political risk analysis, in risk management, analysis of the probability that political decisions, events, or conditions will significantly affect the profitability of a business or the expected value of a given business decision. A wide spectrum of political risks may affect business, and political risk analysts use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to analyze and assess such risks.
Although political risk analysis has a long history, a series of international crises in the 1970s prompted its development into an institutionalized business practice. They included the 1973 oil embargo by OPEC (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) and the Nicaraguan and Iranian revolutions of 1978â79. Academic research on political risk analysis also emerged in earnest in the 1970s and â80s.
Political risk analysts identify political risks and their variables, assess their significance and the relationships between them, and make recommendations regarding the management and mitigation of political risks. Social science research and nonacademic interpretations of current affairs influence all three phasesânamely, the analysis, assessment, and management of political risk.
Although political risk analysis could apply to the domestic activities of a business, in practice it usually comes into play when a business is considering activities in other countries. In the academic literature, the focus is generally placed on foreign direct investment (FDI) rather than on relatively passive portfolio investment. The exposure of assets or personnel in FDI reinforces the relevance of political risk analysis. However, political risk can also affect the expected profits and market stakes of exporters, contractors, and licensors.
Sources of political risk
Several sometimes overlapping government functions can have an impact on business. In many industrialized countries, governmentâs role as a regulator is especially extensive, resulting in legislation related to the environment, health and safety, employment, trade unions, and consumers. A government can also serve as a restrictor of business activity (tariffs and trade quotas), a redistributor of business income (taxation and social welfare policies), a customer (procurement), and a sponsor (subsidies and other corporate welfare).
Some scholars have argued that political risk analysis displays an inherent bias, according to which any government intervention in the economy is negative. It is in any case meaningful to locate the particular relationships between multinational business and national governments or other political actors when assessing the actual political risk. The particular cultural and historical context may also influence political riskâfor example, in cases in which energy or mineral companies are associated with earlier colonial projects in Africa or the Middle East.
The most familiar relationship between business and political authorities is a cooperative arrangement, in which negotiations are ongoing and a normal part of operations. A second kind of relationship is collaborative, consisting of privately owned companies with a strong governmental presence or joint ventures between private businesses and public-sector companies.
An authoritative relationship exists when a multinational corporation and a government are at loggerheads. In most cases, a government can impose new rules, which may result in divestment by the company. Two other relationships are far less frequent. A home government may use a multinational company to promote its political objectives. Alternatively, in the case of subversion, a multinational company may actively work to undermine a host government, sometimes with the covert encouragement of the companyâs home government. In the latter two cases, the conduct of business can also constitute a source of political risk.
Risks to business in a country may ensue not only from actions by the government in that country but also from actions by governments in other countries. Opposition groups and other domestic stakeholders and the particular political circumstances in a country may also become linked to political risk. In some countries, owing to the power or authority of informal networks linked to the government, such groups, rather than the government itself, may be the main source of political risk to a particular business.
Political risk may vary at different business levelsâthat is, for all foreign business actors, for a particular industry or company, or for a particular project. Political risk also depends on the type of investment, its methods of financing, its location, and the time frame involved. Political risk may affect several aspects of a business, including personnel, assets, contracts, operations, transfers, and company goals.
Risks to personnel and operations may include intimidation, kidnapping, sabotage, and terrorism, especially if the risks arise from political concerns. However, some risks may ensue from nonpolitical actors and constitute a general security risk only, requiring a distinct set of preventive measures and responses. Asset risks may include general nationalization and specific expropriation, restrictions on ownership, and an insistence on locally owned shareholdings or local directorships. Contractual risks may include changes in contractual conditions due to legislative or bureaucratic action and the violation or termination of contracts due to violence or political change, including revolution, civil war, secession, interstate war, coup dâĂ©tat, or peaceful succession.
Risks to operations constitute a broad category and include all host country regulations that affect business operations. They may include labour relations, taxation, restrictions on labour or technology transfers, and local product content regulations. Some other examples are quotas and tariffs, environmental and consumer protection, antitrust and merger laws, discrimination in awarding contracts, and bureaucratic nepotism. Transfer risks could include exchange controls, profit repatriation, and restrictions on royalty payments. Local variations of these risks are possible in countries where the regional authority of an area is at loggerheads with the central government or where a local power broker is the actual authority on the ground.
