Political Opportunity Structures and Progressive Movement Sectors

Rightful Resistance: A Discursive Third Realm?

“…According to this literature, the success of the social movements depends on the opportunities offered by the political-system in which they operate (McAdam, 1996;Hooghe, 2005). 'Opportunities' can vary with the case such as elite division, the composition of the government and electoral competition, and they can be understood as the openness of the political system in the broadest sense (McAdam, 1996;Beyeler & Rucht, 2010). When we look at the particular case of rightful resistance, we can see that it also benefits from the opportunities created by the state in addition to its reliance on community.…”

Toward a cross-level understanding of institutional change: a microfoundational perspective

“…When facing relatively "closed" political systems, ceteris paribus, stronger activism is associated with less strict tobacco legislation. These findings indicate the important role of political structural arrangement in activists' political efficacy, which has been suggested in POS theory (Beyeler & Rucht, 2010;Dalton et al, 2003;McAdam, 1996;Meyer & Minkoff, 2004;Snow et al, 2005;Vráblíková, 2013). However, these results suggest that activists' political efficacy is not simply captured in an "open" versus "closed" political system dichotomy.…”

“…Although POS theory is criticized for placing too much emphasis on structural political system arrangements and too little emphasis on situational arrangements-that is to say, specific contested issues (Giugni, 2004), we argue for the relevance of POS in studying activists' political significance for two reasons. Firstly, social movement studies demonstrate the important moderating role of POS in activists' legislative influence (Beyeler & Rucht, 2010;Dalton et al, 2003;McAdam, 1996;Meyer & Minkoff, 2004;Snow et al, 2005;Vráblíková, 2013), and it is common practice to include POS principles in activists' political efficacy studies. For example, Cornwall, King, Legerski, Dahlin, and Schiffman (2007) found that, although the women's suffrage movement had sufficient resources to mobilize, their political impact remained limited due to a lack of political opportunities.…”

“…While activists and corporations can impact legislative resolutions, the political opportunity structure (POS) theory ascribes an important role to the state in allowing grassroots political involvement. A wealth of literature has suggested that a state's openness to grassroots involvement impacts the efficacy of activists in altering legislation (e.g., Beyeler & Rucht, 2010;Dalton, Recchia, & Rohrschneider, 2003;McAdam, 1996;Meyer & Minkoff, 2004;Snow, Soule, & Cress, 2005;Vráblíková, 2013). Likewise, corporations face these political opportunities in a comparable way (Davis & Thompson, 1994;Jenkins & Eckert, 2000;Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996).…”