By: MA
This week’s readings cover social movements and conceptual frameworks for analysis. This essay will argue that structural aspects of social movements and disruptive tactics can influence the policy process, primarily at the agenda-setting stage. But social movements must also engage with institutional structures or disrupt them effectively in order to influence long-term policy change.
In “Social Movements and Policy Implementation,” Kenneth Andrews defines a social movement as a sustained challenge to existing power relations in society. Andrews proposes four theoretical models to explain outcomes of social movements. Using action-reaction models, mobilization has potential to influence change under one of two scenarios: (1) when elites feel threatened and are prompted to respond, or (2) when sympathetic third parties take up the cause and push for change. This framework suggests that social movements are most impactful at the agenda-setting phase. But the framework does not address how the social movement is related to policy change.
The access-influence model addresses this shortcoming by explaining policy change in terms of interaction between the participants in the social movement and policymakers. Social movements influence policy change by evolving into interest groups that gain insider status. According to Andrews, securing insider status may be more important to influencing policy than sticking to one specific policy objective. This model rests on the assumption that the policy process is open to influence from outside actors, and does not address power dynamics that may hinder direct access.
Andrews proposes a fourth model, the movement infrastructure model, to address shortcomings of the previous frameworks. This model argues that movements which use multiple tactics to influence policy will have the greatest impact. Three components of a movement’s infrastructure can explain its influence: diverse leadership, organizational structure and resources. This model introduces a temporal component, highlighting the importance of ongoing mobilization towards influencing change.
In response to questions raised in the lead précis, the Occupy Movement was influential in moving income inequality to a prominent place on the policy agenda. The movement relied on protest tactics, occupying public spaces to raising public consciousness about inequality. It resisted formal hierarchy, preferring consensus-based decisions, and avoided making specific demands of policymakers. Thus the structure can be explained as directly related to its goals; elevating the power of the masses rather than control by a small group of elites.
Evidence of the movement’s influence can be seen in sustained news coverage. The movement’s widely repeated slogan, “We are the 99%,” drew attention to the gap between the 1% of individuals who control a disproportionate amount of wealth and the rest of society that is left to share the remainder. The movement also succeeded in communicating with policymakers, pushing them to respond. The presence of citizens camped out in a public space was a visual message of frustration about income inequality. As the occupation of Zuccotti Park persisted and similar events cropped up in major cities, policymakers recognized the strength of the movement and found it difficult to avoid addressing income inequality. This messaging was embedded in presidential politics as candidates from both national parties referenced it during their campaigns.[1]
Examining the movement through different frameworks yields different insights. Burstein and Linton argue that social movements affect policy to the extent that their activities provide elected officials with relevant information. Using that framework, occupy succeeded by providing information to policymakers about their constituents, arguably in a way that garnered more attention than communicating through institutional channels. But the access-influence model would say the movement’s influence was limited because it did not gain engage policymakers directly or gain legitimacy within policy institutions. The movement infrastructure model might argue that protest tactics served their purpose in agenda-setting, but future influence depends on ongoing mass mobilization, and the use of multiple strategies including direct engagement.
Beyond elevating the issue of income inequality, it is difficult to find examples of specific policy changes directly linked to the occupy movement. In contrast, the financial justice movement, which was built on a similar concern about the power imbalance between financial firms and the public can be linked to creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
The financial justice movement grew out of the consumer protection movement which can be traced back to protest movements of the 1960s.[2] Robert Mayer’s analysis discusses the movement’s critical elements. Like Andrews’ movement infrastructure model, Mayer highlights the role of diverse leadership and engagement ranging from informal grassroots networks to institutional actors like federal policymakers. Like Burstein and Linton, Mayer also points to contextual factors that enabled the movement to gather steam. Similar to the occupy movement, the financial justice movement responded to the financial crisis and public discontent about big banks’ misdeeds.
Mayer also discussed the movement’s broad base of support, which enabled the use of multiple tactics. The movement garnered support from advocates representing consumer, labor, civil rights, fair housing and faith based organizations to raise awareness of abusive credit practices and call for better regulation of the industry. The coalition organized public events like the “Showdown in Chicago” where 5,000 protesters disrupted the American Bankers Association annual meeting. The group recognized that a strong CFPB also rested on getting votes in Congress, and directly engaged with Senator Elizabeth Warren, a long-time champion of consumer financial reform.
Mayer’s analysis also highlights the importance of a well-articulated policy goal. In this case, the financial justice movement sought to create an independent agency that was separate from the current financial regulatory system. This goal was built on the assumption that financial regulatory structures have been captured by powerful financial firms, and were no longer effectively protecting consumers’ interests. Andrews argues that having a singular policy goal can hinder a movement’s ability to have long-term impact. But the financial justice movement’s goal was a direct challenge to existing power structures. If it succeeds in disrupting the financial regulatory system, it has potential for lasting influence.
Since its establishment, CFPB has taken important steps to protect consumers such as providing a clearinghouse of information related to financial products and services. The agency also developed new rules for pre-paid credit cards, limiting consumers’ losses if cards are lost or stolen.[3] CFPB’s promotes accountability through its consumer complaint database which publishes complaints about financial services and products and the company’s response within 15 days.[4] More recently, the agency is developing new standards to prevent consumers from becoming trapped in a cycle of debt by using payday loans.
Creation of CFPB was an important milestone for the financial justice movement. But this example does not fully address a fundamental concern about social movements. Burstein and Linton and Andrews note that social movements are only able to influence policy change process when policymakers are receptive. The CFPB may challenge some power structures, but it was created by Congress and depends on federal funding; therefore it depends on support from existing institutions.
The Occupy movement’s ability to raise awareness and push income inequality to the policy agenda is an important outcome itself. But the movement’s long-term influence remains to be seen. Unless social movements can fundamentally challenge the power of institutions, their success will be determined by institutions’ willingness to engage.
[1] Michael Levitin, “The Triumph of Occupy Wall Street,” The Atlantic (June 10, 2015)
[2] Robert Mayer, “The U.S. Consumer Movement: A New Era Amid Old Challenges,” The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Volume 43, Issue 2 (Summer 2012), pp. 171-189.
[3] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “CFPB Finalizes Strong Federal Protections for Prepaid Account Consumers” (October 5, 2016)
[4] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “CFPB Launches Consumer Complaint Database,” (June 1, 2012)
This week’s readings cover social movements and conceptual frameworks for analysis. This essay will argue that structural aspects of social movements and disruptive tactics can influence the policy process, primarily at the agenda-setting stage. But social movements must also engage with institutional structures or disrupt them effectively in order to influence long-term policy change.
In “Social Movements and Policy Implementation,” Kenneth Andrews defines a social movement as a sustained challenge to existing power relations in society. Andrews proposes four theoretical models to explain outcomes of social movements. Using action-reaction models, mobilization has potential to influence change under one of two scenarios: (1) when elites feel threatened and are prompted to respond, or (2) when sympathetic third parties take up the cause and push for change. This framework suggests that social movements are most impactful at the agenda-setting phase. But the framework does not address how the social movement is related to policy change.
The access-influence model addresses this shortcoming by explaining policy change in terms of interaction between the participants in the social movement and policymakers. Social movements influence policy change by evolving into interest groups that gain insider status. According to Andrews, securing insider status may be more important to influencing policy than sticking to one specific policy objective. This model rests on the assumption that the policy process is open to influence from outside actors, and does not address power dynamics that may hinder direct access.
Andrews proposes a fourth model, the movement infrastructure model, to address shortcomings of the previous frameworks. This model argues that movements which use multiple tactics to influence policy will have the greatest impact. Three components of a movement’s infrastructure can explain its influence: diverse leadership, organizational structure and resources. This model introduces a temporal component, highlighting the importance of ongoing mobilization towards influencing change.
In response to questions raised in the lead précis, the Occupy Movement was influential in moving income inequality to a prominent place on the policy agenda. The movement relied on protest tactics, occupying public spaces to raising public consciousness about inequality. It resisted formal hierarchy, preferring consensus-based decisions, and avoided making specific demands of policymakers. Thus the structure can be explained as directly related to its goals; elevating the power of the masses rather than control by a small group of elites.
Evidence of the movement’s influence can be seen in sustained news coverage. The movement’s widely repeated slogan, “We are the 99%,” drew attention to the gap between the 1% of individuals who control a disproportionate amount of wealth and the rest of society that is left to share the remainder. The movement also succeeded in communicating with policymakers, pushing them to respond. The presence of citizens camped out in a public space was a visual message of frustration about income inequality. As the occupation of Zuccotti Park persisted and similar events cropped up in major cities, policymakers recognized the strength of the movement and found it difficult to avoid addressing income inequality. This messaging was embedded in presidential politics as candidates from both national parties referenced it during their campaigns.[1]
Examining the movement through different frameworks yields different insights. Burstein and Linton argue that social movements affect policy to the extent that their activities provide elected officials with relevant information. Using that framework, occupy succeeded by providing information to policymakers about their constituents, arguably in a way that garnered more attention than communicating through institutional channels. But the access-influence model would say the movement’s influence was limited because it did not gain engage policymakers directly or gain legitimacy within policy institutions. The movement infrastructure model might argue that protest tactics served their purpose in agenda-setting, but future influence depends on ongoing mass mobilization, and the use of multiple strategies including direct engagement.
Beyond elevating the issue of income inequality, it is difficult to find examples of specific policy changes directly linked to the occupy movement. In contrast, the financial justice movement, which was built on a similar concern about the power imbalance between financial firms and the public can be linked to creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
The financial justice movement grew out of the consumer protection movement which can be traced back to protest movements of the 1960s.[2] Robert Mayer’s analysis discusses the movement’s critical elements. Like Andrews’ movement infrastructure model, Mayer highlights the role of diverse leadership and engagement ranging from informal grassroots networks to institutional actors like federal policymakers. Like Burstein and Linton, Mayer also points to contextual factors that enabled the movement to gather steam. Similar to the occupy movement, the financial justice movement responded to the financial crisis and public discontent about big banks’ misdeeds.
Mayer also discussed the movement’s broad base of support, which enabled the use of multiple tactics. The movement garnered support from advocates representing consumer, labor, civil rights, fair housing and faith based organizations to raise awareness of abusive credit practices and call for better regulation of the industry. The coalition organized public events like the “Showdown in Chicago” where 5,000 protesters disrupted the American Bankers Association annual meeting. The group recognized that a strong CFPB also rested on getting votes in Congress, and directly engaged with Senator Elizabeth Warren, a long-time champion of consumer financial reform.
Mayer’s analysis also highlights the importance of a well-articulated policy goal. In this case, the financial justice movement sought to create an independent agency that was separate from the current financial regulatory system. This goal was built on the assumption that financial regulatory structures have been captured by powerful financial firms, and were no longer effectively protecting consumers’ interests. Andrews argues that having a singular policy goal can hinder a movement’s ability to have long-term impact. But the financial justice movement’s goal was a direct challenge to existing power structures. If it succeeds in disrupting the financial regulatory system, it has potential for lasting influence.
Since its establishment, CFPB has taken important steps to protect consumers such as providing a clearinghouse of information related to financial products and services. The agency also developed new rules for pre-paid credit cards, limiting consumers’ losses if cards are lost or stolen.[3] CFPB’s promotes accountability through its consumer complaint database which publishes complaints about financial services and products and the company’s response within 15 days.[4] More recently, the agency is developing new standards to prevent consumers from becoming trapped in a cycle of debt by using payday loans.
Creation of CFPB was an important milestone for the financial justice movement. But this example does not fully address a fundamental concern about social movements. Burstein and Linton and Andrews note that social movements are only able to influence policy change process when policymakers are receptive. The CFPB may challenge some power structures, but it was created by Congress and depends on federal funding; therefore it depends on support from existing institutions.
The Occupy movement’s ability to raise awareness and push income inequality to the policy agenda is an important outcome itself. But the movement’s long-term influence remains to be seen. Unless social movements can fundamentally challenge the power of institutions, their success will be determined by institutions’ willingness to engage.
[1] Michael Levitin, “The Triumph of Occupy Wall Street,” The Atlantic (June 10, 2015)
[2] Robert Mayer, “The U.S. Consumer Movement: A New Era Amid Old Challenges,” The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Volume 43, Issue 2 (Summer 2012), pp. 171-189.
[3] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “CFPB Finalizes Strong Federal Protections for Prepaid Account Consumers” (October 5, 2016)
[4] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “CFPB Launches Consumer Complaint Database,” (June 1, 2012)