Suchergebnisse

Scholars of street-level bureaucracy and institutional research focus primarily on the relationships between advocates and their larger bureaucratic and social systems, assuming that advocates have little need to satisfy their beneficiaries. We find otherwise in our two-year ethnographic study of public defenders advocating for disadvantaged clients in interactions with district attorneys. In our analysis of 82 advocacy opportunities, we demonstrate that, when existing bureaucratic and social systems put beneficiaries at a disadvantage, advocates may be concerned about managing fraught relationships with their beneficiaries in addition to navigating barriers within the bureaucratic and social systems. We further show a tension between the two; ironically, engaging in advocacy work on behalf of beneficiaries can lead to beneficiary mistrust. As a result, advocates engage in triadic advocacy work—managing impressions with their beneficiaries while also influencing powerful actors within the system on behalf of these same beneficiaries. Understanding the process by which advocates navigate this tension is critical to understanding beneficiary outcomes. By reconceptualizing advocacy work as a triadic process among advocate, bureaucratic system, and beneficiary rather than as a dyadic process between advocate and bureaucratic system, this paper develops new theory about how advocates can attempt to garner benefits that advance the rights and opportunities of the disadvantaged.

What is Advocacy and How Do We Use it in Social Work? -- Contextualising Social Work Advocacy -- Reclaiming Advocacy in Contemporary Social Work -- Advocacy Skills -- Participation and Partnership -- Advocacy Across the Life Course -- Representation and Complaints -- Independent Advocacy -- Conclusion: Developing a Culture of Advocacy

AbstractNonprofit representation as a multidimensional notion is inherently interrelated with nonprofit advocacy. This multidimensional nature of representation, however, was largely overlooked in prior empirical literature that predominantly focused on the independent effect of individual representational dimensions on advocacy. This article addresses this limitation by identifying the "representational mixes"—combinations of multiple representational dimensions—that bring about specific outcomes of nonprofit advocacy. Drawing on data from nonprofit organizations in three provinces of China and applying a corresponding configurational approach of fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, the findings confirm three propositions, namely the conjunctural, equifinal, and asymmetric causation underneath the complex relationship between nonprofit representation and nonprofit advocacy. This study thus contributes a fresh configurational perspective to understanding nonprofit representation in relation to nonprofit advocacy.

Creating international policy to combat climate change is one of the biggest public diplomacy challenges of our time. With slow progress in "state-led" forums such as the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), advocacy coalitions of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are pressuring decision-makers and working to build global awareness. The power of NGOs is soft since state actors set emissions targets; nonetheless, climate justice organizations persistently broadcast several important messages, including: 1) industrialized nations along with private sector polluters have an obligation to remedy ecological debt; 2) low-income and marginalized populations are most vulnerable to climatic variations, even though they are generally not high greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters, and; 3) current policy needs to protect the well-being of future generations. This article explores how civil society has been spurred into action by weak state commitments as well as how web-based, bottom-up, and network approaches to influence policy-makers and implement climate change mitigation can broaden our understanding of public diplomacy.

The concept of "advocacy coalitions" is the bedrock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), one of the most established and successful approaches for understanding policy processes across the globe. This article revisits and sharpens the conceptual definition of advocacy coalitions. We summarize the lessons from its theoretical emphases under the ACF and specify its five attributes (policy actors, shared beliefs, coordination, resources, and stability). Through this specification, we identify the ideal coalition type and several coalition subtypes. We then clarify and make a distinction between how we think about coalitions as a concept and how we approach coalitions empirically. This article sharpens the lens for describing and explaining coalitions toward better observations, theorizing, and measurements. It ends with next steps for further deepening and broadening knowledge about advocacy coalitions.

PurposeThe purpose of this exploratory paper is to examine how affiliates of a Japanese Social Welfare Corporation, a national nonprofit organization (NPO) which provides services for social improvement, have utilized electronic techniques for advocacy purposes and explores the factors that identify those organizations which are likely to be most successful at adopting this resource.Design/methodology/approachThe total number of affiliates investigated was 320, representing the entire country. For these affiliates, advocacy was part of their mission statement. A survey was conducted among representatives of these affiliates.FindingsThree crucial explanatory factors in differentiating those affiliates that adopt new techniques from those that do not were identified. These are: "perceived time spent on government accountability demands," "use of professionals," and "perceived effectiveness." Furthermore, by showing that time spent by nonprofit affiliates on government accountability demands reduces the time available to them for learning how to implement electronic techniques for advocacy purposes, the empirical results suggest that Japanese NPOs are put under pressure by statutory accountability demands and, consequently, their advocacy practice (as one of the most important mission‐based activities within the nonprofit sector) is being jeopardized.Practical implicationsThis research will help state and local government policy makers towards a better understanding of their nonprofits so that statutory accountability demands do not longer obstacle nonprofits to enhance their advocacy functions.Originality/valueThe originality of this study lies primarily in the fact that it was the first time that this type of research has been conducted on Japanese nonprofits.

An interview with Howard Ernst, professor of political science at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, and author of Fight for the Bay: Why a Dark Green Environmental Awakening is Needed to Save the Chesapeake Bay (Rowman & Littlefield, 2009, $19.95, paperback).