| dc.description.abstract | There has been a public fascination with campaign consultants for quite some time. Political scientists, though, have paid little attention to them. Existing research shows that these consultants tend to help candidates win higher percentages of the vote. Despite such research, the study of campaign consultants is largely without theory. This dissertation advances the understanding of campaign professionals by systematically examining why consultants operate in the American political system. Using new survey data, I demonstrate that there are two major motivations for why individuals become and remain consultants: financial considerations and the desire to see ideologically preferred candidates elected to public office. With this in mind, how do risk-averse consultants maximize their performance in each area? Theoretically, this dissertation utilizes the Behavioral Theory of the Firm (BTOF) as a way to understand how risk and performance are related. Consultants and consulting firms make decisions based on a variety of factors, including how others in their specialization have recently performed, their aspirations and expectations, and how they have buffered themselves from exogenous shocks in their environment. The findings indicate that consultants deal with four types of risk: potential client electability, opponent quality, potential client résumé strength, and financial considerations; BTOF does a very good job explaining the first three. After examining the determinants of risk, I test BTOF as a predictor of consultant revenue and consulting firm winning percentage, with the latter using a second new data set. The theory performs well, indicating that increased risk tends to lead to greater performance in both areas. This dissertation demonstrates the portability of BTOF into the elections literature and provides a unique look into the world of a rarely examined political group. | |
