Suchergebnisse

A growing body of research highlights how the Internet and social media offer new platforms for advocacy. This article contributes to the debates on digital advocacy by combining interest group and social media studies and present the notions of digital access politics, digital information politics, and digital protest politics for a comprehensive analysis of digital advocacy. Based on a netnographic study of two highly different advocacy groups working with workers' rights in a Swedish context, we find that online and offline activities are highly interconnected. While previous studies have largely focused on how groups gain political influence, present digital advocacy is much more oriented towards gaining political presence through social media. The article proposes that future studies into advocacy in the digital era needs to study acts for political influence and acts for political presence as intertwined or even as two sides of the same coin.

AbstractThis article explores what it takes to advance to the top of an EU institution (European Economic and Social Committee). The article combines Bourdieu's theories of field and capital with Weber's theory of social closure to study the interplay between required forms of capital and closure practices during three ideal‐typical phases of upward mobility: 'getting in', 'fitting in' and 'moving on'. Drawing on 26 semi‐structured interviews, the article finds that capital and closure are mutually interdependent as members' access to capital to advance depends on whether they pass the closure tests deployed by closure agents and manage to get in, fit in and move on in the EU field. By combining capital and closure approaches, the article suggests a new balance between structure and actor‐centred theories, which can help us better capture what is at stake in the EU field, and how the game of career advancement is played.

The divide between interest groups and social movement studies runs deep, but present developments call for a renewed focus on the relevance of these analytical categories. Both of these two forms of collective action relate to organisations that are assumed to follow distinctive logics and strategies for political influence. This article aims to contribute to the debates on the analytical difference between interest groups and social movements by comparing their political strategies and addressing the relevance of the typology for explaining organisations' use of political strat-egies. The paper draws on a dataset resulting from a large survey among Swedish civil society organisations among which clear cases of interest group organisations and "old" and "new" social movement organisations (SMOs) were identified. The results show that the distinction between interest groups and social movement organisations has some analytical value when it comes to explaining the use of different types of strategies: e.g. direct lobbying and media-based and protest-based strategies. Also, the distinction between old and new SMOs is shown to be relevant because old SMOs seem to be in a way "in between" interest groups and new SMOs suggesting that social movements tend to develop over time and to become more similar to interest groups.

The divide between interest groups and social movement studies runs deep, but present developments call for a renewed focus on the relevance of these analytical categories. Both of these two forms of collective action relate to organisations that are assumed to follow distinctive logics and strategies for political influence. This article aims to contribute to the debates on the analytical difference between interest groups and social movements by comparing their political strategies and addressing the relevance of the typology for explaining organisations' use of political strat-egies. The paper draws on a dataset resulting from a large survey among Swedish civil society organisations among which clear cases of interest group organisations and "old" and "new" social movement organisations (SMOs) were identified. The results show that the distinction between interest groups and social movement organisations has some analytical value when it comes to explaining the use of different types of strategies: e.g. direct lobbying and media-based and protest-based strategies. Also, the distinction between old and new SMOs is shown to be relevant because old SMOs seem to be in a way "in between" interest groups and new SMOs suggesting that social movements tend to develop over time and to become more similar to interest groups.

The divide between interest groups and social movement studies runs deep, but present developments call for a renewed focus on the relevance of these analytical categories. Both of these two forms of collective action relate to organisations that are assumed to follow distinctive logics and strategies for political influence. This article aims to contribute to the debates on the analytical difference between interest groups and social movements by comparing their political strategies and addressing the relevance of the typology for explaining organisations' use of political strat-egies. The paper draws on a dataset resulting from a large survey among Swedish civil society organisations among which clear cases of interest group organisations and "old" and "new" social movement organisations (SMOs) were identified. The results show that the distinction between interest groups and social movement organisations has some analytical value when it comes to explaining the use of different types of strategies: e.g. direct lobbying and media-based and protest-based strategies. Also, the distinction between old and new SMOs is shown to be relevant because old SMOs seem to be in a way "in between" interest groups and new SMOs suggesting that social movements tend to develop over time and to become more similar to interest groups.

This article addresses domestic civil society organisations (CSOs) and their multilevel strategies for gaining political influence in the European Union. Drawing on a theoretical framework identifying different 'routes' that CSOs can take in a multilevel system of EU governance, this article analyses which routes or combination of routes CSOs take and investigates what organisational factors can explain similarities and differences among domestic CSOs' multilevel strategies for political influence. Factors like type of organisation, organisational resources, level of activity and perceived relevance of national and EU political levels are combined. The article shows that CSOs tend to choose a combination of routes and that most of them also participate at the national level when trying to influence EU policy. The article furthermore finds that domestic CSOs seek to influence EU policies above all when they organise around issues that face potential conflicts between national and EU policies, illustrating the analytical significance of how CSOs perceive different political levels. ; Beyond the Welfare State: The Europeanization of Swedish Civil Society Organizations

Germany is generally regarded as a case of qualitative "change" in minimum income protection (MIP) schemes, while Sweden is perceived as one of institutional "inertia". This paper seeks to qualify this view by embedding developments in MIP in wider policy and governance trends. Empirically, it is based on document analysis and qualitative expert interviews in the two countries. Theoretically, the paper applies recent institutional approaches that address patterns of change in more complex ways. In Sweden, an exclusive focus on formal continuity regarding social assistance would disguise its change in function from temporary security system of last resort into one that permanently provides income protection when neighboring policy fields, unemployment and sickness insurance, are downsized. Conversely, in Germany a merger of social assistance and unemployment assistance took place. Yet an exclusive focus on the Hartz reforms would downplay the degree of continuity that nevertheless exists in the unemployment insurance.

This article aims to understand the prevalent leadership models in seven prominent leadership development programmes targeting emerging and aspiring civil society leaders in Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK), which have two different civil society regimes. An analytical framework based on ideal-typical leadership models (transactional, transformational and collaborative) helps us distil how programmes conceptualise first the relationship between leaders and the subjects of leadership, and second, how they conceptualise core leadership qualities. Our analysis of documents and interviews with programme designers finds that programmes in both contexts predominantly conceptualise leadership in an individualistic and personalised way. Yet, Swedish programmes have a stronger focus on top-down leadership models, whereas programmes in the UK increasingly incorporate elements of the collaborative leadership model. The identified similarities and differences call for further systematic analysis of the relationship between external, structural and organisational factors and the content of leadership development programmes across civil society regimes.

Top civil society organisations (CSOs) face a particular legitimacy dilemma as they need to have leaders who are seen as legitimate by the elite groups they interact with, and by those they represent. This article investigates how they handle this dilemma by studying legitimation practices of newly appointed leaders. Based on Weber's theory of authority and Pitkin's theory of representation, the article investigates 114 public announcements of governance leaders in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the EU. The article finds a common model of civil society elite legitimation beyond national differences. The observed model draws on two types of claims: promoting leaders as excellent and astounding professional leaders (charismatic authority) and as able spokespersons (substantive representation). Major European CSOs hence legitimate their leaders as being 'on par with' other top leaders, as an elite among other elite groups, similar to trends of personalisation in politics and business.

PurposeTo clarify the core characteristics of Nordic activation policies in the context of typologies of European activation governance.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyses activation governance in the light of the basic values and beliefs behind the formation of the Nordic social protection systems in the mid‐20th century. Recent model‐building efforts see the Nordic countries as being close to a "universalistic" and egalitarian type of activation policy that does not systematically submit citizens to work requirements. The authors ask whether this model captures the actual scope and contents of Nordic activation governance.FindingsThe Nordic countries‐based relatively generous income security systems on a strong work ethic and ambitions to maximise labour market participation of the working‐age population. Citizens's rights to income security were generally linked to the fulfilment of work requirements. Although this active governance of unemployed citizens eroded in the 1970s and 1980s all the Nordic countries revived it after 1990. Largely reflecting the dual structure of the income protection system, Nordic active approaches to activation are not egalitarian.Research limitations/implicationsNordic countries are currently implementing major administrative reforms in social protection, possibly creating more unified and egalitarian governance of activation. Future research needs to assess the impact of these reforms.Originality/valueThe article presents an analysis of activation policies that so far has been missing from comparative research and that will be of particular value for non‐Nordic readers who may have received a biased view of Nordic activation policies.

This article sets out to identify a culture of advocacy that has come to characterise Swedish civil society, formed around a long-standing tradition of close and cordial relations between civil society organisations, popular movements, and state and government officials. We argue that Swedish civil society organisations (CSOs) have been allowed to voice critique against public actors and policies and are expected to do so. Based on a large survey of Swedish CSOs, this study contributes unique data on what type of advocacy strategies CSOs practise, and the range of advocacy strategies that organisations employ. The analysis also explores norm-breaking behaviour, such as holding back criticism of public authorities. The results reveal a complex picture of a culture of advocacy: we find patterns of intense political activity among organisations that admit they hold back in their criticism of public authorities and the use of a wide range of advocacy strategies. The article contributes to and challenges established advocacy research and analyses established patterns of organisations' advocacy activities with the symbolic acts of breaking norms, as an analytical approach for the study of advocacy strategies in general and advocacy culture in particular.

Academic debates on the role and position of civil society organisations (CSOs) in welfare states largely refer to policies and practices outlined at the national level. They therefore fail to recognise variations within nations. Based on a comparative case study of three Swedish metropolitan cities, this article illustrates the importance of local, contextualised analyses. Through the concept of local civil society regimes, the study identifies three regime types, namely liberal, corporatist and social democratic. The key distinguishing factor between them relates to their different ideological positions regarding the role of CSOs in the marketisation and privatisation of public social welfare represented at the local level. The article argues for the need for further analysis to explore the implications of decentralisation from the perspective of local CSOs and their constituencies.

This article sets out to identify a culture of advocacy that has come to characterise Swedish civil society, formed around a long-standing tradition of close and cordial relations between civil society organisations, popular movements, and state and government officials. We argue that Swedish civil society organisations (CSOs) have been allowed to voice critique against public actors and policies and are expected to do so. Based on a large survey of Swedish CSOs, this study contributes unique data on what type of advocacy strategies CSOs practise, and the range of advocacy strategies that organisations employ. The analysis also explores norm-breaking behaviour, such as holding back criticism of public authorities. The results reveal a complex picture of a culture of advocacy: we find patterns of intense political activity among organisations that admit they hold back in their criticism of public authorities and the use of a wide range of advocacy strategies. The article contributes to and challenges established advocacy research and analyses established patterns of organisations' advocacy activities with the symbolic acts of breaking norms, as an analytical approach for the study of advocacy strategies in general and advocacy culture in particular. ; Sociologisk Forsknings digitala arkiv