More from these Authors

• Article | Global Policy | September 2020

  Dignity, Inequality, and the Populist Backlash: Lessons from America and Europe for a Sustainable Globalization

  Rawi Abdelal

  The greatest challenge to the sustainability of our current era of globalization comes from within the United States. Most Americans have come to reject globalization. We must discern the lessons from the parts of the developed world where the backlash is also profound—France, for example—and where it has been more muted—such as Germany. In both the United States and France, gross Gini coefficients have increased sharply during the past thirty or so years. The French state has, however, delivered a net, after-tax, after-transfer distribution of income that is more equal than it was thirty years ago. And yet: France is still in the midst of an anti-systemic populist revolt. There is only one inescapable conclusion: It is not just about the money. Those who feel left behind in both countries feel that they have lost respect and dignity. We cannot redistribute our way out of the crisis of global capitalism. The German experience holds lessons. We must value and valorize the many ways in which people contribute. We must also pursue policies that create patterns of employment that confer dignity, meaning, and purpose. I argue for dignity as a tool of policy, beyond its normative desirability as a goal.

  Keywords: populism; backlash; dignity; Globalization; Economic Systems; Equality and Inequality; Policy; Values and Beliefs; United States; Europe;

  Citation:

  Abdelal, Rawi. "Dignity, Inequality, and the Populist Backlash: Lessons from America and Europe for a Sustainable Globalization." Global Policy 11, no. 4 (September 2020): 492–500.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related

• Article | Marketing Science | September–October 2020

  The Air War Versus the Ground Game: An Analysis of Multi-Channel Marketing in U.S. Presidential Elections

  Lingling Zhang and Doug J. Chung

  This study jointly examines the effects of television advertising and field operations in U.S. presidential elections, with the former referred to as the “air war” and the latter as the “ground game.” Specifically, the study focuses on how different campaign activities—personal selling in the form of field operations and mass media advertising by the candidate and outside sources—vary in their effectiveness with voters who have different political predispositions. The voting choice model takes into consideration voter heterogeneity and analyzes comprehensive data that include voting outcomes, detailed campaign activities, and voters’ party affiliation for three presidential elections (2004–2012). The results reveal that different campaign activities have heterogeneous effects depending on voters’ party affiliation. Field operations and political advertising from outside groups are more effective with partisans, while a candidate’s advertising is more effective with non-partisans. These findings can help strategists better allocate resources across and within channels to design an effective political marketing campaign.

  Keywords: multi-channel marketing; ground campaigning; political campaigns; discrete-choice model; instrumental variables; Political Elections; Marketing Channels; Advertising; United States;

  Citation:

  Zhang, Lingling, and Doug J. Chung. "The Air War Versus the Ground Game: An Analysis of Multi-Channel Marketing in U.S. Presidential Elections." Marketing Science 39, no. 5 (September–October 2020): 872–892.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Read Now

  Related

• Article | Marketing Science | July–August 2020

  Price Bargaining and Competition in Online Platforms: An Empirical Analysis of the Daily Deal Market

  Lingling Zhang and Doug J. Chung

  The prevalence of online platforms opens new doors to traditional businesses for customer reach and revenue growth. This research investigates platform choice in a setting where prices are determined by negotiations between platforms and businesses. We compile a unique and comprehensive dataset from the U.S. daily deal market, where merchants offer deals to generate revenues and attract new customers. We specify and estimate a two-stage supply-side model in which platforms and merchants bargain on the wholesale price of deals. Based on Nash bargaining solutions, our model generates insights into how bargaining and competition jointly determine the price and firm profits. Our results show that there is systematic variation in bargaining power between platforms and merchants with different characteristics. By working with a bigger platform, merchants enjoy a larger customer base, but they are subject to lower margins due to less bargaining power during negotiations. Our counterfactual results quantify the value of platforms for merchants and show that merchants with lower bargaining power benefit more by working with a smaller platform. Regarding the impact of price negotiations on platform competition, we estimate that roughly 11% of the deals on a smaller platform are attributable to the platform’s lower level of revenue sharing.

  Keywords: business-to-business marketing; platform competition; Two-Sided Markets; price bargaining; daily deals; structural model; Two-Sided Platforms; Competition; Price; Negotiation;

  Citation:

  Zhang, Lingling, and Doug J. Chung. "Price Bargaining and Competition in Online Platforms: An Empirical Analysis of the Daily Deal Market." Marketing Science 39, no. 4 (July–August 2020): 687–706.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Read Now

  Related