Broadly, political risk refers to the complications businesses and governments may face as a result of what are commonly referred to as political decisions—or “any political change that alters the expected outcome and value of a given economic action by changing the probability of achieving business objectives”. Political risk faced by firms can be defined as “the risk of a strategic, financial, or personnel loss for a firm because of such nonmarket factors as macroeconomic and social policies (fiscal, monetary, trade, investment, industrial, income, labour, and developmental), or events related to political instability (terrorism, riots, coups, civil war, and insurrection).” Portfolio investors may face similar financial losses. Moreover, governments may face complications in their ability to execute diplomatic, military or other initiatives as a result of political risk.
A low level of political risk in a given country does not necessarily correspond to a high degree of political freedom. Indeed, some of the more stable states are also the most authoritarian. Long-term assessments of political risk must account for the danger that a politically oppressive environment is only stable as long as top-down control is maintained and citizens prevented from a free exchange of ideas and goods with the outside world.
Understanding risk partly as probability and partly as impact provides insight into political risk. For a business, the implication for political risk is that there is a measure of likelihood that political events may complicate its pursuit of earnings through direct impacts (such as taxes or fees) or indirect impacts (such as opportunity cost forgone). As a result, political risk is similar to an expected value such that the likelihood of a political event occurring may reduce the desirability of that investment by reducing its anticipated returns.
There are both macro- and micro-level political risks. Macro-level political risks have similar impacts across all foreign actors in a given location. While these are included in country risk analysis, it would be incorrect to equate macro-level political risk analysis with country risk as country risk only looks at national-level risks and also includes financial and economic risks. Micro-level risks focus on sector, firm, or project specific risk.
Macro-level political risk 
Macro-level political risk looks at non-project specific risks. Macro political risks affect all participants in a given country. A common misconception is that macro-level political risk only looks at country-level political risk; however, the coupling of local, national, and regional political events often means that events at the local level may have follow-on effects for stakeholders on a macro-level. Other types of risk include government currency actions, regulatory changes, sovereign credit defaults, endemic corruption, war declarations and government composition changes. These events pose both portfolio investment and foreign direct investment risks that can change the overall suitability of a destination for investment. Moreover, these events pose risks that can alter the way a foreign government must conduct its affairs as well.Macro political risks also affect the organizations operating in the nations and the result of macro level political risks are like confiscation, causing the seize of the businesses' property.
Research has shown that macro-level indicators can be quantified and modeled like other types of risk. For example, Eurasia Group produces a political risk index which incorporates four distinct categories of sub-risk into a calculation of macro-level political stability. This Global Political Risk Index can be found in publications like The Economist. Other companies which offer publications on macro-level political risk include Economist Intelligence Unit and The PRS Group, Inc.
Micro-level political risk 
Micro-level political risks are project-specific risks. In addition to the macro political risks, companies have to pay attention to the industry and relative contribution of their firms to the local economy. An examination of these types of political risks might look at how the local political climate in a given region may affect a business endeavor. Micropolitical risks are more in the favour of local businesses rather than international organizations operating in the nation. This type of risk process includes the project-specific government review Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the selection of dangerous local partners with political power, and expropriation/nationalization of projects and assets.
To extend the CFIUS example above, imagine a Chinese company wished to purchase a U.S. weapons component producer. A micro-level political risk report might include a full analysis of the CFIUS regulatory climate as it directly relates to project components and structuring, as well as analysis of congressional climate and public opinion in the United States toward such a deal. This type of analysis can prove crucial in the decision-making process of a company assessing whether to pursue such a deal. For instance, Dubai Ports World suffered significant public relations damage from its attempt to purchase the U.S. port operations of P&O, which might have been avoided with more clear understanding of the US climate at the time.
Political risk is also relevant for government project decision-making, whereby government initiatives (be they diplomatic or military or other) may be complicated as a result of political risk. Whereas political risk for business may involve understanding the host government and how its actions and attitudes can affect a business initiative, government political risk analysis requires a keen understanding of politics and policy that includes both the client government as well as the host government of the activity.
- Eurasia Group and PricewaterhouseCoopers, “Integrating Political Risk Into Enterprise Risk Management”, .
- Kennedy, C. (1988): "Political Risk Manageqment: A Portfolio Planning Model", Business Horizons, Vol. 31, p.21
- Ian Bremmer, “How to Calculate Political Risk,” Inc. Magazine, April 2007, p. 101
- Ephraim Clark, “Valuing political risk”, Journal of International Money, and Finance, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1997, 484-485; Stefan H. Robock, "Political Risk: Identification and Assessment." Columbia Journal of World Business, July–August 1971, pp. 6-20; and Stephen J. Kobrin “Political Risk: A Review and Reconsideration”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring - Summer, 1979), pp. 67-80.
- Alon, Ilan, and David L. McKee (1999), “Towards a Macro-environmental Model of International Franchising,” Multinational Business Review, 7 (1), 76-82.
- "Rolling with the Punches,” Economist, October 1, 2007  (accessed 05/06/2008)
- Alon, Ilan, Matthew Mitchell, Rajesh Gurumoorthy, Teresa Steen (2006), “Managing Micro-Political Risk: A Cross Sectional Study,” Thunderbird International Business Review 48 (5), 623-642.
- Ian Bremmer and Preston Keat, The Fat Tail: The Power of Political Knowledge for Strategic Investing (Oxford University Press: New York, 2009).
- Ian Bremmer, "Political Risk: Countering the Impact on Your Business", QFinance, November 2009.
- Llewellyn D. Howell, “The Handbook of Country and Political Risk Analysis”, Third Edition, PRS Group, 2002 
- Nathan Jensen “Measuring Risk: Political Risk Insurance Premiums and Domestic Political Institutions”, Washington University, 
- Martin Lindeberg and Staffan Mörndal, “Managing Political Risk—A Contextual Approach”, 
- Theodore H. Moran ed., International Political Risk Management: Exploring New Frontiers (IBRD: Washington, 2001, pg. 213-214)
- Jeffrey D. Simon, “A Theoretical Perspective on Political Risk”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3. (Winter, 1984), pp. 123–143.
- Guy Leopold Kamga Wafo, “Political Risk and Foreign Direct Investment”, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Konstanz, 1998, 
- Additional resources summary http://www.ipoliticalrisk.com under Articles