This paper introduces the subject of private politics and presents illustrative models using as the context a conflict between an activist and a firm. Private politics addresses situations of conflict and the resolution of that conflict without reliance on the law. It encompasses the political competition over entitlements in the status quo, the direct competition for support from the public, bargaining over the resolution of the conflict, and the maintenance of the agreed-to private order. The term private means that the parties do not rely on public order; i.e., law-making or the courts. The term politics refers to individual and collective action in situations in which individuals attempt to further their interests by imposing their will on others. The paper presents four models of private politics: 1) informational competition between an activist and a firm for support from the public, 2) decision by individual citizen consumers regarding the magnitude and timing of a boycott, 3) bargaining between the activist and the firm to resolve the boycott, and 4) the choice of private ordering to govern the ongoing conflict between the two parties.
|Date of creation:||May 2001|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5015|
Phone: (650) 723-2146
Web page: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- David P. Baron, 2001. "Private Politics, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Integrated Strategy," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 7-45, 03.
- Timothy J. Feddersen & Thomas W. Gilligan, 2001. "Saints and Markets: Activists and the Supply of Credence Goods," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 149-171, 03.
- David Kreps & Robert Wilson, 1999.
"Reputation and Imperfect Information,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
238, David K. Levine.
- D. Abreu & F. Gul, 1998.
"Bargaining and Reputation,"
Princeton Economic Theory Papers
00s9, Economics Department, Princeton University.
- Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1982.
"Predation, reputation, and entry deterrence,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 280-312, August.
- Paul Milgrom & John Roberts, 1997. "Predation, reputation , and entry deterrence," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1460, David K. Levine.
- Paul Milgrom & John Roberts, 1980. "Predation, Reputation, and Entry Deterrence," Discussion Papers 427, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Faruk Gul & Hugo Sonnenschein & Robert Wilson, 2010.
"Foundations of Dynamic Monopoly and the Coase Conjecture,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
232, David K. Levine.
- Gul, Faruk & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Wilson, Robert, 1986. "Foundations of dynamic monopoly and the coase conjecture," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 155-190, June.
- Gul, Faruk & Lundholm, Russell, 1995. "Endogenous Timing and the Clustering of Agents' Decisions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(5), pages 1039-1066, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1689. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.