Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T07:36:10.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - The impact of social movements on political parties

from Part III - Institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2016

Daniela R. Piccio
Affiliation:
University of Turin
Lorenzo Bosi
Affiliation:
Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa
Marco Giugni
Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Katrin Uba
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The representative system does not function as representation of the people […]. We do not want to go to a demonstration and listen to speeches from party representatives. We want to take our future into our hands!

The citation from Dutch ecology activists reported above is hardly exceptional for social movements. They are indeed typical for the way in which most social movements conceive political parties: as hierarchical organizations, self-insulated, remote from the citizenry and inattentive to social change. Yet, social movements, including Dutch ecologists, have established various forms of interaction with parties, including the establishment of umbrella organizations and the organization of common protest actions. Of course, social movements are loosely connected informal networks of individuals, groups and organizations (Diani 1995), whose heterogeneity leads to different positions within the movements themselves. Thus, there may be groups refusing any involvement with parties. Yet, parties play such a critical role for social movements’ political outcomes that they hardly can be ignored. If they are willing to succeed in influencing and reforming public policy, social movements must broaden their support and be backed by insiders, i.e., mediators and reference groups willing to take up their claims in the institutional arenas (Amenta et al. 1992; Kriesi et al. 1995; Tarrow 1994; Giugni and Passy 1998; Rucht 2004). However, despite the importance of the social movement-party interactions for the movements’ outcomes, parties are conspicuously absent from mainstream literature on social movements.

This chapter has two main objectives. The first is to encourage social movement research to pay greater attention to political parties. If having an impact on parties may appear a negligible and unsatisfactory outcome vis-à-vis the broader political objectives that social movements aim to achieve, parties are nonetheless the first and fundamental barrier that social movements’ demands have to overcome in order to gain access to the institutional environment. In other words, whether social movements manage to have an impact on parties and the degree to which impact takes place is crucial for the broader political goals of the movements.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amenta, E. and Caren, N.. 2004. “The Legislative, Organizational and Beneficiary Consequences of State-Oriented Challangers.” In Snow, D.A., Soule, S.A., and Kriesi, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd, 461–488.Google Scholar
Amenta, E., Caren, N., Chiarello, E., and Su, Y.. 2010. “The Political Consequences of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amenta, E., Carruthers, B.G., and Zylan, Y.. 1992. “A Hero for the Aged? The Townsend Movement, the Political Mediation Model, and U.S. Old-Age Policy, 1934–1950.” American Journal of Sociology, 98: 308–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckwith, K. 2000. “Beyond Compare? Women's Movements in Comparative Perspective.” European Journal of Political Research, 37: 431–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosi, L. and Giugni, M.. 2012. “The Impact of Protest Movements on the Establishment: Dimensions, Models, Approaches.” In Fahlenbrach, K., Klimke, M., Scharloth, J., and Wong, L. (eds.), The ‘Establishment’ Responds. Power, Politics, and Protest since 1945. New York; London: Palgrave Macmillan, 17–28.Google Scholar
Caciagli, M. 1992. “Doomed to Govern? Christian Democracy in the Italian Political System.” In Caciagli, M. et al. (eds.), Christian Democracy in Europe. Barcelona: Inst. Ciènc. Polit. Soc., 7–27.Google Scholar
Clemens, E.S. 1993. “Organizational Repertoires and Institutional Change: Women's Groups and the Transformation of U.S. Politics, 1890–1920.” American Journal of Sociology, 98(4): 755–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costain, A.N. and McFarland, A.S. (eds.). 1998. Social Movements and American Political Institutions: People, Passions, and Power. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Della Porta, D. and Rucht, D.. 1995. “Left-Libertarian Movements in Context: A Comparison of Italy and West Germany, 1965–1990.” In Jenkins, J.C. and Klandermans, B. (eds.), The Politics of Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives On States and Social Movements. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 229–272.Google Scholar
Della Seta, R. 2000. La difesa dell'ambiente in Italia. Storia e cultura del movimento ecologista. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Diani, M. 1988. Isole nell'arcipelago: Il movimento ecologista in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Diani, M. 1995. Green Networks: A Structural Analysis of the Italian Environmental Movement. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Doowon, S. 2006. “Civil Society in Political Democratization: Social Movement Impacts and Institutional Politics.” Development and Society, 35(2): 173–195.Google Scholar
Duyvendak, J.W. and Koopmans, R.. 1992. “Protest in een pacificatie-democratie. Nieuwe sociale bewegingen en het Nederlandse politieke systeem.” In Duivendak, J.W., Heyden, H.A. Van Den, Koopmans, R., and Wijmans, L. (eds.), Tussen Verbeelding en Macht: 25 jaar nieuwe sociale bewegingen in Nederland. Amsterdam: Sua, 233–256.Google Scholar
Duyvendak, J.W. and Van Huizen, R.. 1983. Nieuwe sociale bewegingen in Nederland, een onderzoek naar de kraakbeweging, de vredesbeweging en de anti-kernenergie beweging. Zwolle: SVAG-Studies.Google Scholar
Gamson, W.A. 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, J. 2007. “Is there a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method?Comparative Political Studies, 40(3): 231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giugni, M. 1998. “Was it Worth the Effort? The Outcomes and Consequences of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giugni, M., McAdam, D., and Tilly, C. (eds.). 1999. How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Giugni, M. and Passy, F.. 1998. “Social Movements and Policy Change: Direct, Mediated, or Joint Effect?.” American Sociological Association Section on Collective Behavior and Social Movements, Working Paper Series, 1(4).
Goldstone, J.A. 2003. “Introduction: Bridging Institutionalized and Noninstitutionalized Politics.” In Goldstone, J.A. (ed.), State, Parties and Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanagan, M. 1998. “Social Movements: Incorporation, Disengagement, and Opportunities – A Long View.” In Giugni, M., McAdam, D., Tilly, C., and Gamson, W. (eds.), From Contention to Democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 3–30.Google Scholar
Irwin, G.A. and Van Holsteyn, J.J.M.. 1989. “Towards a More Open Model of Competition.” In Daalder, H. and Irwin, G. (eds.), Politics in the Netherlands: How Much Change?. London: Frank Cass, 112–138.Google Scholar
Jamison, A., Eyerman, R., and Kramer, J.. 1990. The Making of the New Environmental Consciousness: A Comparative Study of the Environmental Movements in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J.C. and Form, W.. 2005. “Social Movements and Social Change.” In Janoski, T., Alford, R., Hicks, A., and Schwartz, M.A. (eds.), The Handbook of Political Sociology: States, Civil Societies, and Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 331–349.Google Scholar
King, B.G., Cornwall, M., and Dahlin, E.C.. 2005. “Winning Woman Suffrage One Step at a Time: Social Movements and the Logic of the Legislative Process.” Social Forces, 83: 1211–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, H.P. 1990. “New Social Movements and the Decline of Party Organisation.” In Dalton, R.J. and Kuechler, M. (eds.), Challenging the Political Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, 179–208.Google Scholar
Kolb, F. 2007. Protest and Opportunities. The Political Outcomes of Social Movements. Frankfurt; New York: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
Kraatz, M. and Block, E.. 2008. “Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism.” In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: Sage Publication, 243–275.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H. 1993. Political Mobilization and Social Change: The Dutch Case in Comparative Perspective. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak, J.W., and Giugni, M.. 1995. New Social Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H. and Wisler, D.. 1999. “The Impact of Social Movements on Political Institutions: A Comparison of the Introduction of Direct Legislation in Switzerland and the United States.” In Giugni, M., McAdam, D., and Tilly, C. (eds.), How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 42–66.Google Scholar
Lange, P. 1980. “Crisis and Consent, Change and Compromise: Dilemmas of Italian Communism in the 1970s.” In Lange, P. and Tarrow, S. (eds.), Italy in Transition: Conflict and Consensus. London: Frank Cass, 110–132.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. 1968. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lofland, J. 1996. Social Movement Organizations. Guide to Research on Insurgent Realities. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
McAdam, D., and Su, Y.. 2002. “The War at Home: Antiwar Protests and Congressional Voting, 1965 to 1973.” American Sociological Review, 67(5): 696–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., and Tilly, C.. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. 2002. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccio, D.R. 2011. “Party Responses to Social Movements. A Comparative Analysis of Italy and the Netherlands in the 1970s and 1980s.” Doctoral Dissertation. Florence: European University Institute.
Raniolo, F. (ed.). 2004. Le trasformazioni dei partiti politici. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.Google Scholar
Rucht, D. 2004. “Movement Allies, Adversaries, and Third Parties.” In Snow, D.A., Soule, S.A., and Kriesi, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Blackwell Publishing, Ltd, 197–216.Google Scholar
Rüdig, W. 1988. “Peace and Ecology Movements in Western Europe.” West European Politics, 10(1): 26–39.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework of Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. 1994. Power in Movement. Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, C. 1999. “From Interactions to Outcomes in Social Movements.” In Giugni, M., McAdam, D., and Tilly, C. (eds.), How Movements Matter. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 253–270.Google Scholar
Walgrave, S. and Vliegenthart, R.. 2012. “The Complex Agenda-Setting Power of Protest: Demonstrations, Media, Parliament, Government, and Legislation in Belgium, 1993–2000.” Mobilization: An International Journal, 17(2), 129–156.Google Scholar
Wiardi Beckman Stichting (WBS). Om de kwaliteit van het bestaan (I – de besteding van groei van het nationaal inkomen’(1963); III – Beter wonen (1963); IV – Luchtverontreiniging (1965)). Amsterdam: N.V. De Arbeiderspers.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×