Social movement coalitions: Formation, longevity, and success

Abstract

Social movements rely on coalitions to help mobilize the mass numbers of people necessary for success. In this article, we review the literature on social movement coalition formation, longevity, and success. We identify five factors critical to coalition formation: (a) social ties; (b) conducive organizational structures; (c) ideology, culture, and identity; (d) the institutional environment; and (e) resources. Next, we explore the extent to which coalition survival is influenced by these same factors and argue that emergent properties of the coalition, such as commitment and trust, also facilitate longevity. Our review of the literature reveals that two factors specific to coalitions influence their success: coalition form and the nature of institutional targets. Interaction, communication technology, and the availability of physical and virtual spaces that facilitate communication are themes that run throughout our discussion, as they undergird many of the elements that shape coalition formation and survival. We conclude by evaluating the state of the research area and suggesting directions for further research.

Divided We Stand? Coalition Dynamics in the German Union Movement

“…As suggested by social movement research on coalitions, our findings confirm the need to consider different organizational and contextual factors — ideological and instrumental concerns, political opportunities and threats, and brokerage — and their interplay in shaping the dynamics of union coalitions (Van Dyke and Amos 2017; Van Dyke and McCammon 2010). Beyond providing additional evidence of threats as pivotal to coalitional activity (McCammon and Moon 2015; McCammon and Van Dyke 2010), our work also helps to further disentangle how threats interact with other causal factors to influence coalitional processes (McCammon and Moon 2015).…”

Divided We Stand? Coalition Dynamics in the German Union Movement

“…As suggested by social movement research on coalitions, our findings confirm the need to consider different organizational and contextual factors — ideological and instrumental concerns, political opportunities and threats, and brokerage — and their interplay in shaping the dynamics of union coalitions (Van Dyke and Amos 2017; Van Dyke and McCammon 2010). Beyond providing additional evidence of threats as pivotal to coalitional activity (McCammon and Moon 2015; McCammon and Van Dyke 2010), our work also helps to further disentangle how threats interact with other causal factors to influence coalitional processes (McCammon and Moon 2015).…”

Multiple Players, Different Tactics, a Shared Goal: Building Bridges and Political Agency While Fighting Against Oil and Gas Drilling

“…Pedro's perspective was shared by other participants (e.g., Rute, Paulo), and supports previous arguments that social movements are rarely cohesive players (Saunders, 2008;Jasper, 2019). Participants' discourses also suggest that, as in other contexts (e.g., Van Dyke and Amos, 2017;Grosse, 2019), social ties and previous networks of activists (mostly informal), had a key role in building the movement. As explained by Alice, one of the founders of Group-U: Because Group-U was created from a range of, precisely, of regional associations that were already used to collaborating (...) and there was nothing at the time [2015], but ok, we had [gatherings], we would meet now and then to handle this and other things, right?…”

Division of Labor for Effective Coalitions in Gender Policy Campaigns in South Korea

“…Second, beyond emphasizing the importance of structural conditions, this study highlights the crucial role of a well‐coordinated division of labor as a variation within coalition structure—an aspect often overlooked in previous research (Van Dyke and Amos 2017). While Meyer and Corrigall‐Brown (2005) discuss the varying contributions of coalition members, there is limited understanding of how tasks are divided.…”

Divided We Stand? Coalition Dynamics in the German Union Movement

“…As suggested by social movement research on coalitions, our findings confirm the need to consider different organizational and contextual factors — ideological and instrumental concerns, political opportunities and threats, and brokerage — and their interplay in shaping the dynamics of union coalitions (Van Dyke and Amos 2017; Van Dyke and McCammon 2010). Beyond providing additional evidence of threats as pivotal to coalitional activity (McCammon and Moon 2015; McCammon and Van Dyke 2010), our work also helps to further disentangle how threats interact with other causal factors to influence coalitional processes (McCammon and Moon 2015).…”

Multiple Players, Different Tactics, a Shared Goal: Building Bridges and Political Agency While Fighting Against Oil and Gas Drilling

“…Pedro's perspective was shared by other participants (e.g., Rute, Paulo), and supports previous arguments that social movements are rarely cohesive players (Saunders, 2008;Jasper, 2019). Participants' discourses also suggest that, as in other contexts (e.g., Van Dyke and Amos, 2017;Grosse, 2019), social ties and previous networks of activists (mostly informal), had a key role in building the movement. As explained by Alice, one of the founders of Group-U: Because Group-U was created from a range of, precisely, of regional associations that were already used to collaborating (...) and there was nothing at the time [2015], but ok, we had [gatherings], we would meet now and then to handle this and other things, right?…”

Division of Labor for Effective Coalitions in Gender Policy Campaigns in South Korea

“…Second, beyond emphasizing the importance of structural conditions, this study highlights the crucial role of a well‐coordinated division of labor as a variation within coalition structure—an aspect often overlooked in previous research (Van Dyke and Amos 2017). While Meyer and Corrigall‐Brown (2005) discuss the varying contributions of coalition members, there is limited understanding of how tasks are divided.…”

Divided We Stand? Coalition Dynamics in the German Union Movement

“…As suggested by social movement research on coalitions, our findings confirm the need to consider different organizational and contextual factors — ideological and instrumental concerns, political opportunities and threats, and brokerage — and their interplay in shaping the dynamics of union coalitions (Van Dyke and Amos 2017; Van Dyke and McCammon 2010). Beyond providing additional evidence of threats as pivotal to coalitional activity (McCammon and Moon 2015; McCammon and Van Dyke 2010), our work also helps to further disentangle how threats interact with other causal factors to influence coalitional processes (McCammon and Moon 2015).…”

Multiple Players, Different Tactics, a Shared Goal: Building Bridges and Political Agency While Fighting Against Oil and Gas Drilling

“…Pedro's perspective was shared by other participants (e.g., Rute, Paulo), and supports previous arguments that social movements are rarely cohesive players (Saunders, 2008;Jasper, 2019). Participants' discourses also suggest that, as in other contexts (e.g., Van Dyke and Amos, 2017;Grosse, 2019), social ties and previous networks of activists (mostly informal), had a key role in building the movement. As explained by Alice, one of the founders of Group-U: Because Group-U was created from a range of, precisely, of regional associations that were already used to collaborating (...) and there was nothing at the time [2015], but ok, we had [gatherings], we would meet now and then to handle this and other things, right?…”

Division of Labor for Effective Coalitions in Gender Policy Campaigns in South Korea

“…Second, beyond emphasizing the importance of structural conditions, this study highlights the crucial role of a well‐coordinated division of labor as a variation within coalition structure—an aspect often overlooked in previous research (Van Dyke and Amos 2017). While Meyer and Corrigall‐Brown (2005) discuss the varying contributions of coalition members, there is limited understanding of how tasks are divided.…”