Transnational Advocacy networks Flashcards
Historical Background
Transnational activism pre-WWII: Campaigns against slavery and women’s slavery.
Post-WWII changes: Technological advancements and the spirit of the 1960s drive global activism.
The Growth of NGOs
Definition of NGOs: Organizations not established by intergovernmental agreement.
Fields of activity: Human rights, environment, development, international trade, gender, etc.
Categories: National NGOs, INGOs, GONGOs, QUANGOs.
Functional classifications: Operational vs. Campaigning, Advocacy vs. Service Oriented.
Transnational Advocacy Networks
Definition: Bound by shared values, common discourse, and dense exchanges of information; work internationally on an issue (Keck & Sikkink).
Varieties of transnationalism.
Principled ideas and norms: Shared principles shaping the worldview.
Networks as agents and structures: A space for debate and argument.
Main players: Foundations, media, trade unions, academics, etc.
Importance of campaigns: Anti-apartheid, anti-nuclear movement, human rights campaigns.
The Boomerang Effect
Ngos in state A is blocked by state A, they urge NGOs in state B to mobilise the network, that other states put pressure on their state.
Example: International mobilization during apartheid.
Political Entrepreneurs
People taking risks and dedicating time to set up initiatives.
Organizational missions: Sharing information, gaining visibility, accessing wider publics.
How Do Transnational Advocacy Networks Work
Persuasion, Socialization, Pressure
Information Politics
Symbolic Politics
Leverage Politics
Accountability Politics
How Do Transnational Advocacy Networks Work Details
Persuasion, Socialization, Pressure:
Cognitive frames: Framing issues for public understanding.
Frame alignment: Rendering events meaningful to guide action.
Frame resonance: Relationship between interpretive work and influencing public understanding.
Information Politics:
Network Binding: Creating a narrative attributing responsibility and pointing to solutions.
Credibility and drama: Using verifiable information for impact.
The growing importance of data: Advocating for data-based policy making.
Symbolic Politics:
Using symbols, actions, or stories to make sense of situations for distant audiences.
Example: Nestlé and powdered milk.
Leverage Politics:
Material leverage: Conditions and linking issues.
Moral leverage: Normative entrapment and subtle strategies.
Accountability Politics:
Governments committing to principles (e.g., human rights).
Networks using positions and information to expose gaps between discourse and practice.
Conditions of Influence
Assessing influence through issue creation, agenda setting, discursive positions, institutional procedures, policy change, and state behavior.
Issue characteristics: From structural to intentional framing.
Actor characteristics: Network and target actor characteristics.
Conclusion
Transnational activism and NGOs have risen since WWII.
Transnational Activist Networks (TANs) emerged as specific international actors since the 1960s.
TANs use tactics like the boomerang pattern and employ various political strategies.
Conditions of influence depend on issue and actor characteristics.
TAN politics challenge the dominance of states in International Relations.
Differences Between K&S and Hedley Bull’s Concept of International Society
Common Interests and Values:
Both K&S and Bull agree that the international is a society based on common interests and values.
Disagreement on Society of States:
Disagreement with Bull: K&S reject the idea that it’s a society of states.
Closer to “neo-medievalism”: Overlapping authority and multiple loyalties.
World Polity Thesis
Theorists:
John Meyer, John Boli, George Thomas.
Central Idea:
International society is the site of the diffusion of “world culture,” explaining changes.
IOs and NGOs act as “conveyor belts” for western liberal norms.
Differences Between K&S and World Polity Thesis
Role of Politics, Power, and Conflict:
World Polity Thesis removes politics, power, and conflict.
K&S emphasize that transnational actors have divergent purposes and goals, constituting a space of negotiation.
Norm Formation vs. Norm Diffusion:
K&S suggest an understanding of “thresholds” to integrate the two theories.
TAN focuses on norm formation, while World Polity focuses on norm diffusion.
Differences from Realism and Liberalism
Addressing Change:
TAN addresses the question of change.
Realism: No motor of change.
Liberalism: Recognizes regime type importance in domestic politics but sees the state as the sole path to the international for domestic interest groups.
Status of Sovereignty for K&S
Main Actors:
States remain the main actors.
Erosion of Sovereignty:
Sovereignty is eroded but only in delimited circumstances.
Not following the “strong globalization thesis”: Specific interactions, not a “steamroller.”
Link between “Rights” and Inequality
Erosion of Sovereignty and Rights:
Erosion of sovereignty is a point of disagreement between North and South.
Positive for the North (less abuses) but problematic for the South (sovereignty as self-determination).
The central question of “rights” is linked to the question of structural inequality.
