No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Politics without bureaucrats? Western European NGO campaigns in the state and the market
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 June 2020
Abstract
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play an important role in the representation of citizens' interests towards policymakers. However, they increasingly run their campaigns not only against policymakers, but also against corporations. While the choice among strategies has been examined either in the state (targeting policymakers) or in the market (targeting companies), the choice between the two remains unexamined. Moreover, conventional studies of advocacy have failed to comparatively assess how groups combine strategies. This study fills these gaps, examining when NGOs target their campaigns at (a) the market, (b) the state and (c) both. It examines 24 NGO campaigns in the UK and Italy using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Three main findings emerge. First, structural factors – especially the openness of the market – are most important in determining which target an NGO chooses. Second, campaigns that combine strategies tend to be either market- or state-oriented. Finally, high resources are the factor that pushes NGOs to combine strategies across the market and the state.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 67 - 82
- Copyright
- Copyright © Società Italiana di Scienza Politica 2020
References
Barnett, C, Cloke, P, Cark, N and Malpass, A (2011) Globalizing Responsibility: The Political Rationalities of Ethical Consumption. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baron, DP (2003) Private politics. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 12, 31–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, FR and Leech, BL (1998) Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg-Schlosser, D and De Meur, G (2009) Comparative research methods: case and variable selection. In Rihoux, B and Ragin, CC (eds), Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkhout, J (2010) Conflicting Interests, Converging Strategies (diss.). Leiden University.Google Scholar
Beyers, J (2004) Voice and access: political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics 5, 211–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, J and Kerremans, B (2007) Critical resource dependencies and the Europeanization of domestic interest groups. Journal of European Public Policy 14, 460–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, J, Dür, A and Wonka, A (2017) The political salience of EU policies. Journal of European Public Policy 24, 1–12.Google Scholar
Binderkrantz, A (2005) Interest group strategies: navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies 53, 694–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binderkrantz, A (2008) Different groups, different strategies: how interest groups pursue their political ambitions. Scandinavian Political Studies 31, 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binderkrantz, A and Krøyer, S (2012) Customizing strategy: policy goals and interest group strategies. Interest Groups & Advocacy 1, 115–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkland, TA (1998) Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy 18, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boris, ET and Steuerle, CE (eds) (1998) Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration and Conflict. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Boström, M and Klintman, M (2011) Eco-Standards, Product Labelling and Green Consumerism, 2nd Edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bouwen, P (2002) Corporate lobbying in the European Union: towards a theory of access. Social Sciences 9, 365–90.Google Scholar
Buffardi, AL, Pekkanen, RJ and Smith, SR (2015) Shopping or specialization? Venue targeting among nonprofits engaged in advocacy. Policy Studies Journal 43, 188–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, N, Barnett, C, Cloke, P and Malpass, A (2007) Globalising the consumer: doing politics in an ethical register. Political Geography 26, 231–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colli, F (2020) Indirect consumer activism and politics in the market. Social Movement Studies 19, 249–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colli, F and Adriaensen, J (2018) Lobbying the state or the market? A framework to study civil society organizations’ strategic behavior. Regulation & Governance, 1–13, published early online, https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12227.Google Scholar
Culpepper, PD (2011) Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Bakker, FGA, den Hond, F, King, B and Weber, K (2013) Social movements, civil society and corporations: taking stock and looking ahead. Organization Studies 34, 573–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bruycker, I (2017) Politicization and the public interest: when do the elites in Brussels address public interests in EU policy debates? European Union Politics 18, 603–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellmuth, LM and Tallberg, J (2017) Advocacy strategies in global governance: inside versus outside lobbying. Political Studies 65, 705–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wilde, P (2011) No polity for old politics? A framework for analyzing the politicization of European integration. Journal of European Integration 33, 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dür, A and Mateo, G (2013) Gaining access or going public? Interest group strategies in five European countries. European Journal of Political Research 52, 660–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dür, A and Mateo, G (2016) Insiders versus Outsiders: Interest Group Politics in Multilevel Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dusa, A (2019) QCA with R. A Comprehensive Resource. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyussenov, M (2017) Contrasting between focusing, real-world and significant events in agenda-setting: introducing a new typology of ‘anchor’ events. Review of Public Administration and Management 5, 1–7, online only, doi: 10.4172/2315-7844.1000202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2016) Special Eurobarometer 442: Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare [online]. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/71348.Google Scholar
Friedman, M (1999) Consumer Boycotts: Effecting Change Through the Marketplace and Media. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gereffi, G and Lee, J (2016) Economic and social upgrading in global value chains and industrial clusters: why governance matters. Journal of Business Ethics 133, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giugni, M (2009) Political opportunities: from Tilly to Tilly. Swiss Political Science Review 15, 361–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, G (2006) Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, J and Jasper, JM (1999) Caught in a winding, snarling vine: the structural bias of political process theory. Sociological Forum 14, 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulbrandsen, LH (2006) Creating markets for eco-labelling: are consumers insignificant? International Journal of Consumer Studies 30, 477–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, T (2013) Beyond market signals: negotiating marketplace politics and corporate responsibilities. Economic Geography 89, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanegraaff, M and Pritoni, A (2019) United in fear: interest group coalition formation as a weapon of the weak? European Union Politics 20, 198–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanegraaff, M, Beyers, J and De Bruycker, I (2016) Balancing inside and outside lobbying: the political strategies of lobbyists at global diplomatic conferences. European Journal of Political Research 55, 568–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heldman, C (2017) Protest Politics in the Marketplace: Consumer Activism in the Corporate Age. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschman, AO (1970) Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, EA, Gross, MEB, Javernick-Will, ANA and Garvin, MJC (2011) Use and misuse of qualitative comparative analysis. Construction Management and Economics 29, 1159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junk, WM (2016) Two logics of NGO advocacy: understanding inside and outside lobbying on EU environmental policies. Journal of European Public Policy 23, 236–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, BG (2008 a) A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly 53, 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, BG (2008 b) A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society 47, 21–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, P (2017) Notes on sigwatch's NGO campaign database. PSE Working Paper 62, halshs-01671758.Google Scholar
Kollman, K (1998) Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kurzman, C (1996) Structural opportunity and perceived opportunity in social-movement theory: the Iranian revolution of 1979. American Sociological Review 61, 153–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lizzi, R and Pritoni, A (2017) The size and shape of the Italian interest system between the 1980s and the present day. Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica 47, 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, D (2007) Why do organized interests lobby? A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying. Polity 39, 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, C (2008) Brussels versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Malatesta, D and Smith, CR (2014) Lessons from resource dependency theory for contemporary public and nonprofit management. Public Administration Review 74, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, F and Gereffi, G (2010) Regulation and economic globalization: prospects and limits of private governance. Business and Politics 12, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, D (1996) Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In Mcadam, D, McCarthy, JD and Zald, MN (eds). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, JD and Zald, MN (1977) Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory. American Journal of Sociology 82, 1212–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mena, S and Waeger, D (2014) Activism for corporate responsibility: conceptualizing private regulation opportunity structures. Journal of Management Studies 51, 1091–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, DS and Minkoff, DC (2004) Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social Forces 82, 1457–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micheletti, M (2003) Political Virtue and Shopping: Individuals, Consumerism, and Collective Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oana, I-E and Schneider, CQ (2018) SetMethods: an Add-on Package for Advanced QCA. The R Journal [online]. Available at: https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2018/RJ-2018-031/index.html.Google Scholar
Page, EC (1999) The insider/outsider distinction: an empirical investigation. British Journal of Politics & International Relations 1, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Princen, S and Kerremans, B (2008) Opportunity structures in the EU multi-level system. West European Politics 31, 1129–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, CC (1989) The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, CC (2008) Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rihoux, B and Lobe, B (2015) The case-orientedness of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): glass half-empty or half-full? Teorija in Praksa 52, 1039–1245.Google Scholar
Rihoux, B and Ragin, CC (eds) (2009) Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, EE (1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schneider, CQ and Wagemann, C (2012) Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schurman, R (2004) Fighting ‘Frankenfoods’: industry opportunity structures and the efficacy of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe. Social Problems 51, 243–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soule, SA (2009) Contention and Corporate Social Responsibility. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolle, D and Micheletti, M (2013) Political Consumerism: Global Responsibility in Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, S (2011) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, 3rd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomann, E and Maggetti, M (2017) Designing research with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): approaches, challenges, and tools. Sociological Methods and Research 49, 356–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, D (1978) Lobbying the Corporation: Citizen Challenges to Business Authority. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wahlström, M and Peterson, A (2006) Between the state and the market: expanding the concept of ‘political opportunity structure’. Acta Sociologica 49, 363–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, ET, Martin, AW and McCarthy, JD (2008) Confronting the state, the corporation, and the academy: the influence of institutional targets on social movement repertoires. American Journal of Sociology 114, 35–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wapner, P (1995) Politics beyond the state: environmental activism and world civic politics. World Politics 47, 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colli supplementary material
Online Appendix
File
546.1 KB