Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181 DOI 10.1007/s11266-011-9187-3 ORIGINAL PAPER

Advocacy Networks Through a Multidisciplinary Lens: Implications for Research Agendas Rau´l Acosta

Published online: 23 March 2011 Ó International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John’s Hopkins University 2011

Abstract Advocacy networks are coalitions of movements and organizations that in recent years have gained unprecedented levels of influence through their soft power strategies. They have become key political actors in local, national and international arenas. Research on their performance and role within today’s information society has been developed by academics from different disciplines. Some of these analyses, however, seem to portray them as a new actor within an alreadyexisting structure. This article argues that the network structure of these associations requires for a multifaceted and multidisciplinary approach in order to better understand how they are changing the political and social landscape. In order to achieve this purpose, this article is divided in two parts: the first one offers an overview of existing literature on the subject from different disciplines and at different scales, while the second part puts forward a framework to consider all relevant spheres of these networks for better analyses. As will be noted in the literature review, most of the case studies have been carried out from a clear disciplinary focus with its own set of categories and focus on preferred dynamics. This approach reduces the density of the networks by portraying them as other already-known institutions. One example of this is that of scales of action, usually defined as local, national, international or transnational. By focusing solely on the arena of direct influence, other interactions that may be central to the network are thus ignored or minimized. In order to disentangle such misrepresentations, it is suggested here to consider five dimensions of analysis in the study of advocacy networks: (1) scales of action and interaction, (2) cultural contexts and legacies, (3) network logic, (4) discourse production and contestation and (5) institutional ecosystem. By considering the implications of all five of them, it is proposed here,

R. Acosta (&) ITESO University, Perife´rico Sur Manuel Go´mez Morı´n 8585, C.P. 45604, Tlaquepaque, Jalisco, Mexico e-mail: [email protected]

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

157

accounts may yield more comprehensive analyses of how these webs of civil society groups are transforming the political landscape. Re´sume´ Les re´seaux de de´fense d’inte´reˆts sont des coalitions de mouvements et des organisations qui au cours des dernie`res anne´es se sont dote´s de niveaux d’influence sans pre´ce´dent graˆce a` leurs strate´gies de soft power. Ils sont devenus des acteurs politiques cle´s dans les are`nes locales, nationales et internationales. Des chercheurs issus de diffe´rentes disciplines ont e´tudie´ leurs performances ainsi que leur roˆle au sein de la socie´te´ de l’information contemporaine. Certaines de ces analyses semblent cependant les de´crire comme un nouvel acteur au sein d’une structure d’ores et de´ja` existante. Cet article alle`gue que la structure de re´seau de ces associations exige une approche pluridisciplinaire aux facettes multiples afin de mieux comprendre la manie`re dont elles transforment le paysage politique et social. Dans cet objectif, cet article comporte deux parties : la premie`re est une pre´sentation des publications existantes sur le sujet issues de diffe´rentes disciplines et a` des degre´s divers, alors que la seconde met en place un cadre afin d’envisager l’ensemble des sphe`res pertinentes de ces re´seaux pour en optimiser l’analyse. Ainsi qu’il sera releve´ dans la revue des publications, la plupart des e´tudes de cas ont e´te´ mises en œuvre sur la base d’une priorite´ disciplinaire claire assortie d’un ensemble propre de cate´gories et en privile´giant certaines dynamiques choisies. Cette approche re´duit la densite´ des re´seaux en les pre´sentant comme d’autres institutions de´ja` connues. On peut en prendre pour exemple celui des niveaux d’action, habituellement de´finis comme local, national, international ou transnational. En s’attachant uniquement au secteur de l’influence directe, d’autres interactions susceptibles d’eˆtre centrales pour le re´seau sont de`s lors ignore´es ou minimise´es. Afin de s’extraire de ces repre´sentations errone´es, il est ici sugge´re´ d’envisager cinq dimensions d’analyse pour l’e´tude des re´seaux de de´fense d’inte´reˆts : (1) niveaux d’action et d’interaction, (2) contextes et contributions d’ordre culturel, (3) logique de re´seau, (4) production du discours et contestation et (5) e´cosyste`me institutionnel. Par l’e´valuation propose´e ici des implications de chacune d’entre elles, les conclusions sont susceptibles de conduire a` des analyses plus comple`tes sur la manie`re dont ces re´seaux de groupes issus de la socie´te´ civile transforment le paysage politique. Zusammenfassung ,,Advocacy networks’’ sind Vereinigungen von Bewegungen und Organisationen, die in den vergangenen Jahren durch ihre ,,soft power’’ Strategien einen noch nie da gewesenen Grad an Einfluss gewonnen haben. Sie sind Schlu¨sselakteure auf lokalen, nationalen und internationalen Schaupla¨tzen geworden. Wissenschafter aus verschiedenen Disziplinen haben ihre Leistungen und Rolle innerhalb der heutigen Informationsgesellschaft erforscht. Allerdings scheinen einige der Analysen sie als neue Akteure innerhalb einer bereits existierenden Struktur darzustellen. Dieser Artikel argumentiert, dass - um besser zu verstehen, wie sie die politische und soziale Landschaft vera¨ndern - die Netzwerkstruktur dieser Vereinigungen eine vielseitige und interdisziplina¨re Betrachtung verlangt. Um dies zu erreichen, ist dieser Artikel in zwei Teile geteilt: Der erste Teil bietet ¨ berblick u¨ber die zum Thema existierende Literatur aus verschiedenen einen U

123

158

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

Disziplinen und auf verschiedenen Ebenen, wa¨hrend der zweite Teil einen Rahmen fu¨r eine bessere Analyse aller relevanten Bereiche dieser Netzwerke vorlegt. Wie in der Literaturu¨bersicht vermerkt, wurden die meisten Fallstudien mit einem klaren disziplina¨ren Fokus mit eigenen Kategorien und Konzentration auf bevorzugte Dynamiken durchgefu¨hrt. Diese Herangehensweise stellt die Vereinigungen als andere, bereits bekannte Institutionen dar und reduziert die Netzwerkdichte. Ein Beispiel sind Aktionsebenen, normalerweise definiert als lokal, national, international oder la¨nderu¨bergreifend. Durch die Konzentration auf direkte Einflussnahme wurden andere, fu¨r ein Netzwerk mo¨glicherweise zentrale Wechselwirkungen ignoriert oder auf ein Minimum herabgesetzt. Um solche Fehldarstellungen zu unterbinden, wird vorgeschlagen, beim Studium von ,,advocacy networks’’ fu¨nf Analysedimensionen zu beru¨cksichtigen: (1) Aktionsebenen und Wechselbeziehungen, (2) kultureller Kontext und Altlasten, (3) Netzwerk-Logik, (4) Diskursproduktion und Anfechtung sowie (5) institutionelle Landschaft. Die Einbeziehung der Auswirkungen aller fu¨nf, so wird hier angeregt, ko¨nnte reichhaltigere Analysen liefern, wie diese Netzwerke zivilgesellschaftlicher Gruppen die politische Landschaft vera¨ndern. Resumen Las redes de defensa son coaliciones de movimientos y organizaciones que en an˜os recientes han conseguido un nivel de influencia sin precedentes gracias a sutiles estrategias de poder. Se han convertido en actores polı´ticos clave, tanto en el panorama local y nacional como en el internacional. Teo´ricos de distintas disciplinas se han encargado de investigar sobre el trabajo y la funcio´n que desempen˜an en la actual sociedad de la informacio´n. No obstante, algunos de estos ana´lisis parecen retratarlos como actores nuevos en una estructura ya existente. En este trabajo se arguye que la estructura de red de estas asociaciones requiere un enfoque poliface´tico y multidisciplinar para entender mejor co´mo esta´n cambiando el horizonte polı´tico y social. Para lograr este propo´sito, el trabajo se ha dividido en dos partes: la primera ofrece un panorama general de la literatura existente sobre la materia, desde distintas disciplinas y a diferentes escalas, mientras que la segunda propone un marco desde el que considerar todas las esferas relevantes de estas redes para su mejor ana´lisis. Como se observara´ en el repaso a la literatura, la mayorı´a de los estudios de casos se han efectuado desde un claro enfoque disciplinario, con su propio grupo de categorı´as y centrados en la dina´mica preferida. Este enfoque reduce la densidad de las redes al retratarlas igual que a otras instituciones ya conocidas. Buen ejemplo de ello son las escalas de accio´n, que suelen definirse como locales, nacionales, internacionales o transnacionales. Al centrarse exclusivamente en el a´mbito de la influencia directa, se ignoran e infravaloran otras interacciones que pueden resultar centrales para la red. En este trabajo se sugiere, con el fin de subsanar estas malas interpretaciones, la consideracio´n de cinco dimensiones de ana´lisis en el estudio de las redes de defensa: (1) escalas de accio´n e interaccio´n, (2) contextos culturales y tradiciones, (3) lo´gica de la red, (4) elaboracio´n de discursos e impugnaciones, y (5) ecosistema institucional. Al considerar las implicaciones de cincos de ellos, el trabajo propone que la contabilidad puede facilitar un ana´lisis ma´s exhaustivo de

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

159

co´mo estas redes de grupos de sociedad civil esta´n transformando el panorama polı´tico. Keywords society

Advocacy networks
Research
Transnationalism
Global civil

Advocacy networks represent a tangible form of complex relations in our information society outside formal institutions, including governments and states. They characterize a fluid kind of association of various groups of what has been termed ‘global civil society’ (Salamon et al. 2003). Academic approaches to these emerging liquid organizational forms, which contrary to their member associations usually lack legal commitments, help shape our understanding of the current social, cultural and political phenomena they play a part in transforming. This article puts forward the need for more comprehensive approaches to analyse advocacy networks. It does so with the conviction that whereas current analyses have offered rich accounts that highlight the growing relevance of such webs, an outright multidisciplinary approach may yield deeper insights into the meaning and implications of such organizational forms. This article thus offers a critical map of this nascent field of inquiry. In recent years, social scientists have paid increasing attention to advocacy efforts by non-profit organizations in different scales: local, regional or national, and transnational. Advocacy is the public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy (Reid 2000a). When practiced by civil society organizations, it entails an outright intention of influencing decisions, projects or outcomes of governments or companies, outside legal frameworks but with claims to moral authority. To advocate in favour of a cause or movement is, therefore, political work (Parks 2008, p. 213; Berry 1999). This characteristic takes its proponents into the political arena, be it local, national or international. The focus on advocacy networks, however, highlights the coordination and negotiations needed for several organizations of asymmetric size and scope to join forces to achieve a common goal. Their network logic provides them with enough fluidity to influence policymakers through various channels, which may include lobbying, hypermedia campaigns and marches. In local contexts, such multi-layered capacity often has strong effects in political arenas. In transnational issues, however, such campaigns may trigger tensions between political realms and borderless activism thus perhaps altering diplomacy-balanced states of affairs. Participation in the policy process implies a degree of influence that is difficult to study. Andrews and Edwards (2004, p. 492) have put forward a conceptualization of influence for US-based advocacy organizations in five categories: (a) agenda setting; (b) access to decision-making arenas; (c) achieving favourable policies; (d) monitoring and shaping implementation; and (e) shifting the long-term priorities and resources of political institutions. These may be easier to study at local or national scales, but very hard to follow in the international arena. It may be possible to examine diverse elements of each of these categories in order to scrutinize complex transnational processes. Local efforts of this kind are more manageable,

123

160

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

but are increasingly prone to be part of wider networks. Social scientific research into these webs of associations has mainly focused on their contributions to the issue-areas addressed in specific campaigns. Their scales of action are usually used as a framework for such analyses. Different academic disciplines have mainly focused on specific scales of action, types of organization or political implications of advocacy work. As the networks themselves have grown in complexity in recent years, more intricate analyses have been developed to study them. In comparison to the development of legally bound institutions, advocacy networks can be said to rely more on individual choice of participation and activism. Such characteristic permeates the whole network, regardless of its size or topic. A typical advocacy network is usually formed by social movements, established organizations and engaged individuals. Social movements are formed by clusters of individuals who come together to defend a cause, carry out a campaign or for interest in a topical issue (McAdam et al. 2004). By established organizations, I mean the more formal groups that are usually known as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), non-profit organizations (NPOs), or simply civil society organizations (CSOs). In general, these groups have some form of legal base, a core of employees and perhaps volunteers. Engaged individuals may take part in an advocacy network in their professional capacity, as experts, aides or mediators. The fact that this type of loose coalition is common in such a wide variety of scales and issue areas, and is increasingly popular and influential across the globe, reflects a shift in social and political praxis. What this article seeks to put forward is not a unique formula to study advocacy networks, but an informed reflection on the various dimensions that shape them. It aspires to open a multidisciplinary debate that may deliver research approaches to better understand the grand political, cultural and social implications of advocacy networks in our increasingly interconnected world. In order to achieve such purpose, this article is divided in two parts. The first one is a critical review of the literature on advocacy networks, while the second is a suggested analytical framework to better understand them. It is suggested here to consider five dimensions of analysis in the study of advocacy networks: (1) scales of action and interaction, (2) cultural contexts and legacies, (3) network logic, (4) discourse production and contestation and (5) institutional ecosystem. I believe that advocacy networks help us understand ongoing changes in political practices and democratic systems, transnational connections as well as innovative modes of social organization. My own research on advocacy networks has been carried out from the academic discipline of social anthropology. For my doctoral thesis, I studied two sets of networks, one focused on environmental issues and another on political rights (Acosta 2007). The first one was based in the Brazilian Amazon, while the second was located in Barcelona with a reach to the whole Mediterranean region. The focus was on the political dynamics within the various networks I analysed. An in-depth analysis of negotiations in a context of cultural frictions and misunderstandings allowed me to understand the ongoing management of dissent that the network structure facilitates (Acosta 2010). This approach has benefited from abundant literature from other academic disciplines. Just like advocacy networks cross boundaries and borders, systematic studies of their endeavours may benefit greatly

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

161

from efforts to combine perspectives and analyses from different academic traditions. The main difficulty in the research of advocacy networks, as with other subjects, is a clear definition of what these networks actually are. The voluntary allegiance of many organizations or informal groups in the light of a particular issue-area to be advocated for is a truly liquid form. Some of its non-profit organization members must follow very tight rules set out by governments in order to carry out their work within a legal framework. These two forms seem comparable to the ‘cellular’ and the ‘vertebrate’ systems that Appadurai (2006, p. 21) uses to illustrate the difference between modern institutions with clear borders and rules (vertebrate), such as the nation-states and their legal frameworks, and more loose groups that interconnect without set rules and in a truly liquid form (cellular). Appadurai explains how capitalism has evolved some cellular features that allow for transnational production and flows of capital, but that the true innovations in these cellular structures are happening in more informal relations, such as terrorism and organized crime (2006, p. 28).1 He clarifies that these cellular features offer a more utopian potential through the work of international civil society (2006, pp. 131–132). This article seeks to point towards the potential transcendence of what advocacy networks are achieving in our world through the ongoing interconnections they enhance.

Local Transformations Through Transnational Webs The study of the two main types of organizations that form advocacy networks, social movements and civil society organizations has produced vast amounts of scholarly literature from different disciplines. These works have in turn influenced recent investigations on advocacy webs. This part of the article offers a critical review on the academic production on advocacy by civil society groups and associations. Most of the available literature discusses organizations and events in the United States. One of the most systematic approaches to the rising relevance of these efforts was the seminar series on ‘Nonprofit advocacy and the polity process’ held at the Urban Institute at the turn of the millennium (Reid 2000b; Reid et al. 2001, 2003). The basic premise of the seminar was to examine the democratic and constitutional implications of nonprofit advocacy. It therefore serves as a useful framework to understand the political character of advocacy by civil society. Debates over regulations that allow for more or less influence are necessarily bound to states’ laws and institutions. The contribution of the mentioned seminar lies clearly on its examination of the United States legal arrangements and a revision of various case studies. The question remains about legal implications to other nationstates by transnational networks: what guides these webs? Is it aspirations for the implementation of universalistic principles? This is where, it is proposed in this article, political innovation is being promoted by advocacy networks.

1

Research into terrorism networks has started to pay attention to developments regarding transnational advocacy networks. For a comparative study, see Asal et al. (2007).

123

162

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

Any campaign or issue raised has a local grounding. Advocacy work entails an effort to defend a cause or an issue in a series of political negotiations. It requires not only clarity on the identification of the cause, but also an ongoing commitment. This type of activity is common political practice similar to lobbies and other pressure groups, and has been a driving force of legislative processes around the world. While some corporations and financial groups have the resources and resolve to lobby for a particular legislation or permit, civil society groups must seek a particular combination of elements to be able to advocate effectively. Child and Grønbjerg (2007) have sought to predict advocacy activity in nonprofit organizations in the state of Indiana. Through an analysis of a large state survey of nonprofit organizations, they examine the implications of size of the organization, access to information and communication technology, charitable status, and field of activity for their purpose. Donaldson (2007) presents a study that examined correlations between selected organizational factors, such as budget size, staff size, age, local government funding, and leadership, and the advocacy behaviour of human service agencies in Washington, DC. Both approaches, however, rich in data and analyses, do not address directly potential webs and informal campaigns that might enhance advocacy efforts without representing a resource drain from some of its member groups. Both research cases illustrate the difficulty of understanding such networks through a focus on advocacy by individual organizations. Whereas some corporations may lobby on their own, in many cases there exist networks of interest groups that share strategies, know-how, and resources, as well as some of the costs. Key to the understanding of citizen group’s activism is the consideration of how individuals choose to gather and act collectively. It is a case of the individualization of political awareness that leads to a renewal of political associations (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002). In this line of thought, the concept of citizenship is a useful tool for the consideration of rights and civic engagement in a polity. This can be regarded as a reconfiguration of liberal ideals, as Berry (1999) suggests, due to the political influence exerted by loud and well-organized citizens’ groups with a liberal agenda. The rise in advocacy, however, crosses ideological borders. It is part of a wider trend of increasing professionalization of and within organizations to improve their advocacy practice (Boris and Krehely 2002; Jenkins 2006). Studies of these trends point to a clear tendency towards advocacy among a range of different civil society groups, such as social movements, interest groups, and nonprofit organizations (Andrews and Edwards 2004). Andrews and Edwards (2004) offer a map of organizational influence of groups carrying out advocacy and call for scholarship to bridge disciplinary divides and look for patterns of action, organization and government responsiveness. The interest behind calls such as this lies in understanding the impact such efforts have in public policies. These studies offer insights into political manoeuvres of advocacy groups, but sometimes fail to grasp the complexity of interactions and tensions they face. An ethnographic study of an organization in Philadelphia, for example, shows how ties to the public sector and a high level of institutionalization allow a nonprofit organization to carry out its advocacy work with efficiency (Landriscina 2006). This type of evidence allows for a reflection on the value of networks for local efforts, either with other public actors such as government offices, or with other local or

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

163

external nonprofit organizations. Numerous studies have been carried out with a focus on networks seeking to modify policies (Sabatier and Smith 1993). These have diverted into what are called policy networks (Marsh 1998; Rhodes 2008), which focus more on the policy process including the participation of interest groups and other advocacy organizations. In this vein, a study into national education webs in the US shows the way opposing advocacy networks may compete for influence over local policies throughout a vast territory (Kirst 2007). Such way of organizing may entail a rewiring of relations in order to pursue more complex aims. The next generation of advocacy workers may come from exercises such as Manalo’s (2004), through which a group of graduate social work students were assigned policy advocacy efforts. His report on the results of the assignments shows that students are more likely to engage in policy advocacy after such experience (Manalo 2004, p. 64). This process necessarily entails an understanding of network structures and their significance to advocacy efforts. Examples of webs of civil servants, volunteers and other individuals and groups are being examined in different issue areas, such as refugees and asylum seekers in the UK (Cambridge and Williams 2004). In some situations where local networks are not yet working in a coordinated manner, studies have provided evidence of the potential benefit of sharing information to achieve an influence on policy-making. Such is the case of Mmalti’s (2009) study of the value of research for advocacy efforts to aid people with disabilities in Botswana. In situations where networks are more professionalized or have members with enough experience and expertise, studies have shown innovative strategies to achieve policy changes. An example of this is Potting’s (2009) study of the collective effort during the legislative process towards the implementation of the Social Support Act in the Netherlands. This is an example of how health services may benefit from the participation of patient and client organizations during the debates to establish policies that will directly affect them. In her results, Potting shows the value of collective action during negotiations with government officials (Potting 2009, p. 173). Perhaps, the most interesting element of this case was the fact that the web of citizen groups that came together developed a manifesto to express their views to the House of Representatives. This unified strategy earned them admiration from ministers (Potting 2009, p. 175), which helped their cause. Health matters are clearly an area where advocacy networks are becoming more visible. Such is the case of a renal transplant patient web whose purpose is to help other patients (Gilford 2007) or a women’s health research network set up to promote a research agenda in universities as well as private and public institutions in the US (Greenberger 1999). An example on mental health advocacy in the UK, however, serves to caution about the lack of awareness about advocacy work among the other stakeholders involved (Carver and Morrison 2005). Other issue areas seem to prove the advantages that local contexts may mean for advocacy campaigns. Such is the case of environmental efforts to reduce carbon emissions in California. Hall and Taplin (2010) show how in the face of federal intransigence, strategies focused on state legislations proved fruitful for six environmental organizations that worked individually as well as part of broader webs. These types of efforts involve a necessary organizing capacity through

123

164

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

information technologies. It is easy to see how large organizations like those studies by Hall and Taplin (2010) would have access to them. Also in California, Sandoval (2005) presents a study of grassroots groups that are able to maximize their limited resources to further their particular agendas. Even in local contexts, these tools are useful to generate a group identity and bridge diverse divides, such as ethnicity, background, place, etc. When combined with face-to-face meetings, the strategies and political agendas are pursued with a clearer sense of common purpose (Sandoval 2005, p. 31). Local, regional or national efforts to achieve policy changes are increasingly taking a ‘softer’ or more institutional tone, in contrast to a ‘harder’ or more radical one (Onyx et al. 2010). This is partly due to the diverse commitments citizen organizations have with local governments, either in the form of funding or in co-participation for service delivery or assessment. These circumstances have led to a decrease in open confrontation and an evolution of radical positions within a neoliberal discourse (Onyx et al. 2010, p. 59). How much is this working against the aspiration towards an active citizenship? A case study in Bogota´, Colombia, shows how addressing openly the aim to improve the democratic culture of the population may help but is not enough (Appe 2010). This is related to how the local context and history of civic participation are essential elements to understand current developments of particular efforts. Advocacy efforts in particular require an insight into preceding political relations, as some actors may have acquired new organizations to pursue their own benefits. The logic behind a network, however, ensures that some sort of consensus is required in order for several local organizations to agree to collaborate. Once networks cross nation-state borders, the complexity of their work becomes more evident. The concept of ‘transnational advocacy networks’ was paramount in bringing these webs to light for International Relations scholars. Keck and Sikkink (1998a) put it forward in their acclaimed and award-winning book Activists Beyond Borders. In it and in a subsequent article (1999) and chapters (1998b), they defined transnational advocacy networks as increasingly influential non-state actors involved in international politics. ‘‘By building new links among actors in civil societies, states, and international organizations, they multiply the channels of access to the international system’’ (Keck and Sikkink 1998a, p. 1). This process is facilitated by their complex network structure that benefits from local partners and transnational connections. The increased scale involved in these webs adds layers of complexity to advocacy efforts, as many small local groups may join large organizations with more expertise and more media savvy. This process entails a learning experience, but also a crash course in political manoeuvrings (Risse-Kappen 1995; Tarrow 2001). Hertel (2006) has described how some networks may allow for small and relatively powerless organizations can gain legitimacy and influence by a series of strategies within larger networks. Specifically, Hertel (2006, p. 6) refers to two ‘mechanisms’: ‘blocking’ or ‘backdoor moves’, which allow for weaker members of networks to influence the overarching campaign. They are called ‘mechanisms’ by drawing from social movement theory (McAdam et al. 2001, pp. 24–26), a significant characteristic of advocacy network studies I will come back to. ‘Blocking’ consists of action by ‘receiving-end’ activists ‘aimed at halting or at

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

165

least significantly stalling a campaign’s progress in order to pressure senders to change their frame’ (Hertel 2006, p. 6). ‘Backdoor moves’, on the other hand, consist on actions by receiving-end activists to augment a campaign’s normative frame by adding ‘distinct, secondary reference points and/or policy proposals’ (Hertel 2006, p. 6) usually without conflict and indirectly. These strategies help understand procedures within the networks in order to develop theoretical models that would be applicable to a wide range of networks. Keck and Sikkink had already identified another key pattern of action within campaigns that the webs use transnationally: the ‘boomerang’ (1998a, p. 12). This ‘pattern of influence’, as they call it, entails an effort by local organizations or activists to bring pressure to their states from abroad, after they have found internal channels blocked for changes in policies or legislation. The difference between Hertel’s mechanisms and Keck and Sikkink’s patterns is that the former are inward processes within the network, while the latter are strategies to influence the outer political realm that the web seeks to influence. One of the main fields of research and inquiry into the work by transnational advocacy networks is that of development. Previous analyses had taken on relevant parts of these networks, such as NGOs or social movements. Fisher (1997) offers a thorough account of the literature on NGOs regarding the distance that separates intentions from reality. A similar critique had already been put forward by Ferguson (1994), who argued that NGOs actually worked as ‘anti-political’ by neutralizing local struggles and eroding local resilience by absorbing some of the better-educated members of a locality. These critiques were mostly directed at individual NGOs, even if considered within a nonprofit environment. As networks, however, the logic of their practice changes, as some local organizations may be involved, which may change (or not) the outcomes of their endeavour. From the perspective of IR, DeMars (2005) focused on the flexibility of NGO networks in terms of ambivalence, branding them as ‘wild cards in world politics’. His comprehensive analysis of what NGO networks are is rooted on a realist vision that describes how norm models are ‘enforced’ or ‘implemented’ in different corners of the globe (DeMars 2005, p. 19). It is what Khagram et al. describe in their edited volume about how such networks are Restructuring World Politics (2002a). The difference between both books on the topic is that while DeMars offers a version of network volatility, Khagram et al. seem to point to their ongoing virtuous activity. An example of this view refers to dams. They claim that transnational activism has changed the public perception of dams from positive to highly contested (2002b, p. 13). Such perception, they argue, has had direct consequences for local politics, but also for international agreements and norms. In a more recent study, Dubash (2009) offers a thorough study of the role of transnational advocacy networks in global deliberation about dams. Khagram et al. explain how this same pattern of influence in international politics can be witnessed in different issue areas. DeMars, on the other hand, is somewhat suspicious of networks that fall outside government structures. He claims that their fluidity and flexibility can be led by a political influence market and therefore hijacked by different interest groups. These analyses come from an International Relations perspective, as much of the literature on international NGO ‘bloom’ (DeMars 2005, p. 36) of the 1990s. In both cases,

123

166

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

there is a challenge to different degrees of the realist paradigm, which tends to dismiss the influence of non-state actors in international politics, with perspectives from the pluralist and globalist ones. For a relevant review article of recent literature on the subject, see Price (2003). As had been mentioned before, advocacy network literature feeds directly from social movement theories, especially regarding the concept of ‘collective action’ (Melucci 2001 [1996]). Several authors already pointed to ‘coalitions’ among different movement organizations (Della Porta and Diani 2003, p. 124). Some seem to point out that advocacy networks actually stem out of the ‘new social movements’ which started in the 1960s (Martin 2004). One key element that has been adopted is the concept of ‘framing’ (McAdam et al. 2004 [1996]), which helps understand codes used to provide meaning and coherence to campaigns and strategies. Through this imported concept from another field, advocacy network researchers have developed further reflections to understand processes taking place within the webs. Keck and Sikkink identified four types of tactics that networks use in their efforts at persuasion, socialization and pressure: (1) information politics, or the ability to quickly and credibly generate politically usable information and move it to where it will have the most impact; (2) symbolic politics, or the ability to call upon symbols, actions, or stories that make sense of a situation for an audience that is frequently far away; (3) leverage politics, or the ability to call upon powerful actors to affect a situation where weaker members of a networks are unlikely to have influence; and (4) accountability politics, or the effort to hold powerful actors to their previously stated policies or principles. (Keck and Sikkink 1998a, p. 16) All of them entail a strategic use of information and socialized understandings. Their approach is related to Keohane and Nye’s concept of ‘soft power’ (1998, 2001), and Habermas’ ‘communicative power’ (1996). These strategies thus constitute tangible evidence of the use of information as a key element to renew communal decision-making processes challenging professional political institutions. This is partly related to the effects on social capital due to the NGO bloom (Harriss 2002; Lin 2001; Edwards and Foley 1998). Similar communicative efforts are used by formal institutions in order to promote themselves in international development. For Koggel (2007) claims by the World Bank of having an advocacy agenda, in order to promote an empowerment of the poor and disadvantaged in Indonesia, can be contrasted against the results that do not affect the underlying causes of poverty. Civil society advocacy networks are therefore applying the legitimacy they have earned as independent webs of public interest that cross nation-state borders. They thus reach places where policies had been dictated or influenced solely by local governments or formal institutions, such as the World Bank. Nelson (2002) explains this phenomenon as a tendency by civil society webs to seek new political agendas worldwide in opposition to bodies such as the WB. In this perspective, global policy agendas are no longer exclusively determined by institutions with legal authority (Nelson 2002, p. 389). This can be said to comply with a privatisation of the public interest. International institutions such as the World Bank draw their legitimacy

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

167

from the states that form and finance them. These in turn vary in their legitimacy claims but always assert to represent their inhabitants’ interests. How legitimate is the role of private actors in public issues? By entering the transnational public sphere and claiming a right to take part in global debates, they are taking over some of the states’ functions. This issue is similar to the criticism about the lack of NGO accountability (Edwards and Hulme 1996). How can an NGO demand government accountability and not be accountable itself? For Kamat (2004), recent developments in NGO actions and webs demonstrate their adaptation into the neoliberal model of civil society. Further research into international participation of advocacy networks proves the high levels of complexity of their claims and membership. Cultural factors are always an element to be considered. The Indian diaspora, for example, has proven to exert a strong influence back in India to defend different causes with various strategies (Gandhi 2002). Some movements have confronted traditional structural characteristics with strong cultural roots, such as the caste system’s oppression of Dalits in India (Lerche 2008). Other networks have sought to improve policies regarding the environment by including local knowledge in debates and proposed solutions to problems, as Dumoulin (2003) explains in the case of Mexico. Other cases prove how civic participation in civil society organizations promotes democratic development, as happens in South Africa (Heinrich 2001). In South America, Fuentes (2005) deconstructs the role advocacy networks play in denouncing and bringing to public attention abuses and violence by police corporations that seem to inherit directly from authoritarian regimes. The European Union has a strong institutional structure to involve civil society groups in different decision-making processes. This characteristic has allowed many networks to flourish and seek an ongoing engagement with pubic issues. This is evident in Cowles’ (2003) review of the role non-state actors play in EU integration and its policy-making. According to her theoretical reflection on IR and IPE approaches, the consideration of advocacy networks and other civil society organizations and webs compels for a reassessment of governance structures in order to suit the multiple layers of participation that currently take place (Cowles 2003, p. 114). Specific cases of participation by advocacy networks are clearly visible in the issue of gender equality, which include representation in EU institutions (Agustı´n 2008, p. 506) and a coherent strategy against human trafficking (Locher 2007). All these examples show the international reach of advocacy networks in different issue areas. It is a decidedly complex political state of affairs due to the involvement of webs that necessarily include actors external to the polities where changes are sought. This fact is relevant in several levels and has repercussions for the way funding reaches advocacy organizations. Parks (2008) offers a study of the impact of donor funding in advocacy NGOs, specifically in East Asia. The asymmetric relations between donors and civil society organizations have direct repercussions to their advocacy efforts, especially due to their need for political legitimacy and independence. Parks’ study is focused solely in NGOs and has no mention of networks. Perhaps, a more systematic review of funding flows within networks may offer a broader perspective to understand the logic behind these webs.

123

168

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

Some efforts by advocacy networks are transnational in their scope, issue-area and organizational structure. Keck and Sikkink argued that the transnational dimension was necessary to bridge the ‘‘increasingly artificial divide between international and national realms’’ (1998a, p. 4). This means that domestic policies are addressed at the same time as international ones are, thus multiplying the political effect by relating different arenas within the same debates. Such ecology of advocacy is evident in environmental issues, such as the effects of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon (McAteer and Pulver 2009; Wiedener 2009), as well as in Angola (Le Billon 2005). These studies increasingly pay attention to the links between social impacts, distributive struggles, community actions and policy strategies. The direct appeal to an oil company’s shareholders to halt their exploration efforts in the Ecuadorian Amazon by Tsere, a representative of a local indigenous community, serves McAteer and Pulver (2009, p. 2) to put forward the ‘corporate boomerang model’ as a recent development of the work carried out by transnational advocacy networks. The authors explore webs that focus on confronting large corporations and explain their differences to those confronting states in three dimensions: the strategies they employ; the determinants of network effectiveness and assessments of goal achievements (McAteer and Pulver 2009, p. 3). Their analysis is of political activity involving only non-state actors. Wiedener (2009, p. 32) uses a very different perspective, by following material and immaterial flows of contention from the construction of a pipeline in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Her focus is of sociogeographic research, which serves a purpose of identifying spaces and fields of contention where organizations negotiate for their causes. Le Billon (2005), on the other hand, offers an analysis of advocacy efforts in a context of oil wealth and misery among the local vulnerable population in Angola. The combination of armed conflicts with resource-rich areas has been more closely observed in different corners of our planet by academics from different fields. Le Billon offers an insight into advocacy efforts in such situations, providing a fertile ground for reflection on governance issues in extreme conditions with reverberations from the Cold War (Le Billon 2005, p. 11). What these research approaches to advocacy in the context of oil extraction show is that the political landscape is no longer limited to clear-cut ideological positions even when they might be one of the factors to consider. The case of oil and its repercussions also points to the increasing attention paid to advocacy campaigns directly addressing transnational corporations. An exemplary case is that of the tobacco-related policy debate, where advocacy networks carry out their efforts in both sides of the polemic (Farquharson 2003). The global garment industry has also been a constant target of advocacy webs to reduce exploitation of child and women workers (Garwood 2005). Perhaps more directly related to the tactics of advocacy networks, as well as their prime substance of negotiation (information), are media companies. Oksanen and Va¨lima¨ki (2002) explore the way some advocacy networks oppose the Digital Rights Management systems promoted by media companies. There is an important debate regarding rights and access related to ICTs that has direct implications to legal frameworks and public interest. Other advocacy webs have made an effort to influence the loaning policies of international financial institutions in order to promote a more sustainable development (Park 2005). Transnational campaigns for the control of landmines,

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

169

furthermore, are addressing security issues that used to remain in the sphere of states (Price 1998). By addressing complex international matters such as the ones described here, advocacy networks are acquiring experience in shaping transnational norms and policies of private enterprises. Carpenter (2007a, b) has put forward a comprehensive analysis into how issue agendas are set by advocacy networks. He refers to ‘issue emergence’ as the adoption of certain topics as opposed to others within a broader social phenomenon (Carpenter 2007a). An example he uses is the broad problematic of children and armed conflict, out of which an advocacy network chooses to advocate for child soldiers and girls in war, but does not deal with the protection needs of children born as a result of wartime rape. His analysis parts from the fact that the latter topic has been identified by media and donors as an area where urgent action is needed, and yet advocacy webs working with children in war zones have not yet taken up. Carpenter argues that there is not enough empirical research ‘‘explaining why transnational activists themselves mobilize around certain problems and not others at specific points in history’’ (2007a, p. 100). Given that advocacy networks rely on meanings and information to try and exert influence on policy-makers in order to change a given situation, the choice of principled discourse seems somewhat arbitrary and unsystematic. For this reason, Carpenter proposes to theorize issue ‘non-emergence’ (2007a, p. 101) or ‘non-adoption’ (2007b). He refers to member organizations as ‘levers of symbolic power in world affairs’ (2007a, p. 101), who play an important role in the construction and acceptance of specific problems as international issues. His argument stresses the fact that not all human rights issues, for example, are codified as international norms. Human rights, furthermore, is one of the key issue-areas of influence of advocacy networks (Risse et al. 1999). It is easy to misrepresent the logic behind advocacy networks’ endeavours when one only looks at the ones who have been successful and most visible. There are some webs that do not succeed in their efforts. What Carpenter offers is an attempt to theorize how certain topics are chosen in order to be addressed by transnational advocacy networks in their campaigns. He distinguishes two phases of such process: issue definition and issue adoption (Carpenter 2007a, p. 103). The first phase involves demonstrating ‘‘that a given state of affairs is neither natural nor accidental, identify[ing] the responsible party or parties, and propos[ing] credible solutions’’ (Keck and Sikkink 1998a, p. 19). The second phase implies that at least one of the major members of the networks champions the issue. This in turn can produce a domino effect of diffusion among other member groups. An issue emerges, therefore, only when both the definition and adoption have occurred within a network. Carpenter goes on to explore the reasons behind issue emergence and theorizations that try to explain it. He also makes suggestions to transnational advocacy network researchers in order to improve theorizations on this topic. Contributions of this sort allow for a more thorough understanding of political manoeuvrings within advocacy networks. Given the newness of the research field, however, I suspect that these debates fall in occasions into chicken-and-egg dilemmas. What came first: the issue or the network? Sometimes there already exists a network focused on a wide issue-area, for which a specific problem or topic will serve a purpose of refreshing its impetus and providing clarity for a fruitful campaign. Other times, a

123

170

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

topic may bring together organizations which may have already been working together on other topics, but who form a new network specifically for the campaign or issue. The complex civil society ecosystem makes this kind of distinction difficult. New research must think outside of the box and avoid treating advocacy networks as unified institutions. The problem with some IR analysis is that even if they speak of non-state actors, they seem to simplify political action and symbolic management by transnational advocacy networks as if they were a single actor, even if collective. For Staudt (2002), communities across borders best represent the fluidity between societies that are divided by state boundaries but connected through kinship, friendship, coalitions and official bodies. Her focus on gender relations prioritizes a feminist agenda of deconstructing a political discourse formulated by men. By analysing a set of relations and networks in the Mexico-US border, Staudt calls for a reconsideration of political practices that do not fall within or between states (2002, p. 197), but rather in the civil sphere (Alexander 2006). Far from romanticizing such space and the capacity of transnational advocacy networks, she calls for a thorough understanding of transnational issues across borders and their implications for local civil societies (2002, p. 212). This shows how a universal principle can be championed by citizens’ groups in different localities despite their contrasting cultural and legal contexts. The discourse may be similar but the implications will surely differ. A consideration on the role played by transnational advocacy networks regarding labour relations in an increasingly integrated world economy is put forward by Trubek et al. (2000), and Wells (2009), although with different perspectives. Trubek et al. review transnational labour organizing as part of increasingly integrated industrial production. They review the recent history of international labour regulations and the role of independent advocacy in the face of trade agreements and interdependence. Their observations lead them to consider an emerging ‘transnational vision’ for the protection of workers’ rights (2000, p. 1192, 1208). Wells, on the other hand, questions the effectiveness of such pressures by observing local struggles in the ‘global south’. He calls for more attention to small grassroots movements who, his argument goes, are able to achieve better results at the local scale (2009, p. 575). Wells reviews several cases around the world, in which he finds that the more a network puts local struggles first, the better results will be achieved, as McKay (2006) pointed out regarding the Philippines. Transnational solidarity is perhaps the overarching scaffolding of advocacy networks. Their structures and aims are not bound by legal agreements but by voluntary commitments regarding an issue that is perceived as relevant not only for a local community, but for an effort that crosses state borders. Many of the analyses reviewed here focus on how specific networks address certain topics, or they theorize operational aspects regarding choices and tactics. To understand advocacy networks in their transnational scope, it is perhaps necessary to recognize their ascendance in social movements (Smith et al. 1997). It is also relevant to recognize past strategies that have proven successful in modifying a public perception on an issue thus mobilizing pressure from international institutions, governments and other collectives, such as the campaign against apartheid in South Africa (Tho¨rn 2006). Examples like this allow us to observe how a global political culture has been developing with a constant intervention by civil society groups in some sort of transnational networks.

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

171

Implications and Interconnections Advocacy efforts by civil society networks take many forms and cross many boundaries, not only those of states. By coordinating concerted action, discourse production and pressure on institutions, advocacy networks are innovating political practice and spreading a renewed understanding of the interconnections between local and global issues (Cabus 2001). It is therefore necessary to think of ways to conceptualize their endeavours through a new lens. DeMars points to the need of ‘‘a new theory that is conceptually independent of the social actors that it analyses, that cuts across issue areas and other conventional distinctions that distract attention from the political impact of NGOs, and that directs empirical attention to the variable and particular consequences of NGO action’’ (2005, p. 40). This requires a thorough understanding of the interconnections between scales of action from grassroots movements (Batliwala 2002) to global governance (Bond 2006). Most accounts of what has been termed global civil society (Anheier et al. 2001; Salamon et al. 2003) are either descriptive or fall into a normative analysis. Taylor (2002, 2004) calls for an increased effort to theorize our understanding of the web of associations that is evident all over our globe. Not all organizations included in the broad and contested spectrum of ‘civil society’, however, practice advocacy; but an attempt at theorizing transnational advocacy networks would arguably add to the mentioned debate. This article has so far reviewed critically a wide range of research perspectives into advocacy networks at local, national or international scales. This section is focused on discussing the implications of such modes of action for further research designs and analyses. I put forward five dimensions of analysis that may provide a basis for further scrutiny and potential theorization. Advocacy networks may be therefore studied in their: (1) scales of action and interaction; (2) cultural contexts and legacies; (3) network logic; (4) discourse production and contestation and (5) institutional ecosystem. What follows is a brief discussion on each of these items. Scales of Action and Interaction As has been shown above, many studies of advocacy efforts carried out by networks of organizations focus on their aimed scale of political influence. Some academics have purposely analysed the capacity and competence of nonprofit organizations in a given locality through a series of concrete indicators in order to help predict advocacy activity (Child and Grønbjerg 2007). I believe that an essential ingredient is the network logic behind advocacy efforts, an issue which will be discussed below but which poses a challenge for the conception of a locality. This means that even in small regions with very specific issues for which an organization advocates, its work and procedures are informed, inspired or sometimes even tied to networks of other similar groups elsewhere. Just as governments are intermingled in their different scales within states and even with other states, so are nonprofit groups associated in various ways. An understanding of the correlation between size and complexity of a given government body or institution with that of the advocacy organization or network would help understand the dynamics of scale in their political endeavours.

123

172

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

There has been a lot of attention paid to transnational processes of influence by advocacy networks. Their strong and confident political roles in an international arena are considered as paradigm-breaking by many IR scholars (Cowles 2003). Some refer to the inclusion of NGOs in International Relations theory as a move towards a global governance theory (Kelly 2007, p. 81). This approach runs the risk of falling into a normative perspective of moral authority (Burgerman 2001). There is enough awareness, however, of the political implications of inclusive spaces of decision-making in transnational arenas. Moog Rodrigues (2004) focused on environmental advocacy networks’ impact in local politics in Brazil, Ecuador and India. Her comparative study deconstructs assumptions about local organizations’ roles within wider advocacy networks. By focusing on the way local politics influence advocacy networks, which in turn helped spur-specific campaigns, Moog Rodrigues insists in situating action by webs in specific localities. The meetings and activities of campaigns helped locals achieve an increased empowerment that was hard to understand and manage, partly due to more complex responsibilities than they were prepared to handle and a political backlash from government officials and elites (Moog Rodrigues 2004, p. 140). These results, with data and testimonies from the referred areas, drove the author to include a series of ‘lessons and recommendations’ in her conclusions that seem more directed at network members or ‘political entrepreneurs’ seeking to start up new webs. These developments are directly related to the network society that some scholars argue is the main character of our age (Castells 2000a, b). The way in which individuals share information and negotiate common issues is strongly influenced by the web-like structures of the media that we use (van Dijk 2006). In this sense, the scales of action for advocacy networks are only one dimension of their work. Those of interaction, though virtual, imply an immense resource pool that can allow for ongoing improvements and adaptations to new environments. Interacting with sympathetic organizations or individuals can help local groups to fine-tune their discourse in order to link their campaigns to wider issue areas, thus gaining from the legitimacy of similar cases throughout the world. It can also provide a transcendental sense of connection to larger human issues and even histories. In this sense, advocacy networks’ political contributions go beyond mending a unique policy or project by tapping into the way peoples have built polities and discourses around them. If human history can be understood as a sequence of networks of communications and exchange, as McNeill and McNeill suggest (2003), then these independent groups should be considered a building block of history. Cultural Contexts and Legacies Advocacy efforts are always situated. Cultural contexts and legacies may prove extremely relevant to understand the logic behind local policy-making and political practices. This is where anthropologists and cultural sociologists add a valuable insight into complex negotiations regarding values and goals. Some analyses have, for example, addressed the concept of taboo in advocacy efforts, as a study suggests regarding nuclear and chemical weapons (Price and Tannenwald 1996). Other primordial social arrangements should be considered when examining value-driven

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

173

campaigns. Among the reasons behind issue emergence in advocacy networks, for example, Carpenter (2007a, pp. 103–104) speaks of the relevance of ‘pre-existing moral standards’ for the achievement of the promotion of new moral standards. This type of analysis therefore suggests a sociocultural negotiation between inherited values and external ones. I believe, however, that issue emergence is not the only element for which this consideration is relevant. Political practices and public understandings of complaint, for example, may influence heavily on specific processes that other perspectives may obviate. A study in this vein is Riles’ ethnography of networks in the Pacific working towards the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women (2000). Her volume shows how exchanges of information among network members became more symbolic than consequential. Over 15 months, she participated in the daily work of five or six networks and institutions, providing technical assistance while observing their inner workings (Riles 2000, p. xv). She describes the flows of information in the form of documents as ritually negotiated, distributed and then shelved. Riles calls this ‘aesthetic activism’ (2000, p. 136). A useful and colourful analogy is that of the Fijian mats: ‘‘Like mats layered one upon the next in ceremonial contexts, therefore, documents were entities that at key periods of time faded into patterns replicable at seemingly infinite levels’’ (Riles 2000, p. 83). She also argues that the bureaucratised language used in network reports is more symbolic than textual: ‘‘The document did not exist to be ‘read’ in the academic sense of the term. Rather, after the close of the conference, governments and NGOs would use the document by dividing sentences into categories and reshuffling the text into material for quotation in further documents of their own. The carefully crafted patterns of the artefact, delegates knew, would be decomposed into their myriad composite parts’’ (Riles 2000, p. 89). Riles then considers such aesthetics as a performative value of new and fluid bureaucracies, consistent in applying for funds, organizing debates, talks, workshops and meetings, as well as writing the reports each of these deserved. Thus, instead of a relationship with what she calls the real (Riles 2000, p. 169), the organizations are more about information collection and management (Riles 2000, pp. 179–180), and in this way they mirror UN agencies and intergovernmental organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank. These institutions define the world and its needs according to their fact-finding missions and reports in a similar fashion to how governments work. Grasping statistics, data and measurement for human suffering, violence and well-being entails a way to grasp the ‘real’, and to classify it to provide taxonomies and scales. It is, incidentally, a similar process to that of academia. What Riles witnessed, then, was an advocacy network more involved in its own reification than in addressing the issues. It is therefore similar to how Herzfeld (1993) described the nation-state as a religion, practiced in the form of governmental bureaucracy reifying itself (mirroring Durkheim’s concept of religion as society worshipping itself). In all the rituals that advocacy networks engage in, their heritage from religious organizations and kinship structures seems unshakeable and thus more traditional power structures continue even within network structures. Thus, all the new forms of distribution of information and

123

174

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

organization may just be a discourse that perpetuates power structures, just like governmental bureaucracy does (Lefort 1986). Such type of reflection is also valuable when a society has recently passed through a difficult time that in turn has an influence into its current organization. A clear example of this is the logic behind police violence in South America, which inherits a lot from the dictatorships that dominated the region over a few decades in the twentieth century. Evangelista (1999) offers an analysis of how nonprofit networks advocate against police brutality in a context that mirrors ideological debates. Two sets of networks campaign on the issue from contrasting positions: one is ‘pro-order’ while the other is for ‘civil rights’. His analysis considers many implications of recent events in Chile and Argentina that help explain the overall problem, and also the way advocacy networks have carried out their efforts in the face of a difficult legacy. Network Logic The operational structure of advocacy networks is key to understand their influence, development and potential. Some studies have focused on their ‘architecture’, or the way in which decision-making flows of influence work within the networks. Part of the difficulty of this approach lies in the fluidity of advocacy networks. Some of the more institutionalized ones, that already have a stable working relation through a relative long-term practice, may follow a clear design of leadership and negotiation. Most, however, adapt to changing circumstances and are flexible enough to change according to their needs. A focus on the network logic behind complex advocacy webs necessarily entails a study of power relations in decision-making processes. Research on policy networks and governance has produced interesting perspectives (Marsh 1998). Other studies on shared expertise shed light on knowledge exchanges (Stone 2002). The fact is that our information age, with its array of information and communication technologies, has spurred unprecedented levels of collaboration among individuals and institutions. McCarthy et al. (2004) explain how governance has changed political and social practices around the world. This is a key characteristic that needs more reflection. Some network analyses have been carried out mostly regarding social capital (Lin 2001). From my own observations and analysis (Acosta 2007), I can say that there is a networked habitus whose implications we have not yet understood. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus helps explain the way certain practices achieve a level of legitimacy within a social group that helps reproduce them as an essential part of their routines (Bourdieu 1997). It is through lasting acquired schemes of perception, thought and action that people become used to applying certain logics of action and organization in order to pursue their ends. When people work within advocacy networks and notice the potential benefits of this type of organization, they may attempt to pursue ever more effective network organizational schemes. Riles argues that this is a process of reproduction in which networks create more networks (2000, p. 173). A more systematic effort to examine the logic behind network organizational schemes in advocacy webs may yield interesting results about their evolution and development.

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

175

Discourse Influence Most academics who have studied advocacy networks agree on their strategic use of information and issue visibilization in order to challenge official discourses. Keck and Sikkink argue that this characteristic keeps transnational advocacy networks as creative and innovative actors that can use such expertise to exert influence in political systems. This is necessarily related to knowledge management (Stone 2002). A clue for understanding such webs’ role in today’s world can be found in Rifjin’s foreword to Fisher’s Non-Governments (1998, p. viii), where he states that due to de-industrialization and the concentration in highly sophisticated knowledge posts, civil organizations such as NGOs are actually filling gaps in the provision of services and creation of a wider sense of community. A similar argument can be found in much of the literature on NGOs. This process entails an ongoing negotiation of discourse. A cited example is that of dams. Through a combination of conflicting issues surrounding the construction and promotion of dams, such as indigenous rights, environmental concerns, human rights, among others, transnational advocacy networks have achieved a more substantial opposition to the powerful corporations and institutions that back their construction (Khagram 2002, p. 208). Dubash reviews the deliberation process attempting to promote norms regarding dams (2009). This aspect of discourse management has direct relation to the implications of advocacy regarding national legal frameworks and international norms. The implications of insisting on the need to deliberate among a wider range of stakeholders than only states is by itself an indication of a leap towards a more inclusive governance structure (Dubash 2009, pp. 233–234). In order to achieve a substantial influence in the public perception of an issue, advocacy networks apply communication strategies through traditional and new media. For this reason, more research on ‘media advocacy’ would provide a systematic map of routes and choices made by activists in different scales. Gibson (2010) argues that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach to ‘media advocacy’ in order to understand the reach messages and efforts in different issue areas. This sphere, however, is but only one of the dimensions of the collective discourse construction that advocacy networks participate in. Another is diplomacy. In her study of Amnesty International, Clark (2001) offers an account of three case studies: the development of the Convention against Torture; the creation of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the creation of the Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions. Each of these case studies is portrayed as a four-stage political process in which Amnesty International systematized information on human rights abuses, built consensus on the moral unacceptability of such behaviours, helped construct international norms to express this principle, and then sought to monitor norms at domestic and international levels. This strategy entails a careful weaving of informed advocacy with communication efforts directed at specific actors and populations in order to earn enough political clout. King refers to advocacy networks’ participation in discursive wars (2004, p. 269). She offers a review of the literature on advocacy networks and organizes it in two major perspectives, according to their main focus: cooptive and cooperative. The

123

176

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

former emphasizes the flow of resources, symbolic and material, in one direction, usually from a Western ‘core’ to a non-Western ‘periphery’ (King 2004, p. 271). Power and asymmetric relations are key ingredients of this perspective, which is heavily influenced by world polity theory. The latter perspective emphasizes an understanding of transnational advocacy networks as spaces in which ‘‘actors collectively negotiate and formulate interpretations and understandings of their collective endeavour’’ (King 2004, p. 273). This literature is best represented, according to King, by Keck and Sikkink (1998a). Part of the ongoing negotiation towards a unifying discourse that in turn challenges the official perspective on an issue is the ability to incorporate in it culturally resonant symbols. Institutional Ecosystem A portrayal of the size, experience and capacities of the organizations that form part of an advocacy network usually provides enough clarity to understand its reach and negotiating power. More attention is needed regarding what is termed here the institutional ecosystem in which the advocacy network exists. This would include government agencies, offices, international organizations as well as private corporations. This examination may provide a clearer picture of political manoeuvres taking place in different levels at the same time. It may also include a more dense picture of the complex environment that requires innovative strategies and practices. Some analyses discuss the roles of advocacy networks and their organizations in the political milieu. An example is Hudson’s revision of the legitimacy debate behind NGOs and their advocacy efforts (2001). His proposal in this respect is to think of other formulas in order to best address the ongoing efforts of advocacy networks. In particular, he puts forward the concept of ‘political responsibility’ to address the power exchanges that take place in transnational advocacy. Another interesting insight into this type of environment is offered by Hailey and James in their examination of leadership development in NGO capacity building (2004). Their reflection on the individuals who direct NGOs refers to the complex environment in which they work, and the need for capacity building with such inputs in mind. This type of analysis, though pragmatic and of a more applied nature, speaks of the relevance of the institutional ecosystem.

Conclusion As advocacy networks become more common in our political landscape, research about them gains in perspective, form and depth. These associations are a prime arena of cross-cultural deliberation and negotiation. The search for a common ground among network members is a sophisticated political practice that in turn strengthens its case for further negotiations with external institutions. Such process can be better understood by addressing it directly, as Magis did when she carried out a series of interviews with nonprofit leaders ‘‘to learn how civil society groups cross political, cultural, social, economic, and language boundaries to find common

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

177

ground and act collectively in coalitions to effect international change’’ (2009). In her analysis, the concept of convergence stands out as an explanation of the process through which people with different viewpoints unite around a common cause. This perspective seeks to tackle the ongoing expertise that is developing through networks. As a central practice in these fluid organizational forms, such negotiation is an essential element of their endeavours. As has been put forward above, however, in order to achieve a better understanding of the implications of their influence in various political arenas, it would be desirable to seek a more comprehensive account of advocacy networks through their: scales of action and interaction; cultural contexts and legacies; network logic; discourse production and contestation and institutional ecosystem. Much of the existing literature on advocacy networks already addresses one or several of these perspectives. More clarity about them and their interplay may yield interesting results regarding the political transformations that are taking place all over the globe.

References Acosta, R. (2007). Managing dissent. Advocacy networks in the Brazilian Amazon and the Mediterranean. Doctoral thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford. Acosta, R. (2010). Networks of action, ideas for change: Transnational advocacy efforts. In R. Acosta, S. Rizvi, & A. Santos (Eds.), Making sense of the global. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Agustı´n, L. R. (2008). Civil society participation in eu gender policy-making: Framing strategies and institutional constraints. Parliamentary Affairs, 61(3), 505–517. Alexander, J. (2006). The civil sphere. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Andrews, K. T., & Edwards, B. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the US political process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 479–506. Anheier, H., Glasius, M., & Kaldor, M. (Eds.). (2001). Global civil society yearbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Appadurai, A. (2006). Fear of small numbers. An essay on the geography of anger. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Appe, S. (2010). Toward culturally democratic citizens: Nongovernmental organizations and the state. Voluntas, 21, 3–21. Asal, V., Nussbaum, B., & Harrington, D. W. (2007). Terrorism and transnational advocacy: An organizational and tactical examination. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 30, 15–39. Batliwala, S. (2002). Grassroots movements as transnational actors: Implications for global civil society. Voluntas, 13(4), 393–409. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. London: Sage. Berry, J. M. (1999). The new liberalism: The rising power of citizen groups. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Bond, P. (2006). Civil society on global governance: Facing up to divergent analysis, strategy, and tactics. Voluntas, 17, 359–371. Boris, E. T., & Krehely, J. (2002). Civic participation and advocacy. In L. A. Salamon (Ed.), State of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Bourdieu, P. (1997). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press (1st ed., 1972). Burgerman, S. (2001). Moral victories: How activists provoke multilateral action. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

123

178

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

Cabus, P. (2001). The meaning of local in a global economy: The ‘region’s advocacy of local interests’ as a necessary component of current global/local theories. European Planning Studies, 9(8), 1011–1029. Cambridge, P., & Williams, L. (2004). Approaches to advocacy for refugees and asylum seekers: A development case study for a local support and advice service. Field reports. Journal of Refugee Studies, 17(1), 97–113. Carpenter, R. C. (2007a). Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 99–120. Carpenter, R. C. (2007b). Studying issue (non)-adoption in transnational advocacy networks. International Organization, 61, 643–667. Carver, N., & Morrison, J. (2005). Advocacy in practice: The experiences of independent advocates on UK mental health wards. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 12, 75–84. Castells, M. (2000a). The information age: Economy, society and culture. Volume I. The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford/Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers (1st ed., 1996). Castells, M. (2000b). The information age: Economy, society and culture. Volume II. The power of identity (2nd ed.). Oxford/Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers (1st ed., 1996). Child, C. D., & Grønbjerg, K. A. (2007). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Their characteristics and activities. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 259–281. Clark, A. M. (2001). Diplomacy of conscience: Amnesty international and changing human rights norms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cowles, M. G. (2003). Non-state actors and false dichotomies: Reviewing IR/IPE approaches to European integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(1), 102–120. Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2003). Social movements. An introduction. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing (first published in 1999). DeMars, W. E. (2005). NGOs and transnational networks. Wild cards in world politics. London/Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. Donaldson, L. P. (2007). Advocacy by nonprofit human service agencies: Organizational factors as correlates to advocacy behavior. Journal of Community Practice, 15(3), 139–158. Dubash, N. K. (2009). Global norms through global deliberation? Reflections on the world commission on dams. Global Governance, 15, 219–238. Dumoulin, D. (2003). Local knowledge in the hands of transnational NGO networks: A Mexican viewpoint. International Social Science Journal, 178, 593–605. Edwards, R., & Foley, M. W. (1998). Civil society and social capital beyond Putnam. The American Behavioural Scientist, 42(1), 124–139. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (Eds.). (1996). Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian. Evangelista, M. (1999). Unarmed forces: The transnational movement to end the cold war. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Farquharson, K. (2003). Influencing policy transnationally: Pro- and anti-tobacco global advocacy networks. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(4), 80–92. Ferguson, J. (1994). The anti-politics machine: Development, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis, MN/London: University of Minnesota Press. Fisher, W. F. (1997). Doing good? The politics and antipolitics of NGO practices. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 439–464. Fuentes, C. A. (2005). Contesting the iron fist: Advocacy networks and police violence in democratic Argentina and Chile. New York, NY: Routledge. Gandhi, A. (2002). The Indian diaspora in global advocacy. Global Networks, 2(2), 357–362. Garwood, S. (2005). Politics at work: Transnational advocacy networks and the global garment industry. Gender and Development, 13(3), 21–33. Gibson, T. A. (2010). The limits of media advocacy. Communication, Culture & Critique, 3, 44–65. Gilford, S. (2007). Patients helping patients: The renal support network. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 34(1), 76. Greenberger, P. (1999). The women’s health research coalition: A new advocacy network. Journal of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Medicine, 8(4), 441–442. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Hailey, J., & James, R. (2004). ‘‘Trees die from the top’’: International perspectives on NGO leadership development. Voluntas, 15(4), 343–353.

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

179

Hall, N. L., & Taplin, R. (2010). Environmental nonprofit campaigns and state competition: Influences on climate policy in california. Voluntas, 21, 62–81. Harriss, J. (2002). Depoliticizing development: The World Bank and social capital. London: Anthem Press. Heinrich, V. F. (2001). The role of NGOs in strengthening the foundations of South African democracy. Voluntas, 12(1), 1–15. Hertel, S. (2006). Unexpected power: Conflict and change among transnational activists. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Herzfeld, M. (1993). The social production of indifference. Exploring the symbolic roots of western bureaucracy. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press. Hudson, A. (2001). NGOs’ transnational advocacy networks: From ‘legitimacy’ to ‘political responsibility’? Global Networks, 1(4), 331–352. Jenkins, J. C. (2006). Nonprofit organizations and political advocacy. In W. W. Powell & R. S. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kamat, S. (2004). The privatization of public interest: Theorizing NGO discourse in a neoliberal era. Review of International Political Economy, 11(1):155–176. Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (Eds.). (1998a). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY/London: Cornell University Press. Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998b). Transnational advocacy networks in the movement society. In D. S. Meyer & S. Tarrow (Eds.), The social movement society: Contentious politics for a new century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal, 159, 89–101. Kelly, R. E. (2007). From international relations to global governance theory: Conceptualizing NGOs after the Rio breakthrough of 1992. Journal of Civil Society, 3(1), 81–99. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. (1998). Power and Interdependence in the information age. Foreign Affairs, 77(5), 81–94. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. (2001). Power and interdependence (3rd ed.). New York/London: Longman (1st ed., 1977). Khagram, S. (2002). Restructuring the global politics of development: The case of India’s Narmada valley dams. In S. Khagram, J. V. Riker, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), Restructuring world politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Khagram, S., Riker, J. V., & Sikkink, K. (Eds.). (2002a). Restructuring world politics, transnational social movements, networks, and norms. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Khagram, S., Riker, J. V., & Sikkink, K. (2002b). From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational advocacy groups restructuring world politics. In S. Khagram, J. V. Riker, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), Restructuring world politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. King, M. (2004). Cooptation or cooperation: The role of transnational advocacy organizations in the Zapatista movement. Sociological Focus, 37(3), 269–286. Kirst, M. W. (2007). Politics of charter schools: Competing national advocacy coalitions meet local politics. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2–3), 184–203. Koggel, C. M. (2007). Empowerment and the role of advocacy in a globalized world. Ethics and Social Welfare, 1(1), 8–21. Landriscina, M. (2006). A calmly disruptive insider: The case of an institutionalized advocacy organization at work. Qualitative Sociology, 29, 446–466. Le Billon, P. (2005). Aid in the midst of plenty: Oil wealth, misery and advocacy in Angola. Disasters, 29(1), 1–25. Lefort, C. (1986). The political forms of modern society: Bureaucracy, democracy, totalitarianism (edited and introduced by J. B. Thompson). Cambridge, MA: Polity. Lerche, J. (2008). Transnational advocacy networks and affirmative action for Dalits in India. Development and Change, 39(2), 239–261. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Locher, B. (2007). Trafficking in the European Union. Norms, advocacy-networks and policy-change. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwiessenschaften. Magis, K. (2009). Convergence: Finding collective voice in global civil society. Voluntas (Online, published 13 November 2009).

123

180

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

Manalo, V. (2004). Teaching policy advocacy through state legislative and local ballot-based advocacy assignments. The Social Policy Journal, 3(4), 53–67. Marsh, D. (1998). Comparing policy networks. Buckingham: Open University Press. Martin, G. (2004). New social movements and democracy. In Todd, M. J. & Taylor, G. (Eds.), Democracy and participation. Popular protest and new social movements. London: Merlin Press. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (2004). Comparative perspectives on social movements, political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. McAteer, E., & Pulver, S. (2009). The corporate boomerang: Shareholder transnational advocacy networks targeting oil companies in the Ecuadorian amazon. Global Environmental Politics, 9(1), 1–30. McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., & Shekshnia S. V. (Eds.). (2004). Corporate governance in Russia. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publication. McKay, S. C. (2006). The squeaky wheel’s dilemma: New forms of labor organizing in the Philippines. Labor Studies Journal, 30(4), 41–63. McNeill, J. R., & McNeill, W. H. (2003). The human web. A bird’s-eye view of world history. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company. Melucci, A. (2001). Challenging codes. Collective action in the information age. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press (first published in 1996). Mmalti, T. (2009). Translating disability-related research into evidence-based advocacy: The role of people with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(1), 14–22. Moog Rodrigues, M. G. (2004). Global environmentalism and local politics. Transnational advocacy networks in Brazil, Ecuador and India. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Nelson, P. (2002). New agendas and new patterns of international NGO political action. Voluntas, 13(4), 377–392. Oksanen, V., & Va¨lima¨ki, M. (2002). Transnational advocacy network opposing DRM—A technical and legal challenge to media companies. The International Journal of Media Management, 4(3), 153–163. Onyx, J., Armitage, L., Dalton, B., Melville, R., Casey, J., & Banks, R. (2010). Advocacy with gloves on: The ‘‘manners’’ of strategy use by some third sector organizations undertaking advocacy in NSW and Queensland. Voluntas, 21, 41–61. Park, S. (2005). How transnational environmental advocacy networks socialize international financial institutions: A case study of the international finance corporation. Global Environmental Politics, 5(4), 95–119. Parks, T. (2008). The rise and fall of donor funding for advocacy NGOs: Understanding the impact. Development in Practice, 18(2), 213–222. Potting, M. (2009). Changing social responsibilities: The role of advocacy organisations in the construction of the Social Support Act in the Netherlands. European Journal of Social Work, 12(2), 169–183. Price, R. (1998). Reversing the guns sights: Transnational civil society targets land mines. International Organization, 52, 613–644. Price, R. (2003). Transnational civil society and advocacy in world politics. World Politics, 55(4), 579–606. Price, R., & Tannenwald, N. (1996). Norms and deterrence: The nuclear and chemical weapons taboos. In P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Reid, E. J. (2000a). Understanding the word ‘advocacy’: Context and use. In E. J. Reid (Ed.), Structuring the inquiry into advocacy. Volume 1 of the seminar series nonprofit advocacy and the policy process. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Reid, E. J. (Ed.). (2000b). Structuring the inquiry into advocacy. Volume 1 of the seminar series nonprofit advocacy and the policy process. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Reid, E. J., & Molina, M. D. (Eds.). (2001). Exploring organizations and advocacy. Volume 2 of the seminar series nonprofit advocacy and the policy process. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Reid, E. J., & Molina, M. D. (Eds.). (2003). In the states, across the nation, and beyond. Volume 3 of the seminar series nonprofit advocacy and the policy process. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

123

Voluntas (2012) 23:156–181

181

Rhodes, R. A. W. (2008). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Maidenhead: Open University (first published 1997). Rifjin, J. (1998). Foreword. In J. Fisher (Ed.), Non-governments, NGOs and the political development of the third world. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Riles, A. (2000). The network inside out. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Risse, T., Ropp, S. C., & Sikkink, K. (Eds.). (1999). The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Risse-Kappen, T. (Ed.). (1995). Bringing transnational relations back in: Non-state actors, domestic structures and international institutions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Sabatier, P., & Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview. Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S. W., & List, R. (2003). Global civil society. Comparative nonprofit sector project. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University. Sandoval, G. F. (2005). Network power for social change: Grassroots organizing efforts via information technologies in California’s central valley. Berkeley Planning Journal, 18, 3–33. Smith, J., Chatfield, C., & Pagnucco, R. (1997). Transnational social movements and global politics: Solidarity beyond the state. New York, NY: Syracuse University Press. Staudt, K. (2002). Transcending nations. Cross-border organizing. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 4(2), 197–215. Stone, D. (2002). Introduction: Global knowledge and advocacy networks. Global Networks, 2(1), 1–11. Tarrow, S. (2001). Transnational politics: Contention and institutions in international politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 1–20. Taylor, R. (2002). Interpreting global civil society. Voluntas, 13(4), 339–347. Taylor, R. (2004). Creating a better world: Interpreting global civil society. Bloomfield, NJ: Kumarian Press. Tho¨rn, H. (2006). Solidarity across borders: The transnational anti-apartheid movement. Voluntas, 17, 285–301. Trubek, D. M., Mosher, J., & Rothstein, J. (2000). Transnationalism in the regulation of labor relations: International Regimes and transnational advocacy networks. Law and Social Inquiry, 25(4), 1187–1211. van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society. Social aspects of new media (2nd ed.). London: Sage (1st ed., 1991). Wells, D. (2009). Local worker struggles in the global south: Reconsidering northern impacts on international labor standards. Third World Quarterly, 30(3), 567–579. Wiedener, P. (2009). Global links and environmental flows: Oil disputes in Ecuador. Global Environmental Politics, 9(1), 31–57.

123