Suchergebnisse

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, disability rights found a place on the U.S. policy agenda. However, it did not do so because social movement groups pressured political elites or because politicians were responding to changes in public preferences. Drawing from recent work in neo- institutionalism and social movements, namely the theory of strategic action fields, I posit that exogenous shocks in the 1960s caused a disability policy monopoly to collapse giving way to a new policy community. Using original longitudinal data on congressional commit- tees, hearings, bills, and laws, as well as data from the Policy Agendas Project, I demonstrate the ways in which entrepreneurs pursued a new policy image of rights within a context of increasing committee involvement, issue complexity, and space on the policy agenda, and the consequences this had on policy.

The politics of retrenchment is a powerful, threatening force mobilizing citizens by reminding them that nothing—not even their civil rights—should be taken for granted. Ed Roberts, founder of the independent living movement, said at a protest nearly 40 years ago, that "politics is pressure." For people with disabilities and other increasingly marginalized groups, that statement still rings true today. Indeed, the disability community is no stranger to policy innovation followed by back-stepping and broken promises.

Given the growing interest in social movements as policy agenda setters, this paper investigates the contexts within which movement groups and actors work with political elites to promote their common goals for pol- icy change. In asking how and why so-called outsiders gain access to elites and to the policymaking process, I address several contemporary theoretical and empirical concerns associated with policy change as a social movement goal. I examine the claim that movements use a multi- pronged, long-term strategy by working with and targeting policymakers and political institutions on the one hand, while shaping public prefer- ences ! hearts and minds ! on the other; that these efforts are not mutually exclusive. In addition, I look at how social movement organiza- tions and actors are critical in expanding issue conflict outside narrow policy networks, often encouraged to do so by political elites with similar policy objectives. And, I discuss actors' mobility in transitioning from institutional activists to movement and organizational leaders, and even to protesters, and vice versa. The interchangeability of roles among actors promoting social change in strategic action fields points to the porous and fluid boundaries between state and nonstate actors and organizations.

Over the last ten years, several western countries have recognized gay marriage either by providing gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, or by allowing civil unions. Other western countries have not. What accounts for this variation? This paper reviews and analyzes the key demographic, institutional and cultural arguments found in the literature on the legalization of gay marriage – especially as these pertain to cross-national comparison – and raises questions about assumptions regarding the extent to which there is variation on these vari- ables across western countries. I argue that institutional and cultural explanations are only meaningful in explaining legalization when their combinations are speci- fied in order to shed light on favorable (or unfavorable) circumstances for policy outcomes.

Abstract Public and Elite Policy Preferences: Gay Marriage in Canada1 This paper explores the role of parties, interest groups and public opinion in the enactment of 'controversial' social policy particularly when the issue is salient with political elites, but not salient with the public. The author analyses party documents, interest group testimony, media statements and public opinion data. He finds that political elites in Canada facilitated the legalisation of gay marriage while anti-gay marriage politicians and interest groups were unable to reframe gay marriage so as to benefit their cause. While political elites engaged in an ongoing discourse, Canadians remained divided on same-sex marriage but also uninterested in the issue. This paper also discusses the key differences surrounding the legalization of same-sex marriage between the United States and Canada. Résumé Dans cet article, l'auteur examine le rôle que jouent les partis politiques, les groupes d'intérêt et l'opinion publique dans la promulgation d'une politique sociale « controversée », en particulier lorsque le sujet est important pour les élites politiques, mais ne l'est pas pour le public. Il analyse des documents de différents partis, des témoignages de groupes d'intérêts, des déclarations aux médias et des données sur l'opinion publique. Il constate que les élites politiques du Canada ont facilité la légalisation du mariage entre personnes du même sexe, tandis que les politiciens et les groupes d'intérêts opposés au mariage gay ont été incapables de replacer ce type de mariage dans une nouvelle perspective, de façon à faire avancer leur cause. Les élites politiques sont engagées dans un discours continu; toutefois, la population canadienne non seulement demeure divisée sur la question du mariage gay, mais ne s'y intéresse pas vraiment. Le présent article contient également une analyse des principales différences entre les mesures législatives adoptées par les États-Unis et par le Canada sur le mariage entre personnes du même sexe.

This paper compares participation in different forms of political action between na- tives, immigrants and non-citizen immigrants using data from thirteen European countries across six waves of the European Social Survey. The authors highlight prob- lems associated with previous categorizations of political action, and find that when political action is disaggregated and relative participation between groups is exam- ined, that immigrants' patterns of participation are not substantially different from those of natives. When comparing citizen immigrants to non-citizen immigrants, previous research has suggested that citizenship acts as a "ticket" to non-institutional, unconventional, confrontational forms of political action. The authors' findings in- stead suggest a more complicated relationship between immigrant/citizenship status and preferences for political action since citizenship may facilitate participation in both so-called institutional and extra-institutional activities depending on the context of action.

Visible protests reflect both continuity and change. This Element illustrates how protest around longstanding issues and grievances is punctuated by movement dynamics as well as broader cultural and institutional environments. The disability movement is an example of how activist networks and groups strategically adapt to opportunity and threat, linking protest waves to the development of issue politics. The Element examines sixty years of protest across numerous issue areas that matter for disability including social welfare, discrimination, transportation, healthcare, and media portrayals. Situating visible protest in this way provides a more nuanced picture of cycles of contention as they relate to political and organizational processes, strategies and tactics, and short-and-long-term outcomes. It also provides clues about why protest ebbs and flows, when and how protest matters, who it matters for, and for what.

Politics of Empowerment explores why seemingly firmly entrenched policies, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, succumb to opposing forces that seek to undermine them and considers how political entrepreneurship, grassroots activism, and protest relate to one another in mobilizing against these threats.