Advertisement

Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 376–406 | Cite as

Competition and strategic differentiation among transnational advocacy groups

  • Mette Eilstrup-SangiovanniEmail author
Original Article
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

Why do some transnational advocacy groups adopt radical, confrontational tactics whereas others focus on ‘inside’ lobbying and information provision? Why do some advocacy groups appeal to large global audiences while others approach decision-makers behind closed doors? Bringing together interest group studies and population ecology theory, this article examines how population ecological dynamics affect strategic specialization among transnational advocate groups. I argue that increasing resource competition resulting from ‘organizational crowding’, along with the introduction of new legal and technological tools has led to growing strategic differentiation among transnational advocates, and has prompted a strategic division of labor whereby some groups (mainly larger, well-established and resource-rich groups) specialize in gaining political access and media attention, while others (mainly smaller, less established groups) focus on developing ‘niche’ agendas and strategies including, inter alia, radical protest, monitoring and enforcement, and litigation. I illustrate my argument with quantitative data and comparative cases from the realm of transnational environmental conservation advocacy.

Keywords

Transnational advocacy Ecological resource partitioning theory Environmental advocacy strategies NGO monitoring and enforcement 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbott, K., and D. Snidal. 2009. Strengthening International Regulation Through Transnational New Governance: Overcoming the Orchestration Deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42: 501–577.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, K., J. Green, and R. Keohane. 2016. Organizational Ecology and Institutional Change in Global Governance. International Organization 70(2): 247–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agarwal, A. 2008. Role of NGOs in the Protection of Environment. Journal of Environmental Research and Development 2(4): 933–938.Google Scholar
  4. Aldrich, H., and J. Pfeffer. 1976. Environments of Organizations. Annual Review of Sociology 2(79): 105.Google Scholar
  5. Baum, J., and A. Shipilov. 2006. Ecological Approaches to Organizations, 55–110. Sage Handbook for Organization Studies. London: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Beyers, J., R. Eising, and W. Maloney. 2008. Researching Interest Group Politics in Europe and Elsewhere: Much We Study, Little We Know? West European Politics 31(6): 1103–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biermann, F., and P. Pattberg. 2008. Global Environmental Governance: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33: 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binderkrantz, A. 2005. Interest Group Strategies: Navigating Between Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure. Political Studies 53(4): 694–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Binderkrantz, A., P. Christiansen, and H. Pedersen. 2015. Interest Group Access to the Bureaucracy, Parliament, and the Media. Governance 28(1): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Binderkrantz, A., and S. Krøyer. 2012. Customizing Strategy: Policy Goals and Interest Group Strategies. Interest Groups and Advocacy 1(1): 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bob, C. 2005. The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, Media, and International Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Breitmeier, H., O. Young, and M. Zürn. 2007. The International Regimes Database: Architecture, Key Findings, and Implications for the Study of Environmental Regimes. Sonderheft Politik und Umwelt 39: 41–59.Google Scholar
  13. Carroll, G. 1985. Concentration and Specialization: Dynamics of Niche Width in Populations of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology 90: 1262–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carpenter, C. 2011. Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms. International Organization 65(1): 69–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carpenter, C., S. Duygulu, A. Montgomery, and A. Rapp. 2014. Explaining the Advocacy Agenda. International Organization 68(2): 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cooley, A., and R. James. 2002. The NGO Scramble. International Security 27 (1): 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dai, X. 2002. Information Systems in Treaty Regimes. World Politics 54(4): 405–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Guzman, A. 2008. Greenpeace cyberadvocacy: message strategies and the framing of the’say no to genetic engineering campaign. PhD thesis, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  19. de Sadeleer, N., Roller, G. and Dross, M. 2002. Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. V.A.3/ETU/2002/0030 Final Report.Google Scholar
  20. Della Porta, D., and S. Tarrow. 2005. Transnational Protest and Global Activism: People, Passions, and Power. United States: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Dellmuth, L., and J. Tallberg. 2017. Advocacy Strategies in Global Governance: Inside versus Outside Lobbying. Political Studies 65(3): 705–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DiMaggio, P., and W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage. Revisited Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dingwerth, K., and P. Pattberg. 2009. World Politics and Organizational Fields: The Case of Transnational Sustainability Governance. European Journal of International Relations 5(4): 707–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dür, A., and G. Mateo. 2013. Gaining Access or Going Public? Interest Group Strategies in Five EUROPEAN Countries. European Journal of Political Research 52(5): 660–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Edmonds, T., Jugnarian, D. 2016. Private Prosecution: A Potential Anticorruption Tool in English Law. New York: Open Society Foundations. www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/legal-remedies-4-edmonds-jugnarain-20160504_0.pdf.
  26. Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M. 2018. Hierarchy Among NGOs. Authority and influence in global civil society. International Politics Reviews 6 (2): 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M., and T. Phelps-Bondaroff. 2014. From Advocacy to Confrontation: Direct Enforcement by Environmental NGOs. International Studies Quarterly 58(4): 348–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M., and Sharman, J. 2019. Enforcers Beyond Borders. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  29. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organizations 52(4): 887–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hadden, J., and L. Jasny. 2017. The Power of Peers: How Transnational Advocacy Networks Shape NGO Strategies on Climate Change. British Journal of Political Science 44(1): 1–27.Google Scholar
  31. Halpin, D., and G. Jordan. 2009. Interpreting Environments: Interest Group Responses to Population Ecology Pressures. British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanegraaff, M. 2015. Transnational Advocacy Over Time: Business and NGO Mobilization at UN Climate Summits. Global Environmental Politics 15(1): 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanegraaff, M., J. Beyers, and I. de Bruycker. 2016. Balancing Inside and Outside Lobbying: The Political Strategies of Lobbyists at Global Diplomatic Conferences. European Journal of Political Research 55(3): 568–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hannan, M., and J. Freeman. 1977. The Population Ecology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology 82: 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hannan, M.T., and G.R. Caroll. 1992. Dynamics of Organizational Populations. Density, Legitimation and Competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Harrison, J. 2014. Significant International Environmental Law Cases: 2012–14. Journal of Environmental Law 26(3): 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keck, M., and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Krause, K. 2014. Transnational Civil Society Activism and International Security Politics. Global Policy 5(2): 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krislow, S. 2013. Amici Curiae in Civil Law Jurisdictions. Yale Law Journal 122: 1653–1669.Google Scholar
  40. McCormick, J. 2011. The Role of Environmental NGOs in International Regimes. In The Global Environment: Institutions, Law, and Policy, ed. R. Axelrod, A. VanDeveer, and D. Downie, 92–110. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mitchell, R. 2017. International Environmental Agreements Database. https://iea.uoregon.edu/sites/iea1.uoregon.edu/files/MEAs-1857-2016.jpg.
  42. Mitchell, G., and H. Schmitz. 2014. Principled Instrumentalism: A Theory of Transnational NGO Behavior. Review of International Studies 40(3): 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nachmany, M., Fankhauser Sam, J. Setzer, and A. Averchenkova. 2017. Global Trends in Climate Change Legislation and Litigation. London: Grantham Research Institute.Google Scholar
  44. Negro, V., and A. Swaminathana. 2014. Resource Partitioning and the Organizational Dynamics of “Fringe Banking”. American Sociological Review 79(4): 680–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Newsroom. 2018. How Do European NGOs Use Technology – New Research. February 12, 2028. Available at: https://concordeurope.org/2018/02/12/report-ngo-technology/ (accessed 27-01-2019).
  46. Nina, H. Advocacy in the Digital Era: Why such similar organizations in vastly different political contexts? This special issue.Google Scholar
  47. Nurse, A. 2013. Privatizing the Green Police: The Role of NGOs in Wildlife Law Enforcement. Crime, Law and Social Change 59(2): 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olzak, S., and N. Uhrig. 2001. The Ecology of Tactical Overlap. American Sociological Review 66(5): 694–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pagé, Gilles-Philippe. 2004. Greenpeace’s Campaign Strategies. Peace Magazin 20(3): 13.Google Scholar
  50. Podolny, M., T. Stuart, and M. Hannan. 1996. Networks, Knowledge, and Niches: Competition in the Worldwide Semiconductor Industry, 1984–1991. American Journal of Sociology 102(3): 659–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pozner, J., Block, E., and Patterson, K. 2015. Creative Positioning: Niche Width, Niche Overlap, and Innovation in Television Programming, 1980-2009. Berkeley: IRLE Working Paper.Google Scholar
  52. Preston, B. 2016. The Role of Courts in Facilitating Climate Change Adaptation. Asia-Pacific Centre for Climate Change Adaptation. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2829287.
  53. Price, R. 2003. Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics. World Politics 55(2): 579–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Princen, T. and M. Finger (eds.). 1994. Environmental NGO in World Politics: Linking the Local and the Global. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Rebasti, E., and Vierucchi, L. 2002. A Legal Status for NGOs in Contemporary International Law? European University Institute. http://www.esil-sedi.org/english/pdf/VierucciRebasti.PDF.
  56. Rothwell, D. 2013. The Antartic Whaling Case: Litigation in the International Court and the Role Played by NGOs. The Polar Journal 3(2): 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sell, S.K., and A. Prakash. 2004. Using ideas strategically: The contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights. International Studies Quarterly 48 (1): 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simmons, B., P. Lloyd, and B. Stewart. 2018. The Global Diffusion of Law: Transnational Crime and the Case of Human Trafficking. International Organization 72(2): 249–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Soule, S., and B. King. 2008. Competition and Resource Partitioning in Three Social Movement Industries. American Journal of Sociology 113(6): 1568–1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stinchcombe, A. 1965. Social Structure and Organizations. In Handbook or Organizations, ed. J. Smith and J. March. Chicago, IL: McNally.Google Scholar
  61. Stroup, S., and W. Wong. 2017. The Authority Trap: Strategic Choices of International NGOs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Tallberg, J. 2015. Orchestrating Enforcement: International Organizations Mobilizing Compliance Communities”. In International Organizations as Orchestrators, ed. K. Abbott, P. Genschel, D. Snidal, and B. Zangl, 166–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Tallberg, J., L. Dellmuth, A. Duit, and H. Agné. 2018. NGO Influence in International Organizations: Information, Access, and Exchange. British Journal of Political Science 48(1): 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tarrow, S. 2005. The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thrall, T., D. Stecula, and D. Sweet. 2014. May We Have Your Attention Please? Human-Rights NGOs and the Problem of Global Communication. The International Journal of Press/Politics 19(2): 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tseming, Y., and R. Percival. 2009. The Emergence of Global Environmental Law. Ecology Law Quarterly 36: 615.Google Scholar
  67. UNEP and Interpol. 2016.“The Rise of Environmental Crime. A Growing Threat to Natural Resources, Peace, Development and Security. A UNEP-Interpol Rapid Response Report. Available at: http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7662/.
  68. Vermeulen, I., and J. Bruggeman. 2001. The Logic of Organizational Markets: Thinking Through Resource Partitioning Theory. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 7: 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wang, D., and S. Soule. 2012. Social Movement Organizational Collaboration: Networks of Learning and the Diffusion of Protest Tactics, 1960–1995. American Journal of Sociology 117(6): 1674–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yearbook of International Organizations 2017–18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International StudiesUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Robert Schuman CentreEuropean University InsituteFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations