IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buspol/v26y2024i4p649-664_10.html

Rethinking the theory of quiet politics: bad corporate behavior and the failure of quiet politics in the east coast gas crisis in Australia, 2022

Author

Listed:
  • Bell, Stephen
  • Hindmoor, Andrew

Abstract

The theory of quiet politics has two propositions; first, that business interests prefer to engage with governments in ‘quiet’ arenas shielded from the media and the day-to-day political fray, and second that business interests exert power over governments in quiet politics. We counter the second proposition, arguing that business generally exercises influence rather than power in quiet politics. One precondition for the successful exercise of influence is the acceptance by business of certain protocols of behavior in interactions with governments. In this paper we underline the importance of such protocols by exploring the dynamics of a conflict between the east coast gas industry and the federal government in Australia amidst steep rises in domestic gas prices and supply restrictions in 2022. The gas industry behaved badly in the economy and in politics and did not abide by the relevant protocols of engagement with the government. The government responded aggressively and quiet politics failed. The paper underlines the importance of the behavioral pre-conditions for business influence in quiet politics and what can go wrong if this fails.

Suggested Citation

  • Bell, Stephen & Hindmoor, Andrew, 2024. "Rethinking the theory of quiet politics: bad corporate behavior and the failure of quiet politics in the east coast gas crisis in Australia, 2022," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 649-664, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buspol:v:26:y:2024:i:4:p:649-664_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1469356924000302/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buspol:v:26:y:2024:i:4:p:649-664_10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.