoupling” of the US and Chinese economies.","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"118 1","pages":"332 - 347"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86201112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Firms that offshore final production should oppose trade barriers “protecting” their own industry. This pits them against onshore firms, especially when comparative disadvantage is most pronounced, and so fundamentally alters trade policy coalitions. The US-China trade war's exclusion process, where US firms could request that tariffs not be applied to a product, provides a golden opportunity to test this contention. We show that coverage by a tariff in the trade war and firm characteristics associated with offshoring—size, multinationality, and heavy imports from China—interacted to generate firm requests for exclusion from the trade war's tariffs. This finding is robust to input-sourcing and fears of export retaliation as alternative explanations, and across multiple measures of firm size, tariff coverage, and exclusion requests. We therefore test a key piece of the firm-centered model of trade politics and show its value in interpreting the US-China trade war.
{"title":"Protection forestall: Offshore firms against tariffs in their own industry","authors":"Jieun Lee, Iain Osgood","doi":"10.1017/bap.2022.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.15","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Firms that offshore final production should oppose trade barriers “protecting” their own industry. This pits them against onshore firms, especially when comparative disadvantage is most pronounced, and so fundamentally alters trade policy coalitions. The US-China trade war's exclusion process, where US firms could request that tariffs not be applied to a product, provides a golden opportunity to test this contention. We show that coverage by a tariff in the trade war and firm characteristics associated with offshoring—size, multinationality, and heavy imports from China—interacted to generate firm requests for exclusion from the trade war's tariffs. This finding is robust to input-sourcing and fears of export retaliation as alternative explanations, and across multiple measures of firm size, tariff coverage, and exclusion requests. We therefore test a key piece of the firm-centered model of trade politics and show its value in interpreting the US-China trade war.","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"32 1","pages":"377 - 398"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88869744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"BAP volume 24 issue 3 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/bap.2022.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"6 1","pages":"f1 - f2"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73442700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：