political consec. social movement

SO36CH14-Amenta ARI 3 June 2010 0:31

The Political Consequencesof Social MovementsEdwin Amenta,1 Neal Caren,2 Elizabeth Chiarello,1

and Yang Su11Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, California 92697;email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] of Sociology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,North Carolina 27599; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010. 36:287307

First published online as a Review in Advance onApril 20, 2010

The Annual Review of Sociology is online atsoc.annualreviews.org

This articles doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120029

Copyright c 2010 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0360-0572/10/0811-0287$20.00

Key Words

collective benets, states, inuence, political mediation, case studies

Abstract

Research on the political consequences of socialmovements has recentlyaccelerated. We take stock of this research with a focus on movementsin democratic polities and the United States in comparative and histori-cal perspective. Although most studies demonstrate the inuence of thelargest movements, this research has not addressed how much move-ments matter. As for the conditions under which movements matter,scholars have been revising their initial hypotheses that the strategies,organizational forms, and political contexts that aid mobilization alsoaid in gaining and exerting political inuence. Scholars are exploringalternative arguments about the productivity of different actions andcharacteristics of movements and movement organizations in the var-ied political contexts and institutional settings they face. Researchers arealso employingmore innovative research designs to appraise thesemorecomplex arguments. Scholarship will advance best if scholars continueto think through the interactions between strategies, organizations, andcontexts; addressmovement inuences on processes in institutional pol-itics beyond the agenda-setting stage; situate case studies in comparativeand historical perspective; and make more comparisons across move-ments and issues.

287

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


INTRODUCTION

The political consequences of social move-ments have drawn extensive scholarly attentionin the rst decade of this century. The years2001 through 2009 alone have seen an acceler-ation of publications, including 45 articles, 38in the top four general sociology journalstheAmerican Sociological Review, American Journal ofSociology, Social Forces, and Social Problemsand7 in Mobilization, the top movement specialtyjournal. This outpouring includes severalmonographs and edited volumes from presti-gious scholarly presses. This review takes stockof this researchits questions, conceptualand theoretical developments, and researchstrategieswhich was last reviewed more thana decade ago (Giugni 1998). We address socialmovements attempts to inuence policymak-ing, themain subject of research, but alsomove-ment inuences on democratic rights, electoralprocesses, legal decisions, political parties, andstate bureaucracies. In this review, we focus onthe political impact of movements in largelydemocratized polities and especially in the U.S.polity in comparative andhistorical perspective.

We dene political social movements asactors and organizations seeking to alter powerdecits and to effect social transformationsthrough the state by mobilizing regular citizensfor sustained political action (see Tilly 1999,Amenta et al. 2009). The denition focuseson social movement organizations (SMOs)(McCarthy & Zald 1977) or challengers(Gamson 1990) that can be combined intosocial movement industries or families. Weinclude all the political collective action ofmovements: not only extrainstitutional actionsuch as protest marches and civil disobedience,but also lobbying, lawsuits, and press confer-ences.1 The denition does not include public

1Our denition includes established SMOs and movementactors, such as the National Organization for Women. Ourdenition excludes politically active interest groups basedon business and professional actors, such as the Chamber ofCommerce and American Medical Association, whose con-stituents are not facing political power decits and are seen asmembers of the polity (Tilly 1999) and also excludes service,

opinion (cf. McCarthy & Zald 1977), which wesee as analytically separate from movementsand may have a direct impact on political out-comes (Giugni 2004, Brooks & Manza 2006,Agnone 2007). Using a similar denition,Amenta et al. (2009) identify 34 major socialmovement families by surveying all nationaland political U.S. SMOs that appeared inThe New York Times in the twentieth century.The most covered movements were those oflabor, African American civil rights, veterans,feminists, nativists, and environmentalists.

A central issue in the literature is whethersocial movements have had any major politicalconsequences or can be routinely expected tohave them. Unlike mobilizing constituents,creating collective identities, increasing indi-vidual and organizational capacities, or alteringthe career trajectories of movement partici-pants, political consequences are external toand not under the direct control of SMOs. Theproximate actors in key political decisions arepolitical executives, legislators, administrators,and judges, each subject to myriad inuences.The disagreement on this basic issue is wide.Some scholars (Baumgartner & Mahoney2005, Piven 2006) hold that social movementsare generally effective and account for mostimportant political change. Others (Skocpol2003, Burstein & Sausner 2005, Giugni 2007)argue that social movements are rarely inuen-tial and overall not signicantly so comparedwith other political actors, institutions, andprocesses. The extant researchmainly casestudies of the largest movementstypicallyconcludes that these movements are politicallyinuential for the specic outcomes analyzed,but it does not settle the larger questions ofwhether movements are generally effective orhow inuential they are.

Most scholars studying the political in-uence of movements seek to identify the

recreational, and fraternal organizations and actors, such asthe March of Dimes, the American Bowling Congress, andthe Knights of Columbus, as they are not mainly politicallyfocused. Nor do we include all international nongovernmen-tal organizations, given their frequent service orientation.

288 Amenta et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


conditions under which social movementsare likely to be inuential and see the impactof social movements on states as a recursiveprocess (Soule et al. 1999, Amenta et al. 2002,Meyer 2005, Amenta 2006, Olzak & Soule2009). The structure and activities of statesinuence lines of organization and actionamong movements, and social movementsseek to inuence states by mobilizing people,resources, and claims around lines of action.Partly because of its late start, research on thepolitical consequences of movements began byhypothesizing that political inuence would beproduced by the movement literatures threemain determinants of mobilization: resourcemobilization and organizational forms ormobilizing structures (McCarthy & Zald2002, McVeigh et al. 2003, Andrews 2004,King et al. 2005), framing strategies (Cress& Snow 2000, McCright & Dunlap 2003,McVeigh et al. 2004, McCammon et al. 2008,McCammon 2009), and political opportunitiesand contexts (Giugni 2004, Meyer & Minkoff2004, Soule 2004, Meyer 2005, McVeigh et al.2006). The idea was that the circumstancesthat helped challengers mobilize would alsoaid them in their bids to effect political change.Recent research has suggested that high mo-bilization is necessary for a movement to gainpolitical inuence and that certain mobilizingstructures and political circumstances boost theproductivity of movement efforts, but also thatconditions and activities that spur mobilizationoften present problems for challengers beyondthe attention-getting phase of politics. Sortingthis out has been a focus of recent research.

In our review, we address a series of issuesspecic to the political consequences of move-ments. First, we specify what inuence meansfor politically oriented challengers. Next, weaddress the question of whether movementshave been generally inuential. We thenreview hypothesized pathways to inuence forchallengers, going beyond the standard deter-minants of mobilization to address theoreticalapproaches that confront specic aspects ofpolitical actors, structures, and processes andincorporate them in multicausal arguments.

From there we address the distinctive method-ological issues that arise in attempting toappraise theoretical claims about the politicalconsequences of movements (Tilly 1999, Earl2000, Giugni 2004, McVeigh et al. 2006,Tilly & Tarrow 2006). We conclude withsuggestions for future thinking and lines ofempirical inquiry.

HOW MIGHT MOVEMENTSMATTER IN POLITICS?

The question of how movements might matteris about the nature of the outcome or depen-dent variable. Scholars of the political impactsof movements have moved away from address-ing whether movements or organizations aresuccessful in gaining new benets or acceptance(Gamson 1990) and have turned to examiningthe causal inuence of movements on politicaloutcomes and processes drawn from politicalsociology literature (Andrews 2004, Amenta &Caren 2004). The main potential political con-sequences of movements at the structural levelare the extension of democratic rights and prac-tices and the formation of new political parties.At amore intermediate level are changes in pol-icy, which can provide consistent benets to amovements constituency as well as enforce col-lective identities and aid challengers in strug-gles against targets not mainly state oriented.Scholars have found it valuable to divide thepolicymaking process into its component parts.Scholars of political outcomes have deempha-sized Gamsons (1990) acceptance but haveargued that challengers can gain political lever-age of a similar kind through connections withpolitical parties and through electoral activity aswell as through what Gamson calls inclusion,or challengers occupying state positions.

Beyond Success

Scholars of the political impact of move-ments have dropped or modied Gamsons(1990) types of successnew advantages andacceptancelargely because these outcomesand the idea of success generally do not

www.annualreviews.org Political Consequences of Movements 289

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


correspond well to the degree of potential in-uence over states and political processes. ForGamson, success in new advantages means thatan SMOs goals were mainly realized, and thiscriterion works well when a movement has oneimportant political goal, such as gaining suf-frage (Banaszak 1996, McCammon et al. 2001)or banning alcohol (Szymanski 2003). But thesuccess standard limits the consideration ofmany possible political impacts. Challengersmay fail to achieve their stated programandthus be deemed a failurebut still win substan-tial new advantages for their constituents, a sit-uation likely for challengers with far-reachinggoals (Amenta et al. 2005). There may be ben-ecial unintended consequences (Tilly 1999).Challengers can do worse than fail; they can in-duce backlashes, such as repression or increasedpolicing (Piven&Cloward 1977; Fording 2001;Snow & Soule 2009, chapter 6). Challengersconstituencies may gain political results thatchallengers do not cause (Skrentny 2006b).

To address some of these issues, otherscholars start with an alternative based on theconcept of collective goods or on group-wiseadvantages or disadvantages from whichnonparticipants cannot be easily excluded, andthese scholars focus explicitly on states andpolitical processes (Amenta & Young 1999).Political collective goods can be material, suchas categorical social spending programs, butcan also be less tangible, such as new ways torefer to a group. SMOs almost invariably claimto represent a group extending beyond the or-ganizations adherents and make demands thatwould provide collective benets to that largergroup (Tilly 1999). The collective benet stan-dard takes into account that a challenger canhave considerable impact even when it fails toachieve its goals and that successful challengerscould have negligible consequences (Amenta& Young 1999, Andrews 2004, Agnone 2007).

These ideas regarding new benets andcollective goods have been connected to po-litical sociological concepts (see Amenta et al.2002). From this perspective, the greatest sortof impact is the one that provides a group withcontinuing leverage over political processes and

increases the political returns to the collectiveaction of a challenger. These gains are usuallyat a structural or systemic level of state pro-cesses and constitute a kind of meta-collectivebenet. Gains in the democratization of stateprocesses, such as winning the right to vote by anonfranchised group, increase the productivityof future state-directed collective action bysuch groups. Many of the most prominentsocial movements have sought this basic goal,including movements of workers, women, and,in the United States, the civil rights movement(Rueschemeyer et al. 1992, Banaszak 1996,McAdam 1999, McCammon et al. 2001).The formation by movements of establishedpolitical parties is also a structural politicalchange (Schwartz 2000 andmore below), if onestep removed from transformations in states.

Collective Goods through Policy

Most collective action, however, is aimed at anintermediate level: benets that will continue toow from states to groups unless some coun-tervailing action is taken. These generally in-volve major legislative changes in state policyand the bureaucratic enforcement and imple-mentation of that policy. State policies are in-stitutionalized benets that provide collectivegoods in a routine fashion to all those meet-ing specied requirements. For example, onceenacted and enforced with bureaucratic means,categorical social spending programs providebenets in such a manner (Amenta 1998). Thebeneciaries gain rights of entitlement to thebenets, and bureaucratic enforcement helps toensure the routine maintenance of such collec-tive benets. The issue and group are privilegedin politics. Regulatory bureaucracies may ad-vance mandates in the absence of new legisla-tion, as with state labor commissions (Amenta1998) or afrmative action (Bonastia 2000).However, policies vary widely in their impli-cations. Challengers may win something minorfor their constituency, such as a one-time sym-bolic benet designedmainly to reassure an au-dience of voters or other bystanders (Santoro2002).

290 Amenta et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Through their policies, states can ratifyor attempt to undermine emerging collectiveidentities or help to create new ones, sometimeson purpose, though often inadvertently. Inso-far as a challenger constructs a new collectiveidentity that extends to a beneciary group andprovides psychological rewards, winning a po-litical afrmation of this identity is a potentiallyimportant accomplishment (Polletta & Jasper2001). States provide authoritative commu-nications that can greatly inuence identitiesand are often in the vanguard of recognizingnew identity claims through changes in policy(Amenta & Young 1999). These results canrange from a challengers constituency gainingmore respectful labels in ofcial governmentalrepresentations, to having the group formallyrecognized in state policies and regulations(Skrentny 2002, 2006b), to dening racialcategories (Nobles 2000).

Movements and organizations that are notprimarily state oriented may also target thestate for policies that aid them in strugglesagainst other targets (Tarrow 1998), thusincreasing the probability of inuencing thesetargets. For example, labor movements focuson states to ensure rights to organize and en-gage in collective bargaining. Also, civil rightsmovements have had an advantage in ght-ing discrimination by corporations throughequal employment opportunity (EEO) laws(Skrentny 2002). By outlawing a set of practicesand providing legal remedies, EEO laws createanother channel for collective action. Further-more, by creating a bureau, the EEOC, theselaws have provided additional resources andlegitimation for the movement. Thus, chal-lengers can demand state regulations on indus-tries (Schneiberg & Bartley 2001). States mayalso become a fulcrum in transnational protest(Paxton et al. 2006). Challengers blocked in onestate may appeal to sympathetic SMOs in otherstates to apply pressure to their governmentsto alter the policies of the original state.

Scholars can better assess the impact ofchallengers by dividing the process of creatingnew laws that contain collective benetsinto the processes of (a) agenda setting,

(b) legislative content, (c) passage, and(d ) implementation (Amenta & Young 1999,Andrews & Edwards 2004). If a challengerplaces its issue onto the political agenda, ithas increased its probability of winning somecollective benets for its larger constituency.Inuencing the political agenda matters forachieving legislative gains (Baumgartner &Mahoney 2005), and movement protest ismost inuential at this early stage of the policyprocess (King et al. 2005, 2007; Soule & King2006; Johnson 2008; Olzak & Soule 2009). Achallenger can also work to increase the valueof collective benets included in any bill thatmakes it onto the legislative agenda (Bernstein2001, Amenta 2006).Once the content has beenspecied, moreover, challengers can inuenceindividual legislators to vote for the bill andthus inuence the probability of gaining spec-ied collective benets (Amenta et al. 2005).Then the program must be implemented,and the more secure the implementation thegreater the probability of collective benetsover the long run (Andrews & Edwards 2004).Winning a new interpretation of a law can be acollective benet, too, and litigation has beenan increasingly important process for move-ments, especially regarding the enforcement ofexisting laws (McCann 2006, Skrentny 2006a).

Beyond Acceptance

Democratic states generally recognize chal-lenging organizations, and so scholars in thisarea do not frequently address Gamsons(1990) acceptance. More useful is a modiedversion of Gamsons (1990) inclusion, orchallengers who gain state positions throughelection or appointment, which can lead tocollective benets (Banaszak 2005, Amenta2006, Paxton et al. 2006). Important interme-diate inuence can come through elections andpolitical parties, as the willingness of ofcials toaid the constituents of social movements oftenturns on electoral considerations (Goldstone2003, Amenta 2006). The connections can bedirect and tight, as whenmovements form theirown political parties (Schwartz 2000), which


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


can take ofce (usually in coalitions) and act ontheir platforms, as with some left-libertarianand green parties in Europe (Rucht 1999). Inpolities with direct democratic devices, move-ments may win or inuence policy changesthrough referendums (Kriesi 2004).

In the U.S. polity, creating an enduringmovement party has not been possible, anddirect democratic devices are restricted tosome states (Amenta 2006). More inuentialin U.S. settings are challengers bids to forgeenduring electoral connections with one of themain political parties, as through inuencingthe party platforms of presidential nominees.Historically, this has been done, for example,between labor and civil rights movementsand the national Democratic party (Amenta1998) and, more recently, between ChristianRight and antiabortion movements and theRepublican party (Micklethwait &Wooldridge2005, Fetner 2008). U.S. national legislativecandidates are not bound by party platforms,however. Movements have sought to inuenceindividual candidates and elections, oftenaiding friends or combating enemies as deter-mined by voting records or campaign promises,and have avoided strict alignments with partiesto maximize membership (Clemens 1997,Amenta 2006, McVeigh 2009). As for inclu-sion proper, U.S. challenging organizationsrepresentatives are far more likely to beappointed to state positions, such as to regulargovernmental bureaucracies or to commissionsaddressing a specic issue (Amenta 2006), thanto win ofce through elections; care is needed,however, to distinguish between inclusion ofactual participants in challenges and inclu-sion of members of the challengers targetconstituency.

DO MOVEMENTS MATTERIN POLITICS, AND IF SO,HOW MUCH?

The question of if and how much movementsmatter in politics is important because onekey motivation for studying movements is thatthey effect political and social change. Some

scholars view social movements other than la-bor as relatively lacking in political inuencecompared with other political actors and in-stitutions (Skocpol 2003, Burstein & Sausner2005). Others tend to evaluate movements ashighly inuential (see Berry 1999, Baumgartner& Mahoney 2005, Piven 2006). Abundant re-search indicates that various individual move-ments and their activities have inuenced spe-cic policies, but researchers often nd thatmovement inuence is contingent on favorablepolitical or other circumstances (see Table 1).The more global questions of whether mostmovements have mattered and how much theyhave mattered in comparison with other deter-minants of political outcomes have not beenconclusively addressed.

Some scholarship employs research designsthat provide leverage on the global questions.Notably, researchers have compared inuenceacross a random sample of U.S. movementorganizations (Gamson 1990); across the58 largest civic membership organizations(Skocpol 2003), about half of which are SMOs;and across a selection of major political issues(Baumgartner & Mahoney 2005). Otherstudies examine similar movements acrosscountries (Kriesi et al. 1995; Giugni 2004,2007; Linders 2004; Halfmann 2010). Yetothers analyze individual movements and allkey legislation enacted during the period ofcontention (Viterna & Fallon 1998, Werum& Winders 2001, Amenta 2006, Agnone 2007,Johnson 2008, Santoro 2008, Olzak & Soule2009), such as relating to old age, LGBTrights, or the environment. These studies ndthat SMOs and other civic organizations havebeen inuential. Gamson (1990) nds thatmost of his challenging organizations gainedsome form of success, although success is oftencontingent on goals, activities, and forms oforganization. Skocpol (2003) nds inuenceamong civic organizations with active mem-bership afliates across the country. Othersalso nd that movement inuence depends inpart on the circumstances under which move-ments contend (Amenta 2006, Santoro 2008,Halfmann 2010) or is conned to the

292 Amenta et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Table

1Movem

entinflu

ence

asatopicad

dressedin

articles

ain

thetopfour

sociolog

yjourna

lsan

dMobilization

,200

120

09,b

ymovem

entfamily

and

prom

inen

ce,o

utcometype

analyzed

,sizean

ddirectionof

effect,and

direct

ormed

iatedinflu

ence

Influ

ence

ofMov

emen

tsMed

iation

andTyp

e

Movem

entfamily

(prominen

ce)b

Mov

emen

tsexam

ined

cStrong

Mod

est

Weak

Non

eNeg

ative

Unm

ediated

Med

iated

Partisan

Con

text

Leg

islative

Stage

Lab

or(1)

21

10

00

11

00

Civilrigh

ts,b

lack

(2)

113

61

10

110

41

Feminism/w

omen

srigh

ts(4)

117

31

00

110

42

Nativist/suprem

acist

(5)

10

00

01

10

00

Env

iron

men

t(6)

61

23

00

15

10

Antiw

ar(9)

20

01

10

11

00

Civilrigh

ts,o

ther

(19)

50

13

10

05

40

Christia

nRight

(21)

21

10

00

11

01

Lesbian

andga

y(24)

30

12

00

03

01

Other/non

-U.S.

115

51

00

011

51

Outcometype

Structural

31

11

00

12

01

Policy,

multip

le10

35

20

01

91

2Policy,

sing

le40

1414

93

04

3617

3Election/inclusion

10

00

01

10

00

Total

5418

2012

31

747

186

a The

45artic

lescatego

rizedin

thistable:

Agn

one20

07;A

lmeida

2008

;Amen

taet

al.2

005;

And

rews20

01;C

hen20

07;C

ornw

alle

tal.20

07;D

avis&

Rosan

2004

;Dixon

2008

;Evans

&Kay

2009

;Giugn

i200

7;How

ard-Hassm

ann20

05;Ing

ram

&Rao

2004

;Isaac

etal.2

006;

Jaco

bs&

Helms20

01;Jacob

s&

Ken

t200

7;John

son20

08;K

ane20

03,2

007;

Kinget

al.2

005,

2007

;Lee

2007

;McA

dam

&Su

2002

;McC

ammon

2009

;McC

ammon

etal.2

001,

2007

,200

8;M

cCrigh

t&Dun

lap20

03;M

cVeigh

etal.2

003,

2004

,200

6;Noy

2009

;Olzak

&Ryo

2007

;Olzak

&So

ule

2009

;Ped

rian

a20

04,2

006;

Santoro20

02,2

008;

Skrentny

2006

a;So

ule20

04;S

oule

&King20

06;S

oule

&Olzak

2004

;Stearns

&Alm

eida

2004

;Tsutsui

&Sh

in20

08;V

iterna&

Fallo

n19

98;

Werum

&W

inde

rs20

01.

bThe

prom

inen

ceof

amov

emen

tfam

ily(sho

wnin

parenthe

ses)refers

toits

rank

ingin

The

New

York

Tim

escitatio

ns,1

900

1999

(see

Amen

taet

al.2

009).

c Num

berof

mov

emen

tsin

each

catego

ryexam

ined

.For

artic

lesthat

exam

ined

morethan

onemov

emen

tfam

ilyor

orga

nizatio

nwith

inthat

family

,eachcase

isco

dedsepa

rately.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


agenda-setting phase of the policy process(Baumgartner & Mahoney 2005, Olzak &Soule 2009).

Recent high-prole articles also indicatethat movements have been signicantly inu-ential. Table 1 considers all 45 articles, en-compassing the analysis of 54 movements ormovement organizations, published in the topfour sociology journals and Mobilization be-tween 2001 and 2009 that examined state-related outcomes of movements; all but 4 ofthe 54 found at least one positive relation-ship between these outcomes and a movementmeasure. These measures included the num-ber of protest events, membership size, andorganizational density. In 33 instances, theserelationships were established through regres-sion analyses controlling for many other poten-tial determinants of the outcomes. In 12 oth-ers, comparative and historical analysts selectedcases to control for other potential determi-nants of the outcomes,meaning that about 83%of the movements examined were deemed sig-nicantly inuential beyond controls.

Yet, for several reasons, these studies donot conclusively answer the general questionof whether movements are typically inuentialand how inuential they have been in compar-ison to other potential causes. Almost all theresearch is on policy, with only three instancesof movements seeking structural inuence.Yet only in 10 cases do researchers addressall legislation or multiple pieces of legislationrelated to a movements main issue. And eventhese studies only sometimes separate outthe most key legislation in terms of benetsit may provide (Amenta et al. 2005, Olzak& Soule 2009). Almost three-fourths of themovement relationships analyzed (40 out of 54)addressed specic policy outcomes of interestto movements at particular points in time.Only one article addressed an issue relatingto acceptance, in this instance a movementsinuence on electoral results, which was neg-ative (McVeigh et al. 2004). As for the degreeof inuence, using the scholars evaluationsplus our own when these are not supplied, wend that 18 of these ndings indicate a strong

(and positive) movement inuence and another20 indicate moderate inuence. Thus, about70% of the relationships show reasonably highmovement inuence. However, this means that30% of the ndings show negligible positiveinuence of movements: 12, or 22%, exhibitweak inuence, 3 nd no inuence, and 1exhibits negative inuence. Moreover, theimpact of a movement is typically found tobe contingent on other circumstances, suchas mobilization occurring during a favorablepolitical alignment. In 47 of the 50 instances inwhich there was a signicantly positive move-ment effect, the inuence was mediatedanissue to which we return below.

Finally, this scholarship disproportionatelyexamines the largest U.S. movements; of the54 movements examined in the articles, 31 in-volvedU.S. labor, AfricanAmerican civil rights,feminism, nativism, and environmentalism, veof the six most-covered movement families inthe twentieth century (Amenta et al. 2009),with 22 for the civil rights and feminist move-ments alone. The larger movements have beenfound to bemore inuential. Of the threemost-covered movements (labor, African Americancivil rights, and feminism) appearing in re-search, only 3 of 24 analyses, or 12.5%, foundthe movement to have either weak or no in-uence; among the rest of the movement cate-gories, 13 of 30 analyses, or 43%, found weak,no, or negative inuence.

It is worth discussing why so often researchnds that movements exhibit little or no in-uence. For example, McVeigh et al. (2004)nd that the framing that aided the mobiliza-tion of the Ku Klux Klan dampened its elec-toral inuence. Cornwall et al. (2007) nd thatthe womens suffrage movement had no effectin the states where the movement was mobi-lized, arguing that the contexts were ripe formobilization but not for exerting inuence.Skrentny (2006b) nds that although AsianAmericans, Latinos, andAmerican Indians ben-eted from Labor Department afrmative ac-tion regulations, the organizations representingthese groups exerted little effort to gain the ben-ets; by contrast, white ethnic groups sought to

294 Amenta et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


gain these benets but failed because of the per-ceptions of policy makers. Giugni (2007) ndsno inuence of the antiwar movement on mil-itary spending and argues that the high-proleforeign policy domain limits the viability oftheir claims. McAdam & Su (2002) argue thatthe marginal inuence of antiVietnam Warprotest was due to the movements inability tobe simultaneously threatening to elites and per-suasive to the public. If antiwarmovements facehigher hurdles, however, they have achievedsome inuence (Marullo & Meyer 2004), andit is worth identifying the conditions underwhich that is possible. More generally, schol-ars of social movements have also found thatcertain issues and policies may be very difcultfor movements to inuence, including policies(a) closely tied to the national cleavage struc-ture, (b) for which high levels of political ormaterial resources are at stake, (c) regardingmilitary matters, or (d ) on which public opin-ion is very strong (Kriesi et al. 1995, Giugni2004, Burstein & Sausner 2005). In thesepolicy areas, there are more likely to be pow-erful state and nonstate actors working in op-position to the movement. Similarly, in struc-turally unfavorable political contexts in which agroups democratic rights are greatly restricted(Amenta 2006), inuence over policy is ex-tremely difcult to achieve.

Given the magnitude of the task, the globalquestions have not been addressed systemati-cally by either quantitative or comparative his-torical research. This is largely due to the highdata barriers and the general trade-off betweenthe size of the question and the ability of schol-ars conclusively to answer it. Ascertaining thedegree to which movements have mattered po-litically would require analyses over long timeperiods and across many different movements,issue areas, and countries. Scholars would needto demonstrate that movements were at least ascausally inuential as various political institu-tions, conditions, and actors previously foundto affect policy (Amenta 2003). This sort ofstudy has not been undertaken in part becausethe movements are difcult to study cross-nationally and over long stretches of time. The

Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment does not collect data on socialmovements across capitalist democracies theway it does on economics, demographics, andparty representation; measures of movementscope or activity, aside from those regardinglabor collected by the International Labor Or-ganization, are typically gained only throughlabor-intensive archival research. Comparativeand historical analyses of movement inuencewould pose even greater logistical difcultiesgiven their steep knowledge requirements.

In short, there is conclusive evidence fromwell-crafted studies that the largest movementshave had political impacts on some issues ofconcern to them. Scholars who ignore move-ments in analyses of political issues over whichlarge movements are contending do so at theirperil. All the same, it remains difcult to pin-point how much even the larger movementshave mattered in comparison to other actorsand structures in relation to specic outcomesof interest. Also, some types of issues and situ-ations seem relatively impervious to movementinuence. We discuss at the end of this reviewsome strategies tomakemore progress on thesequestions.

UNDER WHICH CONDITIONSDO MOVEMENTS MATTERIN POLITICS?

The question addressed by most scholarshipfocused on movements is the conditions underwhich movements matter politically. Theinitial hypotheses about the political impacts ofmovements were the same as the hypothesizeddeterminants of mobilization. Scholars focusedon a movements mobilizing structures, fram-ing and other strategies, and political contextsfavorable tomobilization (McAdamet al. 1996).These arguments hold that what promoteschallengers mobilization will also promotetheir political inuence; in short, specicforms of challenger organization, strategies(including framing strategies and protesttypes), and political opportunities will result inboth mobilization and political inuence and


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


benets for mobilized challengers. Althoughscholars still address the roles of mobilizingstructures, strategies, and political contexts, re-sults indicate that the conditions that producemobilization sometimes make it difcult toachieve inuence at stages in the policy processbeyond agenda setting. Finally, political me-diation arguments reject the search for magicbullets: There are no specic organizationalforms, strategies, or political contexts thatwill always help challengers. Instead, scholarsshould be looking for specic forms of organi-zation and strategies that are more productivein some political contexts than in others.

Mobilization

The simplest argument has been that mobiliza-tion in itself is likely to be inuential, a throw-back to rational choice accounts in which oncea collective action problem (say, gaining contri-butions for pizza) is solved, a collective benet(pizza) is automatically provided. The ability tomobilize different sorts of resources is key forthe impact of movements, and mobilization ofresources and membership does provide somepolitical inuence (Rucht 1999, McCarthy &Zald 2002). Because the possibility of having in-uence is predicated on SMOs survival, somescholars focus on the organizational character-istics that promote it (Gamson 1990,McCarthy& Zald 2002). Yet, as we note above, politicalinuence is not something SMOs can simplyprovide, pizza-like, for themselves.

Initial debates also addressed which formsof organization or mobilizing structures(McAdam et al. 1996) were likely to producepolitical gains. Gamson (1990) found thatbureaucratic SMOs were more likely to gainnew advantages (cf. Piven & Cloward 1977).SMOs with greater strategic resources aredeemed likely to prevail over others in the eld(Ganz 2000), and resourceful movement infras-tructures, including diverse leaders, complexleadership structures, multiple organizations,informal ties, and resources coming substan-tially from members, brought gains in policyimplementation for the civil rights movement

in the South (Andrews 2004). Yet organizationsdesigned to mobilize people and resourcesbehind a cause may not be best suited to engagein the tasks of political inuence, persuasion,or litigation. For example, the Townsend Plan,an organization highly successful in mobilizingthe elderly, saw its leaders who were in chargeof mobilizing supporters often at odds withits Washington lobbyists and electoral strate-gists, who were relatively understaffed. Theorganization gained almost a million membersvery quickly in 1934, but it could not presentcoherent testimony in Congress (Amenta2006). This problem may be alleviated at themovement level; a large number of tactically di-verse organizations are associated with politicalinuence for the civil rights movement (Olzak& Ryo 2007). In individual SMOs, diverseleaders and complex leadership structures mayreduce the potential conict between these twosorts of leaders and missions (Andrews 2004).

Strategies: Framing, Protest,and Electoral Activity

The second line of thinking that addresses thepotential inuence of mobilized challengersfocuses on their strategies, singling out forspecial attention claims-making and framing(for a review, see Polletta & Ho 2004). Cress& Snow (2000) argue that for a challenger tohave a policy impact it must employ resonantprognostic and diagnostic framesto identifyproblems and pose credible solutions to them.McCammon (2009) nds that womens juryrights mobilizations across states that led tofavorable outcomes were those that deneda problem as serious and broad in scope,provided a clear rationale, and offered concreteevidence to support the proposed policy (cf.Burstein & Hirsh 2007).

Other problems remain, however, with us-ing framing to explain political outcomes. Onlyrarely is the inuence of frames addressed inmultivariate contexts (cf. Cress & Snow 2000,Burstein & Hirsh 2007, McCammon 2009).For movements to be inuential, their framesneed to be minimally plausible and culturally

296 Amenta et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


resonant (Taylor & Van Dyke 2004), but theirvalue likely varies by setting. Amenta (2006)nds that the Townsend Plans frames did notchange much, but its inuence varied greatlyover time. More important, frames that helpmobilize supporters may be counterproductivein trying to inuence policy makers (Lipsky1968,Mansbridge 1986). McVeigh et al. (2004)nd that the frames that helped the Ku KluxKlan mobilize constituents, using an us/themboundary, impeded its ability to inuence elec-tions. Amenta (2006) nds that the TownsendPlans call for generous $200 monthly pen-sions, designed to mobilize elderly supporters,was used by opponents to reduce public sup-port for its sponsored legislation, which pro-vided more modest stipends. Pedriana (2006)nds that rights frames work best in legal set-tings regardless of how well they work for mo-bilization or political campaigns (see review inMcCann 2006). More generally, SMO lead-ers must nd ways to alter their mobilizationframes in addressing political decision makersor courts, or they must cede control over theseprocesses to other SMOs or like-minded pol-icy makers. Scholars need to address simulta-neously the frames used to mobilize movementsupport and to exert inuence in political set-tings (Evans 1997).

Working from the hypothesis that specicstrategies will work differently at individualphases of the policy cycle, recent scholarshiphas focused on the impact of protest for threat,protest for persuasion (Andrews & Edwards2004), and institutional protest, as well as on thepolitical agenda-setting stage of the policy pro-cess. Protest for threat is characterized by with-holding compliance with political and otherinstitutions, whereas protest for persuasion ismeant to inuence politicians by winning overbystanders through large-scale demonstrationsof support, such as peaceful marches. Olzak& Soule (2009) nd that institutional environ-mental protest events inuenced congressionalhearings, which are associated with policy ac-tion (Baumgartner & Mahoney 2005). Protestof all types, however, works through whatAndrews (2004) calls the action/reactionmodel,

for which the response of political authorities tocollective action is expected to be rapid.

There has not been nearly as much work,however, on the strategies that work throughslow-moving processes. This is a major gap, asthis includes most movement collective actionaddressing political institutions and electoralpolitics, as well as legal challenges. Althoughscholars tend to view movement action ad-dressing institutional politics as assimilativeand likely to be less inuential than protest,electoral strategies, such as supporting favoredcandidates and opposing disfavored ones, areoften far more assertive and inuential inpolitics (Clemens 1997, Amenta et al. 2005).Political actors seek to gain reelection and toact on party principles and personal values andare typically much less afraid of movementsthreatening, say, to occupy their ofces thanto drive them out of ofce. The nding thatmovements are less inuential in later parts ofthe policy process may mean that the forms oforganization, frames, and strategies applicableto mobilization are unhelpful at best in laterstages of the policy process, or that protest hasgreat limits as a movement strategy.

Beyond protest, social movements seek tohave inuence over politics through electoralactivity (Goldstone 2003, Banaszak 2005, Earl& Schussman 2004, Koopmans 2004, Meyer2005), seeking sustained leverage and not sim-ply a quick reaction. Yet there is little re-search on movement inuence over electionsand the political inuence gained through suchelectoral support. Fetner (2008) nds that theChristianRight inuenced theRepublican plat-form on gay rights issues, and Micklethwait& Wooldridge (2005) argue that George W.Bushs campaigns relied on foot soldiers fromthe Christian Right, gun rights, and antiabor-tion movements. However, Green et al. (2001)nd that support for the Christian Right ac-counted less for electoral outcomes across statesthan did the accessibility of the political partynomination processes to the movement (seealso Kellstedt et al. 1994). Andrews (2004)nds that African American candidates electedto ofce across Mississippi counties depended


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


signicantly on the strength of the local civilrights movement. Amenta et al. (1992) ndthat Townsend Plan mobilization positively in-uenced whether its endorsed representativeswere elected. Amenta et al. (2005) also foundthat endorsed legislators in ofce signicantlyincreased spending on old-age programs, andsenators willingness to vote for a key old-age pension bill depended in part on electoralaction.

Political Context

A third argument is that once a challenger ismobilized the main thing inuencing its im-pact is the political context or opportunitystructure. Early claims that in open states withstrong administrative capacities challengerswillachieve policy gains (Kitschelt 1986,Kriesi et al.1995; see Kriesi 2004) have been criticized onthe grounds that, within any country, move-ment inuence has varied over time (Amentaet al. 2002) and that a states bureaucratic ca-pacities vary by issue (Giugni 2004). Othersrely on more ne-grained conceptual develop-ments in political sociology (see Amenta et al.2002, Banaszak et al. 2003), arguing that long-standing characteristics of states and politicalinstitutionsthe polity structure, the democ-ratization of state institutions, electoral rulesand procedures, and existing state policiesinuence the prospects of challenges. Thecentralization and division of power betweeneach branch of government mean both mul-tiple points of access and veto. The level ofdemocratization inuences mobilization (Tilly1999), and the bases for exclusion from demo-cratic processes increase the likelihood thatgroups will mobilize along these lines, suchas African American civil rights in the U.S.context (McAdam 1999) and workers in theEuropean one (Rueschemeyer et al. 1992).Electoral rules such as winner-take-all systemsdiscourage the formation of new political par-ties (Schwartz 2000). The relative representa-tion of U.S. Democrats has been shown to am-plify the impact of nonconservative movements(Meyer & Minkoff 2004). Equally important,

however, the political contexts that promotemobilization, especially those in which a move-ments constituency is threatened, do not al-ways increase the productivity of collective ac-tion by challengers (Meyer & Minkoff 2004,Soule & King 2006, Cornwall et al. 2007).

Political Mediation Models

Finally, many scholars have developed differ-ent political mediation accounts of social move-ment consequences (Piven & Cloward 1977,Amenta et al. 1992, Skocpol 1992, Amenta2006). According to political mediation mod-els, in a democratic political system mobiliz-ing relatively large numbers of committed peo-ple and making plausible claims are necessaryfor movements to achieve political inuence.Yet a challengers action is more likely to pro-duce results when institutional political actorssee benet in aiding the group the challengerrepresents (Almeida & Stearns 1998, Jacobs &Helms 2001, Kane 2003). To secure new bene-ts, challengers will typically need help or com-plementary action from like-minded state ac-tors. This requires engaging in collective actionthat changes the calculations of institutional po-litical actors, such as elected ofcials and statebureaucrats, and adopting organizational formsand strategic action that t political circum-stances. For a movement to be inuential, stateactors need to see it as potentially facilitatingor disrupting their own goalsaugmenting orcementing new electoral coalitions, gaining inpublic opinion, increasing the support for themissions of governmental bureaus.

Political mediation arguments can relyon action/reaction models of inuence, suchas Piven & Clowards (1977) argument thatdisruptive collective action by poor people intimes of electoral instability induces publicspending (see also Fording 2001). But mostpolitical mediation arguments work throughslow-moving processes. For instance, Skocpol(2003) argues that mass-based interest organi-zations have to t the U.S. political context tobe inuential over the long term, which meansgaining a wide geographical presence to cover

298 Amenta et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


a district-based Congress; recent advocacyorganizations with Washington bases andpaper memberships often fail to do so. Otherscholars argue that particular strategies workbest in the U.S. political context (Bernstein2001, Szymanski 2003). Recent work makesand tests claims about the inuence of differentstrategies at different points in the politicalprocess (McAdam & Su 2002, Cornwall et al.2007, Olzak & Soule 2009) or in differentpolitical contexts (Kriesi et al. 1995, Cress &Snow 2000, Ingram&Rao 2004, Linders 2004,Soule & Olzak 2004, McCammon et al. 2008).

More generally, the political mediation ar-gument holds that challengers need to alterstrategies and forms to address specic polit-ical contexts, such as the level of democratiza-tion in the polity, the partisan regime in power,and the development of bureaucratic authoritysurrounding the issue at hand (Amenta et al.2005, Amenta 2006). The standard distinctionbetween disruptive and assimilative strategiesis dropped in favor of addressing assertive-ness, i.e., increasingly strong sanctions beyondprotest. If the political regime is supportive andthe domestic bureaucrats are professionalizedand supportive, limited or symbolic protest islikely to be sufcient to provide inuence. Bycontrast, achieving collective benets throughpublic policy is likely to be more difcult with-out a supportive regime or an administrativeauthority, and more assertive collective actionis required. The sanctions in assertive institu-tional collective action threaten to increase ordecrease the likelihood of gaining or keepingsomething valuable to political actorsoftentheir positions. The institutional collective ac-tion of challengers works largely by mobilizingmanypeople behind a course of activity and thusdemonstrates that a large segment of the elec-torate cares strongly about an issue. These the-oretical claims have the advantage of specifyingpolitical conditions and making links betweensystemic political contexts andmore short-termones. Consistent with these claims are researchndings that diverse tactics or organizationaltypes at the movement level produce politicalgains (Olzak & Ryo 2007, Johnson 2008).

Political mediation arguments also hold thatmany simultaneous circumstances, somemove-ment related and some not, are required to ef-fect extensive change (McAdam & Su 2002,Amenta et al. 2005, Amenta 2006, Giugni2007). In the U.S. setting, where controllingthe government through a party is rarely anoption, a national challenger with far-reachinggoals is likely to need (a) a favorable parti-san context, (b) its issue already on the agenda,(c) high challenger organization and mobiliza-tion, (d ) credible claims-making directed atelites and the general public, and (e) plausibleassertive action such as electoral strategies thatseek to punish policy opponents and aid friends(Amenta et al. 2005, Amenta 2006). The same islikely to be true for bids to transform the struc-tural position of groups, such as through votingor civil rights. Giugni (2007) similarly arguesthat a movement must also have public opin-ion in its favor to effect major change (see alsoOlzak & Soule 2009; cf. Amenta et al. 2005,Agnone 2007).

The explanatory value of political media-tion arguments is underlined by recent liter-ature on social movements. Of the 50 positiverelationships found, 47, or 94%, found that thesize of the effect of the movement activity orsize indicator varied by other factors interact-ing with it. Of these other factors, the most fre-quently notedwas the partisan political context,involving 18 movements; another 6 addressedthe stage in the legislative process (seeTable 1).Another set of interactions of note included 11involving different sorts of tactics.Only 5 exam-inations ofmovements didnot attempt tomodelany sort of interaction. Two articles (Soule &Olzak 2004, Giugni 2007) reported examininginteraction effects, but they did not nd any sig-nicant ones.

In short, research on the political inu-ence of movements has advanced beyond de-ploying the hypotheses initially used to explainmobilization. Scholars have developed morecomplex theoretical ideas about the conditionsunder which inuence occurs, specifying inter-actions between aspects ofmovements and theiractions and other political actors and political


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


contexts, often deploying concepts from polit-ical science and political sociology. These ar-guments and ndings regarding the conditionsunder which movements might be inuentialbear on the question of how inuential move-ments have been and can possibly be. If in thesecausal recipes for major political change suchas alterations in democratization,major domes-tic policy gains, or withdrawal from participa-tion in war, mobilization is a minor ingredientfor which substitutes are available, then move-ments are likely rarely to matter greatly. If mo-bilization and specic lines of assertive actionare necessary ingredients, the role of move-ments in such major changes is much greater.The results suggest that less dramatic changessuch as reaching the policy agenda stage or aug-menting existing policies seem to require fewconditions.

HOW TO TELL IFMOVEMENTS MATTER?

Analyzing the state-related consequences of so-cial movements poses a series of methodologi-cal hurdles for empirical appraisals of theoreti-cal claims. Establishing a challengers impact onstates means to demonstrate that state-relatedcollective goods would not have appeared inthe absence of themovement or specic actionstaken by it. Determining whether a movementhad any consequences and, if so, which ones isnot an easy task (Amenta & Young 1999, Tilly1999, Earl 2000). Usually there aremany sets ofactors in areas of concern to social movements,and these actors andother conditionsmay inu-ence outcomes of interest to challengers. Theseother potential determinants thus have to betaken into account in assessing the impact ofchallengers. Further difculties arise from thefact that recent theoretical claims often specifythe mediation of the inuence of challengersand their activity through some other set ofdeterminants. Some additional methodologicalproblems are due to the fact that so many re-searchers are engaged in case studies of largemovements. Research on largemovementsmayhave few implications for small ones, and

scholars do not typically address how the caseanalyzed compares to or contrasts with othercases. Here we briey address the ways schol-ars have sought to clear these methodologicalhurdles and suggest some additional ways over.

The recent wave of research has tested thepotential impact of challengers while address-ing alternative arguments mainly traditionally,by gathering data on many ecological units.This scholarship has gained information on amovements or SMOs presence and activities,other potential determinants of politicaloutcomes, and the outcomes themselves.Employing inferential statistical methods onthese units facilitates the assessment of theimpact of a challenger relative to those ofother relevant conditions and the examinationof limited numbers of interactions. Some ofthese analyses have taken cross-sectional form,comparing movement inuence across coun-tries (Paxton et al. 2006) or across subnationalunits such as states, provinces (Banaszak 1996,McCammon et al. 2001, Ingram & Rao 2004,Amenta et al. 2005), or counties (Andrews2001, McVeigh et al. 2006). Recently, quan-titative analyses have addressed temporality byexamining movements over time (McAdam &Su 2002, Giugni 2004, Olzak & Soule 2009).Models can employ lags as appropriate andaccommodate time-varying covariates in theanalyses. Researchers use (a) time-series anal-ysis for individual cases (McAdam & Su 2002);(b) hazard-rate models in multiple-case datawhen the outcome is dichotomous, such as stateratication of the Equal Rights Amendment(Soule&Olzak 2004); and (c) generalized linearregression models when the outcome is con-tinuous (Amenta et al. 2005, Brooks & Manza2006). These studies sometimes pool timeseries and cross sections across subunits such asstates (Soule&Olzak 2004, Amenta et al. 2005).

These quantitative case studies usefullycould be augmented by historical analyses ofthe political process in the development oflegislation. Historical analyses are the best wayto examine the inuences of movements that gobeyond a quick response. Also, most argumentsabout the impact of collective action specify

300 Amenta et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


theoretical mechanisms, indicating linkagesbetween various causes and effects, and schol-ars can trace historical processes to addresswhether hypothesized theoretical mechanismsoccur (Tilly 1999, Andrews 2004, George &Bennett 2005). To make a convincing claim ofmovement inuence, historical analyses needto demonstrate that the challenger changedthe plans and agendas of political leaders; thecontent of the proposals devised by executives,legislators, or administrators; the votes of rep-resentatives key to the passage of legislation;or the speed or nature of implementation(Amenta 2006), typically by relying on primarydocuments including contemporary testimonyand news accounts and memoirs.

Historical analyses can be buttressed in sev-eral ways. One way is through small-N histor-ical comparisons across two or more countries(Banaszak 1996, Linders 2004,Halfmann 2010)or other units (Amenta 2006, Dixon 2008),or across collective action campaigns (Amenta2006, Dixon 2008, Halfmann 2010). Media-tion arguments can be examined by compar-isons across challengers with different levelsof mobilization and strategic approaches at agiven place and time (Clemens 1997), or acrossplaces in which one challenger is mobilized indifferent ways (Dixon 2008) or employing dif-ferent strategies (Amenta 2006), while holdingconstant key alternative causal claims. Com-bining historical analyses with large-N quan-titative or formal qualitative analyses can havesynergistic effects on knowledge accumulation.The detailed information necessary to engagein historical studies makes it easier to pinpointkey legislative or other political changes, to de-lineate historical cutoff points for time-seriesanalyses, and to devise valid indicators of con-cepts (Amenta et al. 2005, Amenta 2006, Chen2007). Small-N analyses can also be usefullycombined with quantitative analyses (Banaszak1996, Giugni 2004).

Another way to take advantage of ecolog-ical data sets and to employ detailed histor-ical knowledge is to use fuzzy set qualitativecomparative analysis (fsQCA). FsQCA can ad-dress the more complex theoretical arguments

presented by political mediation models, as itis designed to address combinational and mul-tiple causation (Ragin 2008). FsQCA has beenemployed in studies of political consequencesof social movements across U.S. states (Amentaet al. 2005, McCammon et al. 2008), cities(Cress & Snow 2000), and counties (McVeighet al. 2006). FsQCA can select on high values ofthe dependent measure (Ragin 2008), making itwell suited to identifying pathways to unusual,but theoretically and substantively interestingoutcomessuch as movements having a majorimpactand provides signicance tests and canaddress temporality (Caren & Panofsky 2005).

CONCLUSION

In the past decade there has beenextensive research on the political conse-quences of movements. The biggest andbest-studied movements have been shown tobe politically inuential in various ways, andmovement protest is especially inuential inhelping to set policy agendas. Also, scholarshave been advancing beyond initial one-factorhypotheses derived mainly from analyses ofmobilization and have been theorizing aboutthe politically mediated effects of movements.These ideas take into account nonmovementfactors inuential in politics and posit interac-tive effects among movements, their strategies,and political contextual conditions. Because ofthe complexity of theoretical arguments anddata limitations on movements and their activ-ities, scholars typically employ case or small-Nstudies, but they have done so in increasinglysophisticated ways, analyzing overtime orsubnational units for multivariate analyses,occasionally across countries, and sometimesdeploying formal qualitative techniques.

Yet much work remains to be done.Scholars need to address theoretically thepotential problems that the organizationalforms, framing and other strategies, andpolitical contexts that promote mobilizationpose for achieving political inuence beyondprotest. Similarly, more thought is neededregarding the political process beyond agenda


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


setting and the impact of movement actionaside from protest. Scholars need to explorefurther movement action aimed at electoralpolitics, which has often been claimed to bepolitically inuential but has rarely been shownto be inuential (Amenta et al. 2005, Amenta2006).

In the quantitative case studies prominentin recent research, scholars should prioritizethe policies most consequential to challengersand try to pinpoint howmuch movements havemattered in comparison with other determi-nants of outcomes. Structural changes such aswinning democratic rights and major policytransformations should be at the top of the list.Quantitative case studies can also exploit theadvantages of fsQCA, which can address boththe interactions specied by political mediationarguments and the more unusual situationof major changes induced by movements.Also, instead of theorizing about their casesas if they were typicalexpecting that broadexplanatory claims and ndings should apply toall movements (cf.McAdam&Su 2002, Giugni2004)scholars should think more about whatsort of case their case is (Ragin & Becker 1992)and make relevant comparisons with ndingsregarding other movements. Also, it wouldbe valuable to address less prominent cases,as most recent research has been about theAfrican American civil rights, feminist, andenvironmental movements. It is also importantto address the fact that movements are notalways attempting to create new policies,but rather sometimes are ghting to alter orreplace entrenched unfavorable policies or de-fend favorable ones (Baumgartner & Mahoney2005). Similarly, scholars have paid only scantattention to bids for inuence through thecourts (Skrentny 2006a) or indirectly throughelections (Andrews 2004).

Less prominent in case studies have beendeep historical analyses to address majorinstitutional changes and to appraise the mech-anisms and time-order aspects of theoreticalarguments. These analyses can more easilyaddress the impact of movements on electoralpolitics and from there move on to policies and

other political outcomes. Qualitative studiescan address the big questions about majorstructural shifts in politics related to move-ments: Did the African American civil rightsmovement bring about civil and voting rights?Did the womens suffrage movement causewomen to gain suffrage? Is the labor movementresponsible for legislation regarding workerorganization? Although there is the standardtrade-off between the size of the question andthe ability of research to provide conclusiveanswers, current research has tilted toward themore easily answered questions. More gener-ally, scholars may want to train their attentionon the main political outcomes of interest tomovements, such as civil and voting rights forthe African American civil rights movement(McAdam 1999), old-age pensions for theold-age pension movement (Amenta 2006),or abortion policy for the abortion rights andantiabortion movements (Halfmann 2010). Inthese analyses, scholars can address whether,how much, and for what reasons movementsmattered in key episodes of political change.

To address the degree to which movementshave mattered and to test complex argumentsabout the mediation of inuence will, however,require research designs that compare acrossseveral movements and over long stretches oftime. Without scholarship comparing acrossmovements, the demonstrated inuence of in-dividual movements over specic outcomes isdifcult to place in perspective. One way to doso is to compare a small number of historicallysimilarmovementswith greatly different resultsin political inuence. Moreover, social move-ment measures should be devised and includedin standard cross-national quantitative analysesof major social policy outcomes such as thoseregarding social spending, as has been doneregarding public opinion (Brooks & Manza2006). Recent work (Amenta et al. 2009) sug-gests that there have been about 34majormove-ments over the last century in theUnited States,and these might be compared comprehensivelyfor their inuence in the manner of Gamsons(1990) study ofmovement organizations. Com-parative and historical studies that examine the

302 Amenta et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


population of movements over time in onecountry, or an entire movement across manycountries, taking into account other poten-tial inuences on outcomes, would go far in

answering the big questions about overallmovement inuence and in testing hypoth-esized interactions among movement form,strategies, and political contexts.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any afliations, memberships, funding, or nancial holdings thatmight be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Kenneth T. Andrews, David S. Meyer, Francesca Polletta, and John D. Skrentny forhelpful comments and criticisms.

LITERATURE CITED

Agnone J. 2007. Amplifying public opinion: the policy impact of the US environmental movement. Soc. Forces85:1593620

Almeida P. 2008.The sequencing of success: organizing templates and neoliberal policy outcomes.Mobilization13:16587

Almeida P, Stearns LB. 1998. Political opportunities and local grassroots environmental movements: the caseof Minamata. Soc. Probl. 45:3760

Amenta E. 1998. Bold Relief: Institutional Politics and the Origins of Modern American Social Policy. Princeton, NJ:Princeton Univ. Press

Amenta E. 2003. What we know about social policy: comparative and historical research in comparative andhistorical perspective. InComparative andHistorical Analysis, ed.DRueschemeyer, JMahoney, pp. 91130.New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Details politicalmediation theory andfinds that the pensionmovement had a great,if politically mediated,impact overpolicymaking episodesand across states.

Amenta E. 2006.WhenMovementsMatter: The Townsend Plan and the Rise of Social Security. Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Amenta E, Caren N. 2004. The legislative, organizational, and beneciary consequences of state-orientedchallengers. See Snow et al. 2004, pp. 46188

Amenta E, Caren N, Fetner T, YoungMP. 2002. Challengers and states: toward a political sociology of socialmovements. Res. Polit. Sociol. 10:4783

Appraises the politicalmediation model usingstate-level data onold-age assistance andSenate voting on seniorcitizens pensionsthrough fsQCA.

Amenta E, Caren N, Olasky SJ. 2005. Age for leisure? Political mediation and the impact of thepension movement on US old-age policy. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70:51638

Amenta E, Caren N, Olasky SJ, Stobaugh JE. 2009. All the movements t to print: who, what, when, where,and why SMO families appeared in the New York Times in the 20th century. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74:63656

Amenta E, Carruthers BG, Zylan Y. 1992. A hero for the aged? The Townsend Plan, the political mediationmodel, and U.S. old-age policy, 19341950. Am. J. Sociol. 98:30839

Amenta E, Young MP. 1999. Making an impact: the conceptual and methodological implications of thecollective benets criterion. See Giugni et al. 1999, pp. 2241

Andrews KT. 2001. Social movements and policy implementation: the Mississippi civil rights movement andthe war on poverty, 1965 to 1971. Am. Sociol. Rev. 66:7195 Develops a movement

infrastructure modeland tests it againstalternatives inMississippi counties, inthe areas of policy andelectoral outcomes.

Andrews KT. 2004. Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and ItsLegacy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

AndrewsKT, Edwards B. 2004. Advocacy organizations in theU.S. political process.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:479506

Banaszak LA. 1996. Why Movements Succeed or Fail: Opportunity, Culture and the Struggle for Woman Suffrage.Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Banaszak LA. 2005. Inside and outside the state: movement insider status, tactics, and public policy achieve-ments. See Meyer et al. 2005, pp. 14976

Banaszak LA, Beckwith K, Rucht D. 2003. Womens Movements Facing the Recongured State. New York:Cambridge Univ. Press

Shows that several largesocial movementstransformed the policyagenda of the nationalgovernment.

Baumgartner FR, Mahoney C. 2005. Social movements, the rise of new issues, and the public agenda.See Meyer et al. 2005, pp. 6586

Bernstein AE. 2001. The Moderation Dilemma: Legislative Coalitions and the Politics of Family and Medical Leave.Pittsburgh: Univ. Pittsburgh Press

Berry JM. 1999. The New Liberalism: The Rising Power of Citizen Groups. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.Bonastia C. 2000.Why did afrmative action in housing fail during theNixon era? Exploring the institutional

homes of social policies. Soc. Probl. 47:52342Brooks C, Manza J. 2006. Social policy responsiveness in developed democracies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:47494Burstein P, Hirsh CE. 2007. Interest organizations, information, and policy innovation in the US Congress.

Sociol. Forum 22:17499Burstein P, Sausner S. 2005. The incidence and impact of policy-oriented collective action: competing views.

Sociol. Forum 20:40319Caren N, Panofsky A. 2005. TQCA: a technique for adding temporality to qualitative comparative analysis.

Sociol. Methods Res. 34:14772Chen AS. 2007. The party of Lincoln and the politics of state fair employment practices legislation in the

North, 19451964. Am. J. Sociol. 112:171374Clemens ES. 1997. The Peoples Lobby: Organizational Innovation and the Rise of Interest Group Politics in the

United States, 18901925. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressCornwall M, King BG, Legerski EM, Dahlin EC, Schiffman KS. 2007. Signals or mixed signals: why oppor-

tunities for mobilization are not opportunities for policy reform. Mobilization 12:23954CressDM, SnowDA. 2000.The outcomes of homelessmobilization: the inuence of organization, disruption,

political mediation, and framing. Am. J. Sociol. 105:1063104Davis DE, Rosan CD. 2004. Social movements in the Mexico City airport controversy: globalization, democ-

racy, and the power of distance. Mobilization 9:27993Dixon M. 2008. Movements, countermovements and policy adoption: the case of right-to-work activism.

Soc. Forces 87:473500Earl J. 2000. Methods, movements and outcomes: methodological difculties in the study of extramovement

outcomes. Res. Soc. Mov. Con. Change 22:325Earl J, Schussman A. 2004. Cease and desist: repression, strategic voting and the 2000 U.S. presidential

election. Mobilization 9:181202Evans J. 1997. Multi-organizational elds and social movement organization frame content: the religious

pro-choice movement. Sociol. Inq. 67:45169Evans R, Kay T. 2009. How environmentalists greened trade policy: strategic action and the architecture

of eld overlap. Am. Sociol. Rev. 73:97091Fetner T. 2008. How the Religious Right Shaped Lesbian and Gay Activism. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressFording RC. 2001. The political response to black insurgency: a critical test of competing theories of the state.

Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95:11530Gamson WA. 1990. The Strategy of Social Protest. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 2nd ed.Ganz M. 2000. Resources and resourcefulness: strategic capacity in the unionization of California agriculture,

19591966. Am. J. Sociol. 105:100362George AL, Bennett A. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT

PressGiugni M. 1998. Was it worth the effort? The outcomes and consequences of social movements. Annu. Rev.

Sociol. 24:37193Giugni M. 2004. Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements in Comparative

Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman & LittleeldGiugni M. 2007. Useless protest? A time-series analysis of the policy outcomes of ecology, antinuclear, and

peace movements in the United States, 19771995. Mobilization 12:5377

304 Amenta et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Giugni M, McAdam D, Tilly C, eds. 1999. How Movements Matter: Theoretical and Comparative Studies on theConsequences of Social Movements. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Goldstone J. 2003. Bridging institutionalized and noninstitutionalized politics. In States, Parties, and SocialMovements, ed. J Goldstone, pp. 126. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Green JC, Rozell MJ, Wilcox C. 2001. Social movements and party politics: the case of the Christian right.J. Sci. Study Relig. 40:41326

Halfmann D. 2010. The Rules of War: Institutions and Abortion Policy in the United States, Britain and Canada.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Howard-Hassmann RE. 2005. Getting to reparations: Japanese Americans and African Americans. Soc. Forces83:82340

Ingram P, Rao H. 2004. Store wars: the enactment and repeal of antichain-store legislation in America.Am. J. Sociol. 110:44687

Isaac L, McDonald S, Lukasik G. 2006. Takin it from the streets: how the sixties mass movement revitalizedunionization. Am. J. Sociol. 112:4696

Jacobs D, Helms R. 2001. Racial politics and redistribution: isolating the contingent inuence of civil rights,riots, and crime on tax progressivity. Soc. Forces 80:91121

Jacobs D, Kent SL. 2007. The determinants of executions since 1951: how politics, protests, public opinion,and social divisions shape capital punishment. Soc. Probl. 54:297318

Johnson EW. 2008. Social movement size, organizational diversity and the making of federal law. Soc. Forces86:96793

KaneMD. 2003. Social movement policy success: decriminalizing state sodomy laws, 19691998.Mobilization8:31334

Kane MD. 2007. Timing matters: shifts in the causal determinants of sodomy law decriminalization, 19611998. Soc. Probl. 54:21139

Kellstedt LA, Green JC, Guth JL, Smidt CE. 1994. Religious voting blocs in the 1992 election: the year ofthe evangelical? Sociol. Relig. 55:30726

King BG, Bentele KG, Soule SA. 2007. Protest and policymaking: explaining uctuation in congressionalattention to rights issues, 19601986. Soc. Forces 86:13763

King BG, Cornwall M, Dahlin EC. 2005. Winning woman suffrage one step at a time: social movements andthe logic of the legislative process. Soc. Forces 83:121134

Kitschelt HP. 1986. Political opportunity structures and political protest: antinuclear movements in fourdemocracies. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 16:5785

Koopmans R. 2004. Political. Opportunity. Structure. Some splitting to balance the lumping. In RethinkingSocial Movements: Structure, Meaning, and Emotion, ed. J Goodwin, J Jasper, pp. 6173. Lanham, MD:Rowman & Littleeld

Kriesi H. 2004. Political context and opportunity. See Snow et al. 2004, pp. 6790Kriesi H, Koopmans R, Duyvendak JW, Guigni MR. 1995. New Social Movements in Western Europe: A

Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressLee C-S. 2007. Labor unions and good governance: a cross-national, comparative analysis. Am. Sociol. Rev.

72:585609Linders A. 2004. Victory and beyond: a historical comparative analysis of the outcomes of the abortion

movements in Sweden and the United States. Sociol. Forum. 19:371404Lipsky M. 1968. Protest as political resource. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 62:114458Mansbridge JJ. 1986. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressMarullo S, Meyer DS. 2004. Antiwar and peace movements. See Snow et al. 2004, pp. 64165McAdamD. 1999. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 19301970. Chicago: Univ. Chicago

Press. 2nd ed.McAdam D, McCarthy J, Zald M. 1996. Introduction: opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing

processestoward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In Comparative Perspectiveson Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, ed. D McAdam,JD McCarthy, MN Zald, pp. 122. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Shows that extremeforms of protestincreased propeacevoting while depressingthe overall pace ofcongressional action,and the reverse forpersuasive forms ofprotest.McAdam D, Su Y. 2002. The war at home: antiwar protests and congressional voting, 1965 to 1973.

Am. Sociol. Rev. 67:696721


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


McCammon HJ. 2009. Beyond frame resonance: the argumentative structure and persuasive capacity oftwentieth-century U.S. womens jury rights frames. Mobilization 14:4564

McCammonHJ, Campbell KE,Granberg EM,MoweryC. 2001.Howmovements win: gendered opportunitystructures and US womens suffrage movements, 1866 to 1919. Am. Sociol. Rev. 66:4970

Argues and shows thatU.S. jury movementactivists engaged instrategic adaptationwere more likely to winrapid changes in jurylaws.

McCammon HJ, Chaudhuri S, Hewitt L, Muse CS, Newman HD, et al. 2008. Becoming full citizens:the US womens jury rights campaigns, the pace of reform, and strategic adaptation. Am. J. Sociol.113:110447

McCammon HJ, Sanders Muse C, Newman HD, Terrell TM. 2007. Movement framing and discursiveopportunity structures: the political successes of the U.S. womens jury movements. Am. Sociol. Rev.72:72549

McCann M. 2006. Law and social movements: contemporary perspectives. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2:1738McCarthy JD, Zald MN. 1977. Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory. Am. J. Sociol.

82:121241McCarthy JD, ZaldMN. 2002. The enduring vitality of the resourcemobilization theory of social movements.

In Handbook of Sociological Theory, ed. JH Turner, pp. 53365. New York: Kluwer Academic/PlenumMcCright AM, Dunlap RE. 2003. Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movements impact on U.S. climate

change policy. Soc. Probl. 50:34873McVeigh R. 2009. The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics. Minneapolis:

Univ. Minn. PressIndicates that basicprocesses inmobilization framing,constructing collectiveidentity boundaries, canalienate the broaderpopulation andstimulate a backlash.

McVeigh R, Myers DJ, Sikkink D. 2004. Corn, Klansmen, and Coolidge: structure and framing insocial movements. Soc. Forces 83:65390

McVeigh R, Neblett C, Shaq S. 2006. Explaining social movement outcomes: multiorganizational elds andhate crime reporting. Mobilization 11:2349

McVeigh R, Welch MR, Bjarnason T. 2003. Hate crime reporting as a successful social movement outcome.Am. Sociol. Rev. 68:84367

Meyer DS. 2005. Social movements and public policy: eggs, chicken, and theory. See Meyer et al. 2005,pp. 126

MeyerDS, JennessV, IngramH, eds. 2005.Routing theOpposition: SocialMovements, Public Policy, andDemocracy.Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Meyer DS, Minkoff DC. 2004. Conceptualizing political opportunity. Soc. Forces. 82:145792Micklethwait J, Wooldridge A. 2005. The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. New York: PenguinNobles M. 2000. Shades of Citizenship: Race and the Census in Modern Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.

PressNoy D. 2009. When framing fails: ideas, inuence, and resources in San Franciscos homeless policy eld.

Soc. Probl. 56:22342Olzak S, Ryo E. 2007. Organizational diversity, vitality and outcomes in the civil rights movement. Soc. Forces

85:156191Olzak S, Soule SA. 2009. Cross-cutting inuences of environmental protest and legislation. Soc. Forces 88:201

25Paxton P, Hughes MM, Green JL. 2006. The international womens movement and womens political repre-

sentation, 18932003. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:898920Pedriana N. 2004. Help wanted NOW: legal resources, the womens movement, and the battle over sex-

segregated job advertisements. Soc. Probl. 51:182201Pedriana N. 2006. From protective to equal treatment: legal framing processes and transformation of the

womens movement in the 1960s. Am. J. Sociol. 111:171861Piven FF. 2006. Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change America. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

LittleeldPiven FF, Cloward RA. 1977. Poor Peoples Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Random

HousePolletta F, Ho MK. 2004. Frames and their consequences. In The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political

Analysis, ed. RE Goodin, C Tilly, pp. 187209. New York: Oxford Univ. PressPolletta F, Jasper JM. 2001. Collective identity and social movements. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:283305

306 Amenta et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:28

7-30

7. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

by C

ambr

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

n 12

/30/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Ragin CC. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressRagin CC, Becker H. 1992. What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge Univ. PressRucht D. 1999. The impact of environmental movements in Western

political consec. social movement

Documents

political inuence

political parties

political mediation

annual review of sociology

varied political contexts

movements matter

social forces

social problemsand7