Suchergebnisse

This article applies the framework developed by the Global Health Advocacy and Policy Project (GHAPP) to analyze the emergence and effectiveness of global health networks to two networks. One of them is Girls Not Brides, a global network of stakeholders working to end child, early, and forced marriage. The other is the network that is working to improve menstrual hygiene management (MHM) in schools and that includes the MHM in Ten network. By providing a theoretically informed account of these two networks, the article contributes to the literature by providing accounts of additional networks that can help us deepen our understanding of the factors that shape transnational network emergence and political outcomes. The two networks in this study complement the case studies completed by the GHAPP because they focus on a complex and politically and culturally sensitive set of issues. Furthermore, this article bridges the gap between the scholarly literature and the literature produced by NGOs and international organizations by providing a theoretically informed account of the effort to end child marriage and improve (MHM) in schools.

This article focuses on the transnational diffusion of social movement ideas. How do social movements in one country or region of the world diffuse to another country or region? How do social movement participants learn about other movements and ideas in faraway countries and mobilize around these same ideas? What are the channels and mechanisms of diffusion? These are the research questions the article addresses. I draw on the theoretical literature on social movements and recent research on diffusion to explore these questions. The discussion is applied to two recent cases of diffusion: The diffusion of the Transition movement from the United Kingdom to the United States and the diffusion of the solidarity economy movement from Latin America, France, and Canada to the United States. I argue that a combination of relational, nonrelational, and mediated diffusion explain the spread of the transition and solidarity economy movements. The article contributes to the literature on social movements in two ways. First, it contributes to the recent efforts to better understand the process of diffusion of social movements and their ideas. Second, it provides an account of two very recent social movements that have not been fully studied and documented yet.

This article analyzes the advocacy campaign and the policy process surrounding the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA) in the United States and explains the mobilization of this campaign and its political outcomes to date. The main question the article explores is: How can we interpret the effort by advocacy groups in the United States to use the domestic political process to advance their international goals? The findings suggest that the literature on norm and policy diffusion as well as the structure of political opportunities and framing, both variables identified by social movement theorists, can help us understand the I-VAWA campaign and its strategies and achievements to date. The article interprets the policy process surrounding I-VAWA as an effort by rooted cosmopolitans to use favorable domestic political opportunities and strategic framing to diffuse international norms and standards.

AbstractIn this article I address the question of why some transnational advocacy networks (TANs) are better able to influence policy outcomes than others. How do we explain the variation in the political impact of TAN campaigns? Drawing on some of the theoretical formulations developed by social movement and international relations scholars, I argue that organizational structure and organizational strength can help us understand this variation. A comparison of a highly influential and successful TAN, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, with a less successful TAN, the International Action Network on Small Arms, demonstrates that such networks can mobilize a large number of diverse civil society groups. However, a coherent and well‐coordinated campaign with a clear political message provides the major explanation as to why some TANs are more likely to shape the global policy process than others.

Two of the most prominent transnational advocacy networks that were launched in the 1990s are the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). The ICBL was very successful in shaping global policy on landmines, while IANSA has had much less political impact. To explain the substantial difference in the political outcomes of these otherwise quite similar campaigns, this article draws on the concept of the political opportunity structure, a key concept in social movement theory, adapts it to the transnational context, and applies it to a comparison of the ICBL and IANSA. Transnational advocacy networks that are able to seize the opportunities created by international conference diplomacy and by UN initiatives, and whose agenda does not result in value clashes or other types of intractable conflicts, are more likely to shape political outcomes.