Organizational structure and strength and transnational campaign outcomes: a comparison of two transnational advocacy networks

Abstract

In this article I address the question of why some transnational advocacy networks (TANs) are better able to influence policy outcomes than others. How do we explain the variation in the political impact of TAN campaigns? Drawing on some of the theoretical formulations developed by social movement and international relations scholars, I argue that organizational structure and organizational strength can help us understand this variation. A comparison of a highly influential and successful TAN, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, with a less successful TAN, the International Action Network on Small Arms, demonstrates that such networks can mobilize a large number of diverse civil society groups. However, a coherent and well‐coordinated campaign with a clear political message provides the major explanation as to why some TANs are more likely to shape the global policy process than others.

EMERGING DISCOURSE INCUBATOR: Delivering Transformational Change: Aligning Supply Chains and Stakeholders in Non‐Governmental Organizations

“…Unfortunately, emerging evidence suggests that INGOs and their supply chain partners often fail to deliver transformational change (Balboa, ; Gulzar & Henry, ; Shawki, ). For example, a recent analysis by Oxfam suggests that governments targeted by WFC are still skewing investments toward infrastructure projects, private sector initiatives, and more prosperous geographical areas; climate change mitigation is prioritized over adaptation; and there is little evidence of financial resources and technical assistance reaching female farmers (Pearl‐Martinez, ).…”

“…At times, INGOs fail to achieve their goals due to their (supply chain) partners failing to work effectively together (Balboa, ; Gulzar & Henry, ; Shawki, ). Unfortunately, existing supply chain management theory provides an incomplete foundation for describing, understanding, and predicting factors that might enable INGOs to develop and manage supply chains.…”

Domestic interest groups and rights mobilization: explaining the case of Slovenia's support for the proposed Convention on the Rights of Older Persons

“…Density and diversity of TANs are among the most commonly cited organizational features thought to contribute to a TAN's influence (Keck and Sikkink 1998). Diversity refers to the number of network members and the spread of their cultural and political backgrounds (Joachim 2003;Sciubba 2013), while density refers to the closeness of ties between nodes in a network or the ability of networks to work collaboratively (Burgerman 1998;Shawki 2011). While some have characterized the relations between network members as a structural feature (Corell and Betsill 2008), I take the 'network-as-actor' standpoint and treat network attributes as intentional or consciously constructed and thus evidence of the agency of activists (Yanacopulos 2009).…”

Making knowledge legitimate: transnational advocacy networks' campaigns against tobacco, infant formula and pharmaceuticals

“…Organizational capabilities also fail to provide a sufficient explanation for the differential successes of the three campaigns. While transnational advocacy networks can depend on organizational characteristics such as a movement's density or availability of resources (Jenkins 1983;Sikkink 1998a, 1999;McCarthy and Zald 1977;Maney 2001;Shawki 2011), the TANs involved in these three cases and the strategies they pursued were too similar to make a difference. In all three cases, the USbased organization INFACT and the International Organization of Consumers Unions (IOCU, later renamed Consumers International), led the advocacy campaigns.…”