Power Dynamics and Corporate Power in Governance Processes: Evidence From U.S. Environmental Governance Systems

• DOI: 10.1177/02750740211055221
• Published date: 01 April 2022
• Date: 01 April 2022
• Author: Yuhao Ba
• Subject Matter: Articles

Power Dynamics and Corporate Power in

Governance Processes: Evidence From

U.S. Environmental Governance Systems

Yuhao Ba

1

Abstract

Prior research has documented involvement of government and civil society actors in governance processes, but has largely

neglected a key player: corporate business interests. Combining insights from social-ecological systems, organizational systems

theory, theories of governance and power, interest group rule-making participation, and non-state alternative environmental

governance, we examine corporate involvement and power in environmental governance systems. Drawing on a sample of

Twitter messages about fuel economy standards, posted between 2012 and 2020, we offer a sector-level discourse analysis

of corporate power and its interaction with the sociopolitical environment. The results suggest that business interests are

gaining increasing power in the participation arena of U.S. fuel economy governance processes. The results likewise indicate

corporations’response to a changing political landscape in the U.S. Taken together, our analysis advances current scholarship

on power dynamics in governance processes and on empirical assessment of power, offering implications for governance sys-

tem design and implementation.

Keywords

power, social media analysis, discourse analysis, corporate involvement, non-state environmental governance

Introduction

Corporate involvement in governance processes has not been

emphasized in the public administration (PA) literature. This

can be attributed in part to the disciplinary boundaries advo-

cated by many early scholars (e.g., Musolf and Seidman,

1980; Rainey et al., 1976). In recent decades, although the

proliferation of non-state involvement in addressing public

issues has fostered increased attention to alternative gover-

nance efforts in PA scholarship (e.g., Bingham et al., 2005;

Peters and Pierre, 1998), corporate governance involvement

remains marginalized compared to the predominant emphasis

on civil society and nonprofits. The complexity and diversity

of many governance challenges, however, demands a more

inclusive, systematic perspective on governance design and

practice (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; Boschken, 2017;

Mahoney et al., 2009; Ostrom, 2009). Such a perspective

requires considering the role of corporate actors (Ba, 2021;

Cashore, 2002; Hsueh, 2013; Kraft & Kamieniecki, 2007;

Scherer & Palazzo, 2011).

Better understanding corporate involvement in gover-

nance processes requires a detailed articulation of corporate

power, as power is essential to convening stakeholders, man-

aging resources, and addressing conflicts (Brisbois & de Loë,

2016; Bryson et al., 2006). This is particularly true in the

environmental sphere, where many governance challenges

are cross-boundary, multi-scale, and dynamic in nature

(Andonova et al., 2009; Ba & Galik, 2019; Boschken,

2017) and are plagued by conflict and an unwillingness to

deliberate and contribute to negotiated decisions (Anderies

& Janssen, 2013; Bodin, 2017; Yi & Cui, 2019). The need

to examine corporate power in environmental governance

(EG) systems is also suggested by recent shifts in global

and regional political contexts, in which a reconfiguration

of power and authority has been emerging due to retrench-

ment of state forces and proliferation of market-driven solu-

tions (Cashore, 2002; Mol, 2016; Reed & Bruyneel, 2010).

Despite its importance, current scholarship on non-state

alternative governance is insufficiently developed to lend

the necessary insight into power and power dynamics.

Research on this topic is often complicated by the ambigu-

ousness and fluid distribution of power in governance

systems, as well as by the complexity created by interactions

among stakeholders and between stakeholders and their

1

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore,

Singapore 259772

Corresponding Author:

Yuhao Ba, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of

Singapore, Singapore 259772.

Email: yba@nus.edu.sg

Article

American Review of Public Administration

2022, Vol. 52(3) 206–220

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/02750740211055221

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp