So now we have an issue, and we have stakeholders, and each of those stakeholders has a position on the issue. What is the likelihood of these stakeholders taking nonmarket action? That is, of participating in activities such as "lobbying, grassroots and other forms of constituent activity, research and testimony, electoral support and public advocacy?" (Baron, 2010, p. 155).
To understand the likelihood of a stakeholder participating in nonmarket activities, we use the concepts of supply and demand. Baron (2010) describes it well:
The extent of these [nonmarket] activities is a function of their costs and benefits, and the optimal amount of nonmarket action maximizes the excess of benefits over costs for the interest [stakeholder].
To assess the nonmarket actions of interests [stakeholders], the supply-and-demand framework from economics can be used. The demand side pertains to the benefits associated with nonmarket action on an issue, and the supply side pertains to the cost of taking, or supplying, nonmarket action. An increase in the benefits results in more nonmarket action, and an increase in the costs results in less nonmarket action (Baron, 2010, p. 155).
The demand for nonmarket action comes from the consequences of the issue outcome on the various stakeholders. "For firms, those consequences are reflected in sales, profits, and market value. Employee interests are measured in terms of jobs and wages. For consumers, the consequences are measured in terms of the price, qualities, and availability of goods and services" (Baron, 2010, p. 155).
Demand for nonmarket action can be understood in terms of three factors:
Note that per capita and aggregate benefits can be related to the (dis)unity of the group noted in the previous page. Some members within a group may not receive any benefits, or a lot, and all points between. This may be a cause or effect of disunity, but either way should be taken into consideration. As more members receive more benefits, the per capita and aggregate benefits increase. Aggregate and per capita benefits usually operate in lock-step, but they may have different impacts on the demand for an action. For example, if all taxpayers in the U.S. were to receive a very small tax break - let's say $25/year for argument's sake - then the per capita benefits would not be very large and thus demand not likely significant. However, the aggregate benefits would be substantial, since there are over 140,000,000 taxpayers [1] in the U.S. and thus would indicate a relatively high demand. Overall, as per capita and/or aggregate benefits increase, likelihood of nonmarket action increases.
In sum, demand for nonmarket action--the benefits motivating a stakeholder to take action--are a result of the individual (per capita) benefits, the aggregate benefits, and the presence (or lack of presence) of substitute ways to achieve the same benefits.