Journal of Public Affairs J. Public Affairs (2010) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.

369

The evolving discipline of public affairs

Conor McGrath 1*, y, Danny Moss 2z and Phil Harris 2x
1 2

Dublin, Republic of Ireland University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom

Approaching the tenth anniversary of this Journal of Public Affairs, as the editorial team we offer this extended literature review as our reection on the evolution and development of public affairs, both as an academic discipline and a professional practice. It is a necessarily personal and subjective contribution, highlighting the issues and areas which we believe represent signicant continuing debates. The article considers how public affairs is, and should be, dened; examines the range of activities which theorists and practitioners understand as falling within the scope of corporate public affairs; analyses the relationship between public affairs and corporate political activity as different though complementary elds; discusses the importance of the public issues life cycle and the issues management models; and calls upon the public affairs community to defend the position of public affairs as the fundamental bridge between the organisation, society and government, in the face of challenges from other organisational functions. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction
The rst issue of the Journal of Public Affairs appeared in January 2001. To mark the journals tenth anniversary, in this article we offer an extended literature review which is intended to provide an insight into how thinking about public affairs has matured and developed, both as an academic discipline and a professional practice. In that rst issue of
*Correspondence to: Conor McGrath, 10 Newbridge Avenue, Sandymount, Dublin 4, Republic of Ireland. E-mail: conor.p.mcgrath@gmail.com y Independent Scholar. z Professor of Corporate and Public Affairs. x Westminster Chair of Marketing and Public Affairs.

the Journal of Public Affairs in 2001, the inaugural editorial opened with the comment that: The past decade has been a period during which the public affairs function can be said to have come of age on the UK and European corporate stage (Harris and Moss, 2001a, p. 6). This tenth anniversary milestone seems to us to be an appropriate point at which to consider how far public affairs is being consolidated around the world, both within and beyond the corporate environment. A special issue of the journal will appear in 2011, which will offer a diverse range of contributions reviewing the development of public affairs. We seek here to capture some of the main ideas and lines of thinking about public affairs as both a
Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

Copyright

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Conor McGrath et al.

disciplinary area of study, as well as an increasingly recognized form of professional practice both within the corporate as well as not for prot and voluntary sectors. In this sense, we see this essay as a form of precursor to the forthcoming anniversary special issue of the Journal of Public Affairs, which we hope will stimulate further reection and thought about public affairs as well as wetting readers appetite for the forthcoming special issue. As such, we would particularly welcome comments and reections from other colleagues, particularly those which consciously contribute to the building up of an explicitly European perspective on public affairs. It is perhaps important to be clear from the outset about the almost inevitable limitations of this or most literature reviews. First, the vast majority of the literature in the public affairs domain comes from Western sources (specically, predominantly US sources), and hence there is as yet no comprehensive cross-cultural and genuinely global perspective of public affairs practice (Meznar, 2002; Harris and Fleisher, 2005). Nevertheless, the increasing international range of academic and professional contributions to the literature suggests a growing possibility of challenges to what has been thus far an almost exclusively Anglo-Saxon view of public affairs. What is needed now is for academic research to catch up with the startling growth in public affairs practice in many regions and nations, which we may be aware of anecdotally but which scholarly work is often slow to capture adequately. Secondly, as Windsor (2005, p. 401) notes: There is no grand theory of public affairs no integrative or overarching framework, but he does also go on to draw attention to the various theoretical debates which surround this area and which can inform academic thinking on public affairs an argument that is also supported by Getz (2002) and Grifn (2005). In Schulers (2002) view, this lack of a single central theory makes it problematic for researchers to extend knowledge, while others suggest that a grand theory is unachievable and even if it could be achieved, it would be undesirable (Hillman, 2002). There is a large
Copyright
#

volume of academic literature around various aspects of public affairs, but this has tended to emerge in a piecemeal fashion rather than as part of a concerted effort to build a unied body of knowledge. These two considerations alone might be capable of generating sufcient thought and work to ll the pages of this journal for the next decade.

Dening public affairs

Public affairs, like so many other functional and professional elds, has witnessed a growing interest in attempts to dene what might constitute best practice. Here attempts to dene best practice face something of a fundamental conundrum in that there is no universal academic consensus about what is meant by the term public affairs (Fleisher and Blair, 1999). Unsurprisingly, this has the effect of producing often quite tortuous and circular scholarly debate. Moreover, this lack of scholarly consensus is arguably mirrored in the diverse approaches which organizations appear to take to the organization and practice of public affairs. There is also the difculty that public affairs tends to be used differently across cultures. Public affairs may be nothing more than a euphemism for lobbying; it may refer to the nexus of politics, management and communication whereby an organization seeks to deal with external public policy challenges; it can suggest a broader engagement with issue management across the range of corporate stakeholders; or it is (particularly in the US) simply the preferred way in which a body describes its public relations function (Armstrong, 1982). The most prominent public relations theorist, James Grunig, has written in a report on evaluation in public affairs that, we will use the terms public affairs and public relations interchangeably (Grunig and Grunig, 2001, p. 2). One suggested point of distinction between these two disciplinary elds has been that, Public affairs is the management of issues, whereas public relations is the management of the interface between the company and the outside world
Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The evolving discipline of public affairs

(cited in Harris et al., 1999, p. 209). This argument is reinforced by a Canadian lobbyist, Duncan Edmonds who has suggested: Public relations sold the corporation to society, whereas public affairs educated the corporation about the outside world. Public affairs sensitized the corporation to what society wanted the corporation to do (Sawatsky, 1987, p. 70). One US consultant sees the three key components of public affairs as being communications, government relations, and public issues management but goes on to note that how professionals describe themselves is variable The term public affairs is ambiguous because some government relations and public relations practitioners have adopted public affairs as their title, even though they are involved in only one component of it (Steckmest, 1982, p. 40). This problem of a lack of clearly understood identity for public affairs is one that we noted a decade ago in that rst issue of the Journal of Public Affairs: Paradoxically, at a time when there are more practitioners than ever who, at least nominally, are employed in public affairs departments/ functions, the term public affairs remains one that is surrounded by ambiguity and misunderstanding. In short, public affairs remains a function in search of a clear identity (Harris and Moss, 2001b, p. 102). According to a pamphlet written by a former British civil servant, Public Affairs is a term rather wider than Government Relations. It is when an Interest Group has a wide range of relationships with government and the political process, locally, nationally and internationally; in the UK, its chief part is about relations between an Interest Group and the Central Government (Morris, 1997, p. 4). Thus, public affairs is said to be more than government relations, yet relations with government is its chief part! A London-based consultant has told one of the authors that the term public affairs itself is not yet universally accepted by practitioners, or the activities which it encompasses fully agreed: I suspect if you read any brochures of any of the rms, theyre all the same . . . but they wont really tell you what public affairs is
Copyright
#

and that is really because, as an industry, we are still struggling to nd out. Drawing on a synthesis of views from some of the leading scholars and exponents of public affairs, it appears that in very general terms, public affairs encompasses all corporate functions related to the management of an organizations reputation with external audiences usually including lobbying or government relations, media relations, issues management and community relations (Post, 1982; Toth, 1986; Dennis, 1996; Fleisher, 2001; Harris and Fleisher, 2005; Lerbinger, 2006). It is important to note a focus on reputation. Meznar and Nigh (1995, p. 975), for instance, emphasise this aspect when they dene public affairs as the organizational function responsible for maintaining external legitimacy by managing the interface between an organization and its socio-political environment. The idea here is essentially that an organization must have won a measure of social legitimacy (Shaffer, 1995, p. 501) as a necessary precondition to being in a position to achieve political goals (Oberman, 2008) though there is a somewhat circular argument here since legitimacy not only precedes public affairs but is constantly strengthened or damaged as a result of the rms political engagement. As one scholar of EU lobbying has suggested: Public affairs may be dened as the management skill that internalizes the effects of the environment in which an organisation operates and externalizes actions to inuence that environment (Pedler, 2002, p. 4). A similar view was expressed by Post (1982, p. 30) when he asserted that, the critical role of the public affairs unit is to serve as a window out of the corporation, enabling management to act in the external environment, and a window in through which society inuences corporate policy and practice. This duality by which public affairs seeks both to inuence public policy in the organizations favour and to ensure that issues of importance to the wider world are reected within the organizations internal thinking is reected in van Schendelens (2010) insightful and thoughtful conceptualization of EU public affairs manageJournal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Conor McGrath et al.

ment, and has been characterized well by Fleisher (1998, p. 7) as the effort to potentially bring alignment between organisational and public policy. Perhaps one of the most dramatic examples of how public affairs can relate to another functional area within organizations is found in the case of Americas B-1 bomber. Its manufacturers gave their political consultants equality with the purchasing agents in the selection of suppliers and parts manufacturers for the aircraft. Eureka! They gave a stake in the B-1s future to people in all 435 congressional districts, assuring continued production regardless of expert criticism by rivals and other opponents (Wittenberg and Wittenberg, 1989, p. 6). While an extreme example, this case does illustrate how public affairs relates to everything else that any organization does. A potentially interesting way of thinking about public affairs was expressed by Meznar and Nigh (1995) in their concept that the function acts as a buffer and/or bridge. By this, they suggest that some public affairs activities are intended to buffer the organization from external challenges here, we might see public affairs in having a somewhat defensive role, in trying to protect the organization from stakeholder demands and legislative requirements. As they put it, an organization engaged in buffering either resists environmental change or tries to control it (Meznar and Nigh, 1995, p. 976). Conversely, other public affairs activities are designed to bridge between the organization and the outside world for instance, more proactively seeking to reach out to stakeholders and to meet the expectations which society wants to place upon the organization. Here Meznar and Nigh go on to assert (1995, pp. 976977) that, In bridging, rms promote internal adaptation to challenging external circumstances. Any organization might reect either of these approaches to varying degrees or both simultaneously, since they are not mutually incompatible, by buffering on one issue and bridging on another. A further dichotomy is expressed by Hillman and Hitt (1999) in their division of political activity by rms as being
Copyright
#

relational (by which companies seek to build long-term relationships with government across a range of public policy issues) or transactional (suggesting that political participation is less regular and more focused on individual issues). Support for this distinction is found in a study of business government relationships in China (Luo, 2001), and in another comparing China and America (Gao, 2006). Post and Kelley draw on the duality of public affairs to emphasise the connection between its external and internal essentials: The legitimacy of the public affairs function is tied to its effectiveness as a means of organizational interaction with the political and social environment. The success of public affairs managers, however, is tied to their ability to span the boundary between the organization and the environment that is, they must have internal credibility with senior and operating managers and external credibility with stakeholder groups (1988, p. 353). A summary of these different perspectives of public affairs in terms of the key descriptors used by different authors is provided in Figure 1 below.

The scope of corporate public affairs

As we have already seen, there is a lack of consensus over what public affairs is said by academics to involve. This does make it problematic to conceptualize research in the eld, and thus to utilize existing work to suggest what best practice might look like. One commonly adopted denition of corporate public affairs states that it is the management function responsible for interpreting the corporations non-commercial environment and managing the corporations responses to the environment (Foundation for Public Affairs, 1999, p. 2). That, though, is undeniably general and leaves unsaid both whether this is done in a reactive or proactive manner (Grant,
Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The evolving discipline of public affairs

Authors Meznar and Nigh Date 1995 Key Descriptor/ Metaphor Buffer or Bridge Implied Core Role for Public Affairs Interfacing role Boundary spanning Political exchange activity vs. Political Relationship building Descriptor of the Role PA helps cushion the organization from outside attack & reach out to key stakeholder groups PA can either engage in short term political engagementlobbying, etc or longer term relationship building with Government PA ensures management have understanding of political realities [window in] and equally that their views are known amongst key political figures [window out] PA focuses on facilitating and building relationships and interaction with actors in the political and social environment so as to align corporate and public policies

Hillman and Hitt

1999

Relational vs. Transactional

Post

1982

Windowout and Windowin

Political boundary spanner

Van Schendelen Fleisher

2010 1998

Political alignment

Figure 1. Conceptualizing public affairs.

1983) and precisely what activities might be said to constitute public affairs. We have previously suggested that, The lingua franca of what appears to be the principal two arms of public affairs government relations/lobbying and community relations/corporate responsibility can be seen as dialogue at both a societal and government level. By implication, those working in the public affairs eld increasingly are required not only to be procient communicators, but to have a sound appreciation of how the political parties work, develop policy, are inuCopyright
#

enced, run campaigns and are funded. Moreover, the type of issues and challenges that normally fall within the public affairs domain generally require far more complex and sophisticated solutions than those required when tackling market-related promotional campaigns (Harris and Moss, 2001b, p. 108). Others suggest alternative boundaries (McGuire, 1982; Post et al., 1983; Stanbury, 1988; Hoewing, 1996; Fleisher and Blair, 1999; Richards, 2003; Hawkinson, 2005; Showalter and Fleisher, 2005). For instance, Carroll (1996) argues that corporate public affairs encomJournal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Conor McGrath et al.

passes public policy, issues management and crisis management, while Marcus and Irion (1987) suggest that corporate public affairs departments generally have four key functions government relations, issues management, PR and community affairs. Mack (1997, p. 5) suggests government relations, PR, community relations, educational support, philanthropy and the like. It is perhaps telling that a recent handbook of public affairs written by and for practitioners in the UK includes chapters dealing with lobbying, media relations, crisis management, issues management, stakeholder relations and corporate social responsibility (Thomson and John, 2007). Of course, like many organizational functions, it is perhaps only to be expected that the boundaries of public affairs might change over time a fact that a number of scholars have acknowledged (Baysinger and Woodman, 1982; Moore, 1982; Titley, 2003; Holcomb, 2005; Johnson and Meznar, 2005). Indeed, a 1982 survey of almost 400 rms by Post et al. indicated that while the two activities most commonly mentioned were community relations and government relations, the respondents to that study did not include other activities which are by now commonly to be found in public affairs. These include crisis management, issues management or employee relations which is often currently relevant in the context of grassroots lobbying (Lord, 2000; Hawkinson, 2005). In addition, the boundaries of the practice vary according to regional location. A recent survey of practitioners in Asia (Centre for Corporate Public Affairs and Public Affairs Council, 2009) lists 21 activities which are considered part of public affairs there; the rst 11 of these are core activities mentioned by the majority of respondents:         Corporate communications. Corporate social responsibility. Crisis management. Community relations. Issues management. Media relations. Employee communications. Philanthropy.
#

 Stakeholder relations.  Government relations.  Trade association oversight. Most of these activities might commonly be considered components of public affairs in organizations in Western democracies, although the relative importance of each may be somewhat different. Other activities which would not normally be considered part of public affairs in an Anglo-Saxon context were included by respondents to this Asian study notably, corporate marketing (43% of respondents), brand image (40%), investor relations (23%) and advertizing (20%). These results are somewhat at variance with another recent survey of Asian practitioners, in which respondents were asked to assess the importance of various activities. Here, political activity was ranked much higher, with several descriptors (such as advocacy, government affairs, lobbying and political monitoring) being rated as important or very important by between 44% and 75% of respondents (Public Affairs Asia, 2009). What these ndings appear to suggest is that public affairs is a function in which practitioners and academics are still dening and redening the boundaries in effect it is a function still searching for a clear identity. While we rst made this charge 10 years ago, the inability of scholars and professionals to reach a common, settled, denition of public affairs is as true today as it was then. Perhaps, though, we should be more optimistic and take this as healthy evidence of the continuing vitality of public affairs. Practitioners are constantly expanding the function, and academics will face a continual challenge to keep pace with real-world developments. This is as it should be, and the Journal of Public Affairs will continue to serve as a forum for this dialogue.

Corporate political activity

There is now a signicant body of academic work, most often found under the rubric of corporate political activity, which is arguably
Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

Copyright

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The evolving discipline of public affairs

better conceptualized and certainly more empirically driven than its public affairs counterpart (Grifn, 2005). This scholarly niche does not wholly map onto the full spectrum of what might be considered public affairs, but certainly connects with key components of it (Windsor, 2002, 2005; Keim, 2005; Dahan, 2009). Getz (1997, p. 33), for example, accepts that if corporate political action is dened (as it is by some) as being made up of actions by rms which are intended to inuence government policy, then it does not include many standard public affairs functions that may be directed toward the social environment. Interestingly, this is work which tends to be undertaken by business/ management academics, while public affairs research is largely pursued by political scientists. It is predominantly US-based, but is beginning to inform research undertaken in other national contexts (Gao, 2006; Tian and Deng, 2007). This school of work pays much closer attention than does public affairs scholarship to the question of why organizations engage in political activity: while public affairs research predominantly examines behaviour, corporate political activity research begins by rst asking what motivates rms to undertake that behaviour. It tends to be based on an assumption that companies will try rationally to maximize their prots by utilizing their available resources to best effect (Dahan, 2005) although recent work by Lowery (2007) suggests that the more fundamental purpose of lobbying is to assure organizational survival. In arriving at this complex calculus, managers have a wide variety of potential tools at their disposal, and so corporate political activity researchers consider why managers might choose to engage in political activity at all and also relative to the other activities which the organization undertakes. This view is explicit about the fact that within an organization, there is competition between different functions for nite resources; that highlights the need for the public affairs function to make a convincing case for investment, and to be able to demonstrate that any investment has been
Copyright
#

used effectively and efciently. Research has suggested a number of factors which promote the importance to rms or associations of corporate political activity, some of which are particularly instructive for the purposes of this review. Firstly, several studies show a positive linkage between the degree to which a corporation is diversied and its propensity to engage in some form of political activity (Schuler, 1996; Hillman and Hitt, 1999; Hillman, 2003; Brasher and Lowery, 2006), although it should also be noted that diversication can itself make it more rather more difcult for any organization to decide on which public policy issues it should prioritize (Shaffer and Hillman, 2000). Second, the corporate political activity is inuenced signicantly by the degree to which a rm is dependent upon government (Dickie, 1984; Wilson, 1985; Grant, 1993; Mitchell et al., 1997; Hillman and Hitt, 1999) either in terms of its sales to public authorities (e.g. pharmaceutical manufacturers in the UK or defence contractors in the US), or of the scope and intensity of regulation in its sector (such as food products or car safety). Third, competition exists not just between functional units within an organization (for resources) but also between organizations thus we have empirical evidence that as one organization becomes politically engaged, its competitors will be aware of this and seek to match or exceed their rivals activities (Keim et al., 1984; Gray and Lowery, 1997; Hersch and McDougall, 2000; Baumgartner and Leech, 2001). This situation is often graphically illustrated in academic research and the popular media in accounts of what can come to look like an arms-race between rms in the same sector as regards their nancial contributions to politicians. Fourth, this body of research includes work (Hillman and Keim, 1995; Hillman and Hitt, 1999; Keim, 2002; Schuler et al., 2002; Hillman, 2003) which considers corporate political activity in a political marketing perspective. Here, studies view legislators and organized interests as the supply and demand sides of public policy and consider information, money and votes as
Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Conor McGrath et al.

goods which may be exchanged in a political market, and nd that they correspond with elements of the public affairs toolbox. And nally, research in this area also discusses (unlike traditional public affairs scholarship) the integration of a rms business or market strategy with its political strategy Keim and Baysinger (1988), Mahon and McGowan (1996) and Baron (1995, 1997), for example, all argue that neither element can be fully effective unless it is closely allied with the other element.

Public issues life cycle

One particular area of interest to emerge from this review of the literature relates to how an organization might move towards best practice in public affairs conceptualizing what has been termed the public issues life cycle. Here, issues are regarded as evolutionary rather than static (Stanbury, 1988; Meng, 1992; Mack, 1997; Tian and Fan, 2008). Issues are thought of as potentially having different stages, and the role of public affairs in responding to issues should also be dynamic. Four separate stages on the continuum of the public issues life cycle have been suggested by Post (1978): (I) Changing Public Expectations as societal interests and demands change, so too do peoples views of how responsive an organization is to the new environment. This change is often sparked by a single publication (as, for instance, Rachel Carsons Silent Spring galvanized the new environmental activism in the 1960s) or it may occur when a series of events eventually create a tipping point in stirring public consciousness. Either way, corporations will be expected to meet or exceed the new standards which society sets. (II) Political Controversy when social expectations reach a certain level, the issue is likely to become politicized, as it is taken on board by legislators, regulators and activist groups. At this point, political actors begin to consider how
Copyright
#

they should respond to the expectations, often through new or amended laws and regulations. (III) Development of Legislation once legislation is introduced, debated and enacted, societys expectations are being set in stone, and organizations will be subject to new rules which they must work within. (IV) Government Litigation simply passing a law or writing a regulation is not the end of the issue (even though it may well be slipping from public consciousness now as other interests emerge to create another new issue). The implementation and oversight of the new rules will be subject to transition and negotiation, and litigation may well occur in order to clarify the rules, win exemptions and enforce compliance. (In another iteration of the public issues life cycle, Marx (1990) retains Posts terminology for the rst three stages, but describes this last one as Social Control.) This model (which is relatively under-utilized in the academic literature) has been summarized most succinctly by Wilson (1982) as: The social expectations of yesterday become the political issue of today, and the legislative requirement of tomorrow, and the litigated penalties of the day after (quoted in Marx, 1990, p. 12). According to Marx (1990, p. 12), the public issues life cycle is so important as to be the key concept in integrating strategic business and public affairs planning. What should be apparent is that the capacity of a public affairs unit to inuence an issue diminishes progressively as the issue moves from one stage of its life cycle to the next. Here the obvious implication for public affairs management is that timing is inevitably critical in any issue management cycle. Hence the importance that should be attached to the early forecasting of trends within the socio-political environment, to timely engagement with issues which emerge from that external environment, and to the organizations interaction with its environment. If we overlay this life cycle model with a consideration of how well equipped an
Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The evolving discipline of public affairs

organization is to address policy issues, we can see a similar evolution in reverse. By the time any issue is at the point of Government Litigation/Social Control, there is relatively little scope for that issue to be fundamentally affected by an organization. Companies in which public affairs is not a priority may only enter the public issues life cycle at this nal stage. At the penultimate step on the issues cycle is the Development of Legislation, and here there is scope for an organization to seek to attempt some inuence as nal policy decisions have not yet been made. However, it is quite late in the process to bring about any substantial change as the broad outlines of policy will have been set by this point, so organizations may only be able to have some limited input into the detail of legislation/regulation. In other words, there are opportunities for inuence, but they are marginal. Public affairs at these levels is essentially reactive and defensive. As Marx (1990, p. 12) puts it, the chances that at these phases any organization will have for effectively integrating private and public goals in the companys business plan are very limited. Thus, rms which only begin their public affairs work on the issue during these stages are inevitably faced with direct and immediate threats which cannot be simply ignored yet cannot be effectively challenged. The phase of Political Controversy is generally more fruitful territory for the public affairs function. Here, the issue is being framed as part of the general political discourse, and an organization with well-developed public affairs capabilities will be aware of the issue and will be in a position to assess its possible impact, thus opening the door to the possibility of being able to positively and proactively engage with it. Issues management and systematic political monitoring (or environmental scanning as some term it) will have alerted companies to the issue as it gains intensity, and government relations staff will be actively involved in trying to affect how the issue is understood by policymakers. At this level of engagement, organizations might also have the ability to shape and frame the growing public
Copyright
#

and political debate on the issue, attempting to suggest ways in which it could be resolved to the satisfaction of both the public interest and the organizations private interest (Watkins et al., 2001; Jaques, 2004; Taminiau and Wilts, 2006; McGrath, 2007). Finally, those organizations in which the public affairs function is well organized and well managed are most likely to be able to interact effectively with an issue at the earliest point in its life cycle, the Social Expectations stage. These rms will be characterized by a capacity to undertake very sophisticated analyses of the socio-political environment and to identify and prioritize issues as they rst emerge. Dialogue between public affairs and business units will produce some understanding of whether and how an issue could be of signicance to the organization. Crucially, these organizations will also have in place internal processes which relate public affairs to business needs. Here, public affairs will have progressed from being merely proactive to possessing an explicitly strategic focus. As Marx (1990, pp. 1314) puts it, rms able to enter the public issues life cycle in this phase will have developed both a comprehensive analysis of the external environment and the supporting management structures and systems needed to forge the links between business and public affairs planning. We nd similar expositions in Buchholzs (1988) work in which the life cycle stages are compressed into three phases: (i) Public Opinion Formation (public expectations/politicization), (ii) Public Policy Formulation (legislative/regulatory) and (iii) Public Policy Implementation (litigation). Similarly, Lerbinger (2006) suggests four phases: (i) Emerging Issues, (ii) Public Involvement, (iii) Legislative and (iv) Regulation/Litigation. Both authors map their life cycle stages directly onto different strategic audiences and choices for the organization. For Buchholz, in the rst stage, an organization is essentially dealing with an idea, and will seek to inuence activist groups through the use of PR tools. At the second stage, the issue is taking the form of legislation, and so elected politicians will be central to the
Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Conor McGrath et al.

organizations lobbying and political activities. Finally, once the issue is enshrined as law, attention shifts to bureaucrats and regulators as an organization may utilize legal/regulatory means to achieve compliance on the best available terms. Similarly, Lerbinger argues that as issues emerge, organizations will communicate with opinion leaders directly or through publications with limited circulations. In his model, mass media relations becomes appropriate as wider public opinion takes up an issue, while lobbying and other political activity is employed at the legislative stage. Finally, at the point of litigation/regulation, he suggests that media relations again become important in order to inuence the public mood around these detailed resolutions. It is worth emphasizing again the idea that it is only by having the capacity to deal with issues at an early point in their life cycle can an organization hope to both integrate its issues management with its business strategic planning process, and to make a signicant contribution to how the issue comes to be regarded by the public and policymakers (Marx, 1986). Conversely, the issues potential to impact upon the organization increases the further along its life cycle it passes (Keim, 2005). Indeed, Palese and Crane (2002, p. 285) go further, suggesting that issues should be identied before they cross what we call the public threshold, or the point at which an issue becomes public. At this point it is already too late.

issues management should sit within the organizational structure and whose responsibility it is cannot necessarily be resolved through academic debate, since each organization will structure issues management as it feels most appropriate. What does appear to be clear is that issues management is a particularly signicant component of the work of public affairs staff, whose expertize in understanding the public and governmental policy process will be critical in any meaningful corporate engagement in such processes. Thus, it is in the issues management arena that the full value of public affairs is most likely to be demonstrated to senior management and other functional units (e.g. marketing, legal, nancial, etc.). Indeed, arguably it is in the area of issues management that public affairs makes its most important strategic contribution to organizational strategy and goal attainment. This argument is reected in a series of indicators of best practice which has been developed by the Issue Management Council (2005):  an organization has in place systems by which current and future issues are identied;  some formal process has been established to prioritize and analysis issues;  there is clarity as to who is responsible for the issue management process;  the person/team charged with managing each issue is clear, with appropriate levels of responsibility and accountability;  management regularly reviews performance and progress in respect of key issues;  there is a formal mechanism by which boardlevel oversight of issue management is achieved;  issue management is integrated into the wider processes of strategic planning and stakeholder relations;  the issue management process is regarded as central to the planning and implementation of all corporate activity; and  issue management is organized as a fundamental management role rather than as the sole purview of an individual function or unit.
Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

Issues management
Another signicant theme found within the public affairs literature is the debate about the centrality of issues management as a core element of the public affairs function. There is a signicant debate around whether or not issues management does in fact belong within the ambit of public affairs (Hainsworth and Meng, 1988). Some support the view that issues management is a component of public affairs, whereas others have argued that it is a more overarching corporate activity which draws upon public affairs but equally draws upon other functions. This question of where
Copyright
#

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The evolving discipline of public affairs

The literature reveals a wide variety of models by which organizations operationalize issues management but one feature which appears to be widely accepted is recognition of the need to draw a distinction between issues management and strategic planning. In other words, issues management is generally recognized as contributing to strategic planning but ultimately the strategic planning process has broader concerns related to future business performance. It remains common for issues management and public affairs to work closely together in practice, but somewhat less common for them to be formally integrated within the same department. Greening and Gray (1994) suggest that the development of issues management by rms varies according to ve structural factors: (i) whether it has been formalized into a discrete department; (ii) whether the company operates a relevant board-level committee; (iii) the extent to which the function is resourced; (iv) how well issues and integrated into business planning and (v) the relationship between issues managers and business line managers. Post et al. (1982) found that much greater cohesion between public affairs and strategic planning was possible within organizations, with most of their respondents in public affairs stating that they did not review corporate plans for sensitivity to emerging social and political trends. They also found sizeable minorities (in the 3244% range) were not being involved in setting priorities for public issues at corporate level, forecasting social/ political trends for other departments, or setting priorities for public issues. Clearly, two decades ago, public affairs involvement in strategic business planning was at a relatively rudimentary stage; Marx (1990) attributes this in large part to the tension resulting from rms wishing to decentralize their strategic planning so that business units could respond more speedily to the market while at the same time wanting to centralize public affairs so that the rm could adopt a consistent and coherent approach to public policy issues. Dickie (1984) found that public affairs had most inuence over corporate planning when it engaged
Copyright
#

in that process with a relatively short-term focus. That situation appears to have improved somewhat (Grant, 1993) over the intervening period although there is little hard empirical evidence to this effect, there have at least been useful efforts to conceptualize solutions (Heath, 1988; Sawaya and Arrington, 1988; Ashley, 1996; Shaffer and Hillman, 2000; Watkins et al., 2001; Bronn and Bronn, 2002; Jaques, 2002; Palese and Crane, 2002; Mahon et al., 2004). However, as a number of commentators have suggested, it remains true that enhancing the public affairs/corporate planning relationship is an important step in improving the overall responsiveness of the enterprise to a changing environment (Post et al., 1982, pp. 1516). Chase and Crane (1996, p. 138) offer a thoughtful call for companies to pay equal attention to strategic prot planning and strategic policy planning. Chen (2007, p. 293) provides some empirical evidence from research into multinational corporations in China that there is a positive relationship between the participation of government affairs in strategic management and excellence in government affairs. Activist groups have recently challenged business to go further in aligning lobbying efforts with corporate strategy (AccountAbility, 2005). In Asia, for instance, one survey found that only one-third of public affairs practitioners are members of their rms corporate planning committee, although much larger percentages do have some involvement in the strategic planning process (Centre for Corporate Public Affairs and Public Affairs Council, 2009). While there are nearly as many denitions of issues management as there are academic articles on the subject, several basic features which demand attention by practitioners are clear from the literature (Jones and Chase, 1979; Steckmest, 1982; Stanbury, 1988; Gaunt and Ollenburger, 1995; Mack, 1997; Heath, 2002; Wartick and Heugens, 2003; Heugens, 2005; Lerbinger, 2006). First, issues management has to be concerned with identifying potential issues which could impact upon the organization this is the essential precondition to all else, as if an issue evades detection then
Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Conor McGrath et al.

nothing can or will be done about it. Second, it is necessary to prioritize issues in terms of the extent to which they could matter to the organization the more important the issue is to the organization (or what researchers term the issue salience), the more likely the organization is to engage in political activity intended to inuence the outcome; Mack (1997) suggests using the Delphi process to quantity the importance of each issue to the organization. It is also worth considering that no organization can pursue each issue in which it may be interested to the maximum possible extent, again making prioritization necessary: Political inuence used for one purpose may well be unavailable for another. We expect that the economic actor uses his assets to gather the most valuable basket of plums from the political tree (Esty and Caves, 1983, p. 24). The rational organization will further prioritize issues in such a way as to only focus on those which are not merely important but also which are most likely to be inuenced effectively (SustainAbility and GPC, 2000) in other words organizations should concentrate on those issues which are critical to their strategic objectives where the organizations input will make a material difference (Marx, 1990). Third, there is little value in identifying issues unless the process then goes on to set objectives (Jaques, 2005), formulate a plan of action in respect of each, and implement and evaluate that activity (Oliver and Donnelly, 2007). Here the organization is arriving at its own internal policy position on the issue. And, fourth, issues management must involve the organization in attempting to inuence public policy since each signicant issue will become important not just to the organization itself but also to its stakeholders in government, regulatory agencies, pressure groups, public opinion and so on (Crable and Vibbert, 1985).

Conclusion: contributions to the debate

When the Journal of Public Affairs was launched 10 years ago, the intention was that
Copyright
#

it would encourage both academic and professional debate about the development of public affairs, and provide a platform to publish the output of such debates. In particular, we wanted to help stimulate deeper understanding of public affairs around the world, and not just in the US or EU contexts. In this article, which is intended in part as a precursor to a full tenth anniversary special issue of the Journal of Public Affairs, we have sought to reect on some of the principal themes and debates found within the public affairs literature over the past decade. Many of these themes have found expression within articles published in this journal, or have inspired or provoked responses that in turn have been published here. Reviewing the range of articles which have appeared in the journal during its rst decade, it seems clear that the original aims of the journal have to a large degree been realized and continue to be met. The quality and diversity of the content which has been published in the journal is a remarkable testament to the research and analysis being undertaken in the public affairs eld. As editors, we are proud to report that this journal has featured work by some of the most inuential scholars and practitioners in our eld and by many of those establishing their reputations. We have featured extraordinarily rigorous theoretical work as well as profoundly insightful professional analysis and commentary. Reviewing the journals content over the course of its rst decade, we are particularly struck by the disciplinary diversity of the articles and by the spread of geographical focus which they cover. In the opening section of this article, we highlighted the still contested understanding of public affairs that existed a decade ago, and equally, the predominantly Anglo-Saxon bias within the literature. As this review has revealed, despite a period of marked growth and maturing of the discipline over the past decade, there is little evidence of a consensual denition and understanding of public affairs emerging amongst academics or practitioners. Does this suggest that public affairs remains (as was suggested 10 years ago) a discipline in
Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The evolving discipline of public affairs

search of a clear identity; or is this uidity about the precise boundaries of public affairs a sign of healthy and vibrant disciplinary evolution? On balance, we favour the latter judgement, albeit that such uidity can and does at times threaten to undermine the status and position of public affairs within what are often contested organizational hierarchies. However, in many senses, arguably the effectiveness and value of the public affairs role is best realized when the function does step outside the traditional organizational hierarchy, acting (as it should) as the organizational conscience and balance check against what might otherwise be the overriding prot motive driver in corporate decision making. Recognition of such a role for public affairs is, in part, evidenced by the growing signicance attached to the issues management function in organizations, and to the recognition that public affairs may be the best placed function to oversee the effective monitoring and management of key issues that may challenge organizational goals and policies, or equally, create tremendous opportunities for organizational growth. As this review has shown; however, the challenge for public affairs going forward is to retain its lead position in managing the organizational issues management process in the face of increasing encroachment on this role from other functions. This review has highlighted growing international acceptance and recognition of public affairs in countries and regions outside the traditional stronghold of public affairs practice and scholarship the western world. Of course, with international expansion comes a new cycle in the emergence and reformulation of the boundaries of the public affairs discipline. For example, evidence from studies in Asia cited in this paper suggest a far broader understanding of what might be expected to fall within the boundaries of public affairs than one would expect in most western organizations. Yet even here there appear to be contradictions in the evidence, with some research pointing to a more conventional view of public affairs amongst Asian practitioners, involving such core activities as government
Copyright
#

relations, political monitoring, lobbying and advocacy. What does seem clear is that the appetite for public affairs continues to grow around the world, perhaps driven by the often claimed convergence of major issues affecting many parts of the world, which often demand global political solutions. We believe that the next decade is more likely to be one of even greater social, economic and political upheaval as economic power shifts relentlessly towards the rapidly growing developing economies, and as new global priorities such as nancial reform, climate change and terrorism assume even greater prominence. Against such a backdrop, there is likely to be a growing need for highly skilled and experienced public affairs professionals capable of analyzing and interpreting and even anticipating major environmental trends and developments, and capable of counselling organizational leaders about how best to respond to the challenges that such trends present. It is the unique position of public affairs at the nexus of business, government and civil society that positions it to play a key role balancing organizational and societal interests. The Journal of Public Affairs will hope to be a vehicle for exploring and disseminating thinking about these developments and helping to push the boundaries of the public affairs discipline forward. In that spirit, we close with a request that academic and professional colleagues continue to submit their best work to this journal. Since its launch, we believe that the Journal of Public Affairs has become an indispensable guide to the practice and study of public affairs. To maintain, and even surpass, that achievement over the next decade, we rely upon a continuous ow of high impact and high quality submissions. A special issue will be produced in 2011 to properly mark our tenth anniversary, and will present a number of contributions reviewing the current state of public affairs and predicting future trends. In this general survey of the eld, we have tried to share our perspective on the key elements of public affairs and to highlight themes which seem to us to be particularly likely to generate
Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Conor McGrath et al.

interesting and productive work in the years to come. Over the next decade, we will continue to focus on our central concern of how organizations relate to government and society, but are equally determined to maintain this journals emphasis on multi-disciplinary approaches. Our tradition of encouraging both academic and professional insights to public affairs will be maintained, and it is with a genuine sense of anticipation that we look forward to the future submissions received from colleagues.

Biographical Notes
Conor McGrath is an Independent Scholar, and Deputy Editor of the Journal of Public Affairs. He was Lecturer in Political Lobbying and Public Affairs at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland from 1999 to 2006. His books include Lobbying in Washington, London and Brussels: The Persuasive Communication of Political Issues (2005), Challenge and Response: Essays on Public Affairs and Transparency (2006, co-edited with Tom Spencer), Irish Political Studies Reader: Key Contributions (2008, co-edited with Eoin OMalley), and The Future of Public Trust: Public Affairs in a Time of Crisis (2008, coedited with Tom Spencer). He edited a collection of three books published in 2009 Interest Groups and Lobbying in the United States and Comparative Perspectives; Interest Groups and Lobbying in Europe; and Interest Groups and Lobbying in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Danny Moss is Professor of Corporate and Public Affairs at the University of Chester. Prior to moving to Chester, he was co-Director of the Centre for Corporate and Public Affairs at the Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, and Programme Leader for the Universitys Masters Degree in International Public Relations. He also held the post of Director of Public Relations programmes at the University of Stirling where he established the rst dedicated Masters Degree in Public Relations in the UK. He is also the co-organiser
Copyright
#

of Bledcom, the annual Global Public Relations Research Symposium. Danny Moss is co-editor of the Journal of Public Affairs and author of over 80 journal articles and books, the latest of which is Public Relations Cases: International Perspectives (co-edited with Melanie Powell and Barbara DeSanto). Phil Harris is Executive Dean of the Faculty of Business, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (and Westminster Chair of Marketing and Public Affairs) at the University of Chester. He was previously Professor of Marketing at the University of Otago in New Zealand, and Co-Director of the Centre for Corporate and Public Affairs at Manchester Metropolitan University Business School. He is joint founding editor of the Journal of Public Affairs and a member of a number of international editorial and advisory boards. He has published over 150 publications in the area of communications, lobbying, political marketing, public affairs, relationship marketing and international trade. His latest books are European Business and Marketing (with Frank Macdonald, 2004), The Handbook of Public Affairs (with Craig Fleisher, 2005), Lobbying and Public Affairs in the UK (2009), and The Penguin Dictionary of Marketing (2009).

References
AccountAbility. 2005. Towards Responsible Lobbying: Leadership and Public Policy. AccountAbility: London. Armstrong RA. 1982. What is public affairs? In The Public Affairs Handbook, Nagelschmidt JS (ed). Amacom: New York; 37. Ashley WC. 1996. Anticipatory management: linking public affairs and strategic planning. In Practical Public Affairs in an Era of Change: A Communications Guide for Business, Government, and College, Dennis LB (ed). University Press of America: Lanham, MD; 239250. Baron D. 1995. Integrated strategy: market and nonmarket components. California Management Review 37(2): 4765. Baron D. 1997. Integrated strategy, trade policy and global competition. California Management Review 39(2): 145169. Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The evolving discipline of public affairs Baumgartner F, Leech B. 2001. Interest niches and policy bandwagons: patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. Journal of Politics 63(4): 11911213. Baysinger BD, Woodman RW. 1982. Dimensions of the public affairs/government relations function in major American corporations. Strategic Management Journal 3(1): 241. Brasher H, Lowery D. 2006. The corporate context of lobbying activity. Business and Politics 8(1): 123. Bronn PS, Bronn C. 2002. Issues management as a basis for strategic orientation. Journal of Public Affairs 2(4): 247258. Buchholz RA. 1988. Adjusting corporations to the realities of public interests and policy. In Strategic Issues Management: How Organizations Inuence and Respond to Public Interests and Policies, Heath RL (ed). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco; 5072. Carroll A (ed). 1996. Business & Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 3rd edn Southwestern: Cincinnati. Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, Public Affairs Council. 2009. State of Public Affairs in Asia 2009. Centre for Corporate Public Affairs and Public Affairs Council: Sydney and Washington. Chase WH, Crane TY. 1996. Issue management: dissolving the archaic division between line and staff. In Practical Public Affairs in an Era of Change: A Communications Guide for Business, Government, and College, Dennis LB (ed). University Press of America: Lanham, MD; 129141. Chen Y-RR. 2007. The strategic management of government affairs in China: how multinational corporations in China interact with the Chinese government. Journal of Public Relations Research 19(3): 283306. Crable RE, Vibbert SL. 1985. Managing issues and inuencing public policy. Public Relations Review 11(2): 316. Dahan N. 2005. A contribution to the conceptualization of political resources utilized in corporate political action. Journal of Public Affairs 5(1): 4354. Dahan NM. 2009. The four Ps of corporate political activity: a framework for environmental analysis and corporate action. Journal of Public Affairs 9(2): 111123. <ln>Dennis LB</Ed> (ed). 1996. Practical Public Affairs in an Era of Change: A Communications Guide for Business, Government, and College. University Press of America: Lanham, MD. Dickie RB. 1984. Inuence of public affairs ofces on corporate planning and of corporations on government policy. Strategic Management Journal 5(1): 1534. Esty D, Caves R. 1983. Market structure and political inuence: new data on political expenditures, activity, and success. Economic Inquiry 21(1): 2438. Fleisher CS. 1998. Are corporate public affairs practitioners professionals? A multi-region comparison with corporate public relations. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Bled Symposium on International Public Relations Research. Fleisher CS. 2001. Emerging US public affairs practice: the 2000R PA model. Journal of Public Affairs 1(1): 4452. Fleisher CS, Blair NM. 1999. Tracing the parallel evolution of public affairs and public relations: an examination of practice, scholarship and teaching. Journal of Communication Management 3(3): 276292. Foundation for Public Affairs. 1999. Triennial Survey: The State of Corporate Public Affairs. Foundation for Public Affairs: Washington, DC. Gao Y. 2006. Corporate political action in China and America: a comparative perspective. Journal of Public Affairs 6(2): 111121. Gaunt P, Ollenburger J. 1995. Issues management revisited: a tool that deserves another look. Public Relations Review 21(3): 199210. Getz KA. 1997. Research in corporate political action: integration and assessment. Business & Society 36(1): 3272. Getz KA. 2002. Public affairs and political strategy: theoretical foundations. Journal of Public Affairs 1/2(4/1): 305329. Grant W. 1983. The business lobby: political attitudes and strategies. West European Politics 6(4): 163182. Grant W. 1993. Business and Politics in Britain, 2nd edn Macmillan: Basingstoke. Gray V, Lowery D. 1997. Reconceptualizing PAC formation: its not a collective action problem, and it may be an arms race. American Politics Quarterly 25(3): 319346.

Copyright

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

Conor McGrath et al. Greening DW, Gray B. 1994. Testing a model of organisational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal 37(3): 467498. Grifn JJ. 2005. The empirical study of public affairs. In The Handbook of Public Affairs, Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds). Sage: London; 458480. Grunig JE, Grunig LA. 2001. Guidelines for formative and evaluative research in public affairs: a report for the Department of Energy Ofce of Science. Department of Communication, University of Maryland: College Park. Hainsworth B, Meng M. 1988. How corporations dene issue management. Public Relations Review 14(4): 1830. Harris P, Fleisher CS. 2005. The Handbook of Public Affairs. Sage: London. Harris P, Moss D. 2001a. Editorial: understanding public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs 1(1): 6 8. Harris P, Moss D. 2001b. Editorial: in search of public affairs: a function in search of an identity. Journal of Public Affairs 1(2): 102110. Harris P, Moss D, Vetter N. 1999. Machiavellis legacy to public affairs: a modern tale of servants and princes in UK organisations. Journal of Communication Management 3(3): 201217. Hawkinson B. 2005. The internal environment of public affairs: organization, process, and systems. In The Handbook of Public Affairs, Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds). Sage: London; 7685. Heath RL. 1988. Introduction: issues management: developing corporate survival strategies. In Strategic Issues Management: How Organizations Inuence and Respond to Public Interests and Policies, Heath RL (ed). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco; 143. Heath RL. 2002. Issues management: its past, present and future. Journal of Public Affairs 2(4): 209214. Hersch P, McDougall G. 2000. Determinants of automobile PAC contributions to House incumbents: own versus rival effects. Public Choice 104(3/4): 329343. Heugens PPMAR. 2005. Issues management: core understandings and scholarly development. In The Handbook of Public Affairs, Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds). Sage: London; 481500. Hillman AJ. 2002. Public affairs, issue management and political strategy: methodological issues that count a different view. Journal of Public Affairs 1/2(4/1): 356361. Hillman AJ. 2003. Determinants of political strategies in US multinationals. Business & Society 42(4): 455484. Hillman AJ, Hitt M. 1999. Corporate political strategy formulation: a model of approach, participation and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review 24(4): 825842. Hillman A, Keim G. 1995. International variation in the business-government interface: institutional and organizational considerations. Academy of Management Review 20(1): 193214. Hoewing RL. 1996. The state of public affairs: a profession reinventing itself. In Practical Public Affairs in an Era of Change: A Communications Guide for Business, Government, and College, Dennis LB (ed). University Press of America: Lanham, MD; 3347. Holcomb JM. 2005. Public affairs in North America. In The Handbook of Public Affairs, Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds). Sage: London; 3149. Issue Management Council. 2005. Nine issue management best practice indicators. Available at: http://www.issuemanagement.org/documents/ best_practices.htm. (accessed 8 January 2010). Jaques T. 2002. Towards a new terminology: optimising the value of issue management. Journal of Communication Management 7(2): 140 147. Jaques T. 2004. Issue denition: the neglected foundation of effective issue management. Journal of Public Affairs 4(2): 191200. Jaques T. 2005. Systematic objective setting for effective issue management. Journal of Public Affairs 5(1): 3342. Johnson JH, Meznar MB. 2005. Public affairs perceptions and practices: a ten year (19932003) comparison. Journal of Public Affairs 5(1): 55 65. Jones B, Chase H. 1979. Managing public policy issues. Public Relations Review 5(2): 320. Keim G. 2002. Managing business political activities in the USA: bridging between theory and practice. Journal of Public Affairs 1/2(4/1): 362375. Keim G. 2005. Managing business political advocacy in the United States. In The Handbook of

Copyright

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

The evolving discipline of public affairs Public Affairs, Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds). Sage: London; 418433. Keim G, Baysinger B. 1988. The efcacy of business political activity: competitive considerations in a principal-agent context. Journal of Management 14(2): 163180. Keim GD, Zeithaml CP, Baysinger BD. 1984. New directions for corporate political strategy. Sloan Management Review 25(3): 5362. Lerbinger O. 2006. Corporate Public Affairs: Interacting with Interest Groups, Media, and Government. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ. Lord M. 2000. Corporate political strategy and legislative decision making: the impact of corporate legislative inuence activities. Business & Society 39(1): 7693. Lowery D. 2007. Why do organized interests lobby? A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying. Polity 39(1): 2954. Luo Y. 2001. Toward a cooperative view of MNChost government relations: building blocks and performance implications. Journal of International Business Studies 32(3): 401420. Mack CS. 1997. Business, Politics, and the Practice of Government Relations. Quorum Books: Westport. Mahon JF, McGowan RA. 1996. Industry as a Player in the Political and Social Arena: Dening the Competitive Environment. Quorum Books: Westport, CT. Mahon JF, Heugens PPMAR, Lamertz K. 2004. Social networks and non-market strategy. Journal of Public Affairs 4(2): 170189. Marcus AA, Irion MS. 1987. The continued growth of the corporate public affairs function. The Academy of Management Executive 1(3): 247250. Marx TG. 1986. Integrating public affairs and strategic planning. California Management Review 24(1): 141147. Marx TG. 1990. Strategic planning for public affairs. Long Range Planning 23(1): 916. McGrath C. 2007. Framing lobbying messages: dening and communicating political issues persuasively. Journal of Public Affairs 7(3): 269 280. McGuire EP. 1982. Public affairs: its function. In The Public Affairs Handbook, Nagelschmidt JS (ed). Amacom: New York; 3037. Meng M. 1992. Early identication aids issues management. Public Relations Journal 48(3): 2223. Meznar M. 2002. The theoretical foundations of public affairs and political strategy: where do we go from here? Journal of Public Affairs 1/2(4/1): 330335. Meznar MB, Nigh D. 1995. Buffer or bridge? Environmental and organizational determinants of public affairs activities in American rms. Academy of Management Journal 38(4): 975 996. Mitchell N, Hansen W, Jepsen E. 1997. The determinants of domestic and foreign corporate political activity. Journal of Politics 59(4): 10961113. Moore RH. 1982. The evolution of public affairs. In The Public Affairs Handbook, Nagelschmidt JS (ed). Amacom: New York; 916. Morris JP. 1997. Legitimate Lobbying. PMS Publications: London. Oberman WD. 2008. A conceptual look at the strategic resource dynamics of public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs 8(4): 249260. Oliver GR, Donnelly PJ. 2007. Effective use of a strategic issue management system (SIMS): combining tools and approach. Journal of Public Affairs 7(4): 399406. Palese M, Crane TY. 2002. Building an integrated issue management process as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Public Affairs 2(4): 284292. Pedler R. 2002. Introduction: changes in the lobbying arena: real-life cases. In European Union Lobbying: Changes in the Arena, Pedler R (ed). Palgrave: Basingstoke; 110. Post JE. 1978. Corporate Behavior and Social Change. Reston Publishing: Reston, VA. Post J. 1982. Public affairs: its role. In The Public Affairs Handbook, Nagelschmidt JS (ed). Amacom: New York; 2330. Post JE, Kelley PC. 1988. Lessons from the learning curve: the past, present, and future of issues management. In Strategic Issues Management: How Organizations Inuence and Respond to Public Interests and Policies, Heath RL (ed). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco; 345365. Post JE, Murray EA, Dickie RB, Mahon JF. 1982. The public affairs function in American corporations: development and relations with corporate planning. Long Range Planning 15(2): 1221.

Copyright

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa

Conor McGrath et al. Post JE, Murray EA, Dickie RB, Mahon JF. 1983. Managing public affairs: the public affairs function. California Management Review 26(1): 135150. Public Affairs Asia. 2009. The PA Industry in 2009. Public Affairs Asia: Hong Kong. Richards DC. 2003. Corporate public affairs: necessary cost or value-added asset? Journal of Public Affairs 3(1): 3951. Sawatsky J. 1987. The Insiders: Government, Business, and the Lobbyists. McClelland and Stewart: Toronto. Sawaya RN, Arrington CB. 1988. Linking corporate planning with strategic issues. In Strategic Issues Management: How Organizations Inuence and Respond to Public Interests and Policies, Heath RL (ed). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco; 7386. Schuler D. 1996. Corporate political strategy and foreign competition: the case of the steel industry. Academy of Management Journal 39(3): 720737. Schuler DA. 2002. Public affairs, issues management and political strategy: methodological approaches that count. Journal of Public Affairs 1/2(4/1): 336355. Schuler DA, Rehbein K, Cramer RD. 2002. Pursuing strategic advantage through political means: a multivariate approach. Academy of Management Journal 45(4): 659672. Shaffer B. 1995. Firm-level responses to government regulation: theoretical and research approaches. Journal of Management 21(3): 495514. Shaffer B, Hillman AJ. 2000. The development of business-government strategies by diversied rms. Strategic Management Journal 21(2): 175190. Showalter A, Fleisher CS. 2005. The tools and techniques of public affairs. In The Handbook of Public Affairs, Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds). Sage: London; 109122. Stanbury WT. 1988. Business-Government Relations in Canada. Nelson: Scarborough. Steckmest FW. 1982. Corporate performance. In The Public Affairs Handbook, Nagelschmidt JS (ed). Amacom: New York; 3747. SustainAbility and GPC. 2000. Politics and Persuasion: Corporate Inuence on Sustainable Development Policy. SustainAbility and GPC: London. Taminiau Y, Wilts A. 2006. Corporate lobbying in Europe, managing knowledge and information strategies. Journal of Public Affairs 6(2): 122 130. Thomson S, John S. 2007. Public Affairs in Practice: A Practical Guide to Lobbying. Kogan Page: London. Tian Z, Deng X. 2007. The determinants of corporate political strategy in Chinese transition. Journal of Public Affairs 7(4): 341356. Tian Z, Fan S. 2008. The public issue life cycle and corporate political actions in Chinas transitional environment: a case of real estate industry. Journal of Public Affairs 8(3): 135151. Titley S. 2003. How political and social change will transform the EU public affairs industry. Journal of Public Affairs 3(1): 8389. Toth EL. 1986. Broadening research in public affairs. Public Relations Review 12(2): 2736. van Schendelen R. 2010. More Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU, 3rd edn Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam. Wartick SL, Heugens PPMAR. 2003. Future directions for issues management. Corporate Reputation Review 6(1): 718. Watkins M, Edwards M, Thakrar U. 2001. Winning the Inuence Game: What Every Business Leader Should Know About Government. John Wiley: New York. Wilson IH. 1982. Environmental scanning and strategic planning. In Management Policy and Strategy, 2nd edn Steiner GA, Miner JB, Gray ER (eds). Macmillan: New York; 299303. Wilson GK. 1985. Business and Politics: A Comparative Introduction. Macmillan: Basingstoke. Windsor D. 2002. Public affairs, issues management, and political strategy: opportunities, obstacles, and caveats. Journal of Public Affairs 1/2(4/1): 382415. Windsor D. 2005. Theories and theoretical roots of public affairs. In The Handbook of Public Affairs, Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds). Sage: London; 401417. Wittenberg E, Wittenberg E. 1989. How to Win in Washington: Very Practical Advice About Lobbying, the Grassroots and the Media. Basil Blackwell: Cambridge.

Copyright

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal of Public Affairs, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/pa