A recent article in the Strategic Management Journal highlights an often overlooked source of political influence in corporate contracting: unelected officials. The study shifts the focus away from the familiar image of prominent politicians endorsing business interests. Instead, it examines the subtle yet powerful role of lower-profile political actors who operate mainly out of public view. These individuals, although not elected, can be instrumental in determining which companies secure public procurement contracts. Yet, their actions frequently escape scrutiny because they are embedded in routine administrative procedures rather than public decision-making stages.
Dr Tony L conducted the research. He is from Rutgers Business School in Newark, New Jersey, who analysed 14,849 government contracts issued across 28 European countries between 2011 and 2017. This extensive dataset allowed him to explore how different types of political connections shape contractual outcomes. Contrary to the assumption that the most influential connections are with senior or prominent elected officials, the study finds that corporations often benefit more from relationships with behind-the-scenes advisers, aides, and administrative staff whose work directly influences decision-making. Dr He explains that although elected figures can offer public legitimacy, especially when corporations seek policy changes, they do not always hold the decisive power in procurement situations where discretion rests elsewhere.
One key insight from the study is that the value of political visibility depends on the stage and type of influence being pursued. Elected politicians, who typically operate under public scrutiny, tend to exert indirect influence by shaping the initial rules and eligibility requirements that determine who can bid for a contract in the first place. These early decisions receive far less attention than contract selections, yet they can effectively narrow the field to favour certain firms. In contrast, unelected officials tend to be involved at multiple points throughout the process, influencing everything from technical specifications to bid evaluation. Their lower visibility becomes an advantage, allowing them to exert influence without attracting the attention that higher-profile actors would face in similar situations.
Dr He’s analysis also emphasises the dual meaning of visibility in political engagement. It matters not only who engages with corporations, but also how transparent the decision-making environment is. When procurement involves open and competitive bidding, elected officials appear to have limited capacity to influence contract choices directly. However, transparency in bidding does little to restrict the quieter influence of unelected insiders, who may still shape outcomes through procedural guidance, selective interpretations of rules, or informal contacts that fall outside the spotlight.
These findings have important implications for public accountability. Current governance systems often focus on regulating elected officeholders and the visible stages of procurement, potentially overlooking informal influence where it is most active. Dr He argues that protecting fairness requires broader oversight, extending beyond the political figures who capture media attention to include the many administrative actors who help decide which firms compete and which ultimately win. His research suggests that understanding these subtle dynamics is essential if governments are to strengthen transparency and ensure that public contracts are awarded on a truly equitable basis.
More information: Tony L. He, Low profile, high impact: How the visibility of political agents shapes corporate political influence, Strategic Management Journal. DOI: 10.1002/smj.3736
Journal information: Strategic Management Journal Provided by Strategic Management Society