Mammotsa Makhene
In his paper The Strategies Of The Occupy Movement, Lopez focuses on the occupy movements in Madrid and New York. He quotes Andrews and Olson in defining social movements and analyzes the infrastructure, strategy and effectiveness of these movements. I will contrast this with a more positivist lens on social movements and the effect these may have on policy.
Andrews description of action and reaction models are best aligned with the occupy movement discussed by Lopez. The first scenario involves movements which are threatening to elites and result in rapid responses. These disruption models highlight the limitations of protest on policy beyond the agenda setting stage. The second scenario involves movements that are dramatic and gain support of sympathetic third parties who take up the cause of the movement. Here protest is the form of communication and persuasion is the way movements influence policy(74-5).
In contrast to the above models is the access influence model which prioritizes gaining “insider status” than reaching any specific policy objective. As social movements evolve they give rise to interest groups that work through institutionalized tactics. Can the access influence model be used to help analyze and explain the role of lobbyist and interest groups in Washington? I believe so. Lobbyists and the interest groups they represent are almost never described as social movements, even though to a large extent they have the attributes of social movements. They are also often seen as promoting or or being part of the corruption in Washington.
People or organizations that have similar interests, are in similar industries and may experience similar impacts of certain policies, realize the strength of banding together and using their collective resources to try and influence policy in their favor. “Governments, for their part, have good reason to welcome lobbying, defined as appeals from citizens and groups for favorable policies and decisions. Even officials in blatantly nondemocratic governments find life considerably easier if they have the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the governed” (Kernell, 530).
Lobbyists and interest groups use “ insider tactics”, such as direct appeals to lawmakers for policy support, keeping in touch with policy makers and building a solid relationship with them and finally getting experts to testify at congressional committee hearings, to further their cause.
Thus as stated by Andrews, these groups work through institutional tactics. The belief that routine tactics are most effective is consistent with pluralist theories of democracy that view the political system as open and accessible to the public.
In Olson’s analysis of organizations he looks at the free rider problem and asserts that smaller groups generally are better positioned to address free rider problems as opposed to larger groups. Smaller groups are easier to organize, the smaller the group the greater the impact of one member's actions and the harder it is to hide away from obligations. This may help explain why we do not see lobbyists acting on behalf of say airline passengers for lower priced tickets, lobbyists working directly for organizations such as the Black Lives Matter movement and others. The transaction costs of organizing a small group of airlines is far lower than one needed to organize airline passengers and the millions, both black and white, who feel that police brutality needs to be addressed. The collective benefit from the latter makes it hard for these causes to organize and have equal contribution from all those who will benefit in terms of the lobbying process (Kernell,536).
Some argue that interest groups and lobbyists are part of or promote corruption in Washington with the billions spent on lobbying and campaign contributions. If we are however to apply the various basic criteria needed for a social movement, it would seem that lobbyists and interest groups fit this label. While they may not often not use the usual tactics of protest and threats, their main objective, like all other social movements, is to influence policy in favor of their cause.
___________________________
Works Cited
In his paper The Strategies Of The Occupy Movement, Lopez focuses on the occupy movements in Madrid and New York. He quotes Andrews and Olson in defining social movements and analyzes the infrastructure, strategy and effectiveness of these movements. I will contrast this with a more positivist lens on social movements and the effect these may have on policy.
Andrews description of action and reaction models are best aligned with the occupy movement discussed by Lopez. The first scenario involves movements which are threatening to elites and result in rapid responses. These disruption models highlight the limitations of protest on policy beyond the agenda setting stage. The second scenario involves movements that are dramatic and gain support of sympathetic third parties who take up the cause of the movement. Here protest is the form of communication and persuasion is the way movements influence policy(74-5).
In contrast to the above models is the access influence model which prioritizes gaining “insider status” than reaching any specific policy objective. As social movements evolve they give rise to interest groups that work through institutionalized tactics. Can the access influence model be used to help analyze and explain the role of lobbyist and interest groups in Washington? I believe so. Lobbyists and the interest groups they represent are almost never described as social movements, even though to a large extent they have the attributes of social movements. They are also often seen as promoting or or being part of the corruption in Washington.
People or organizations that have similar interests, are in similar industries and may experience similar impacts of certain policies, realize the strength of banding together and using their collective resources to try and influence policy in their favor. “Governments, for their part, have good reason to welcome lobbying, defined as appeals from citizens and groups for favorable policies and decisions. Even officials in blatantly nondemocratic governments find life considerably easier if they have the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the governed” (Kernell, 530).
Lobbyists and interest groups use “ insider tactics”, such as direct appeals to lawmakers for policy support, keeping in touch with policy makers and building a solid relationship with them and finally getting experts to testify at congressional committee hearings, to further their cause.
Thus as stated by Andrews, these groups work through institutional tactics. The belief that routine tactics are most effective is consistent with pluralist theories of democracy that view the political system as open and accessible to the public.
In Olson’s analysis of organizations he looks at the free rider problem and asserts that smaller groups generally are better positioned to address free rider problems as opposed to larger groups. Smaller groups are easier to organize, the smaller the group the greater the impact of one member's actions and the harder it is to hide away from obligations. This may help explain why we do not see lobbyists acting on behalf of say airline passengers for lower priced tickets, lobbyists working directly for organizations such as the Black Lives Matter movement and others. The transaction costs of organizing a small group of airlines is far lower than one needed to organize airline passengers and the millions, both black and white, who feel that police brutality needs to be addressed. The collective benefit from the latter makes it hard for these causes to organize and have equal contribution from all those who will benefit in terms of the lobbying process (Kernell,536).
Some argue that interest groups and lobbyists are part of or promote corruption in Washington with the billions spent on lobbying and campaign contributions. If we are however to apply the various basic criteria needed for a social movement, it would seem that lobbyists and interest groups fit this label. While they may not often not use the usual tactics of protest and threats, their main objective, like all other social movements, is to influence policy in favor of their cause.
___________________________
Works Cited
- Andrews, K.T. (2001) Social movements and policy implementation: The Mississippi civil rights movement and the war on poverty, 1965 to 1971. American Sociological Review, 66(1), pp. 71-95.
- Olson, Mancur. The logic of collective action. Vol. 124. Harvard University Press, 2009