PreprintPDF Available

Analysis of the social movement organization "Fridays for Future" in Germany

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract

This essay examines the Fridays for Future (FFF) movement in Germany, a contemporary social climate movement in the world today. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. Because of the unforeseeable consequences, a protest movement has formed from students who take to the streets on Fridays to protest against global warming. The Fridays for Future demonstrations in Germany receive a lot of public attention in the media, but how effective is their political impact? The following brief analysis examines the modus operandi with which the interest group pursues its goals and whether these goals lead to effective changes in the political field. It concludes, that FFF has sometimes linked actions and activities across levels of power, leading to a social, but not yet political transformation.
MSc Power, Politics and Civil Society
Analysis of the social movement organization “Fridays for Future” in Germany
Josefine Einsiedel
B00381470
04.05.2020
Assessed Seminar Paper
Dr. Dirench Kanol
3500 words
Abstract:
This essay examines the Fridays for Future (FFF) movement in Germany, a
contemporary social climate movement in the world today. Climate change is one of the
greatest challenges of the 21st century. Because of the unforeseeable consequences, a
protest movement has formed from students who take to the streets on Fridays to
protest against global warming. The Fridays for Future demonstrations in Germany
receive a lot of public attention in the media, but how effective is their political impact?
The following brief analysis examines the modus operandi with which the interest group
pursues its goals and whether these goals lead to effective changes in the political field.
It concludes, that FFF has sometimes linked actions and activities across levels of
power, leading to a social, but not yet political transformation.
Keywords: Fridays for Future, Social Movement, Interest Group, Climate Change,
Germany, Power, Influence, Greta Thunberg, Protest
Table of Content
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………....1
2. Analysis of the social movement “Fridays for Future” in Germany……………..….1
2.1 Overview..........................................................................................................1
2.2 Organizational structure……………………………………………………...…....3
2.3 Modus Operandi………………………………………………………………..…..6
2.4 Assessment of Effectivity…………………………………………………..….....10
3. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….…..…13
4. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………....13
Appendix: Press Review Fridays For Future (October 2019)..............................16
1. Introduction
In the following essay, the social movement "Fridays for Future" (FFF) in Germany will
be critically analyzed by assessing its modus operandi, strategies, and techniques used
to gain political influence. It also discusses key actors such as the organization's
relationship with the civil society, political parties and other stakeholders to assess
whether FFF is effectively achieving its objectives.
FFF as an interest group exercises different forms of power and at the same time
challenges different forms of power. Recent studies tend to conceive of interest groups
as membership-based organizations seeking to influence public policy. If we use this
definition of interest groups, pressure participants or organized interests can be used to
define any organization that attempts to influence public policy (Jordan et al, 2004).
These actors, therefore, include not only spontaneous associations or professional
NGOs, but also social movement organizations (SMOs). The analysis consists of three
sections, first, the historical background and the drivers that led to the social movement
in Germany will be briefly discussed. The organization’s internal functioning and modus
operandi is then analyzed in order to critically examine possible contradictions with its
defined objectives. The analysis is supported by specialist literature, by critically
applying theories, concepts, and definitions.
2. Analysis
2.1 Overview
Fridays for Future (FFF) is a global social movement based on pupils and students who
are committed to comprehensive, fast, and efficient climate protection measures in
order to meet the 1.5-degree target of the United Nations agreed upon at the world
climate conference in Paris 2015 in the world climate agreement. They are a rather
informal and temporary association formed by individuals to achieve a common goal
and can be defined as cause group since they represent the broad strata of society and
try to promote something that benefits society as a whole (Ehrenberg, 2011).
Following the example of the initiator Greta Thunberg, who started a school strike for
the climate in Sweden in August 2018, the concept consists of pupils publicly protesting
on Fridays during school hours. Through its protest, it attracted international attention,
so that groups were formed in various cities around the world to join the movement.
In Germany, the strikes in ten different cities in December 2018 attracted a great media
attention for the first time. As of January 2019, rallies and demonstrations of the
movement were registered in 50 German cities with an estimated 25,000 participants.
The up-and-coming movement was discussed not only because of its climate policy
demands but also because of its young circle of participants and the fact that German
compulsory school attendance is being violated by the protests, which provoked critical
reactions, especially from conservative politicians. This criticism was in turn countered
by predominantly liberal and left-wing politicians (Wahlström et al, 2019).
On the 15th of March 2019, an international climate strike was organized, in which
approx. 300,000 people took part in Germany, worldwide there were about 1.8 million
people. On 28 November 2019, the European Parliament declared a climate emergency
(FFF, 2020). In the meantime, numerous regional, national, and global support
organizations have been formed, such as Scientists for Future
. In Germany, FFF is
organized as an unincorporated association of persons and has no legitimate board of
directors.
Historical Background
For decades, environmental policy has been much discussed in Germany, which
includes led to the closure of all black coal mines, the decision to phase out nuclear
energy and the development of non-fossil energy production routes (...). Against this
economic background, climate change was increasingly questioned by both the public
and the political elites. While Germany was still considered a pioneer in preventing
climate change in 2015, it can now be considered a laggard, as the declared CO2
reduction targets for 2020 have not been achieved (Wahlström et al, 2019). The
commitments made in Paris were rhetorically recorded, but influenced by, among
others, powerful interest groups, such as farmers' alliances and the automobile industry.
The active influence of lobbyists and corporate donations leads to environmental
protection measures being weakened or changed, as a result of which large companies
and corporations have to reckon with either increased production costs or reduced sales
if they implement the measures originally requested. According to the website
lobbypedia
, on which party donations can be researched, the Daimler group
, for
example, donated 100,000 euros each to the ruling parties CDU and SPD in 2017, and
40,000 euros each to the CSU, FDP and the Greens (lobbypedia.de, 2020).
This has met with strong criticism from civil society, academics, and parliamentary
groups. In particular, continued lignite mining in the Hambach region (near the city of
Cologne) triggered massive protest activities in 2012, including several occupations of
the Hambach forest, which were to be cleared. These protests lasted until early 2020
and mobilized up to 10,000 participants in September 2018. These and other protests
against lignite mining and energy-related issues led to the rise of the climate strike
movement in Germany.
2.2 Organizational structure
➣Objectives
According to FFF, the school strikes are directed against the failure of political leaders
to address man-made climate change. This, with its consequences, is a "long-standing
real threat to the Earth and humanity" and threatens the future of future generations.
Climate policy should relate in particular to those people who suffer the consequences
and have no secure future ahead of them and is thus constituted by FFF as social
policy. The strike is not directed against educational institutions but is intended to call
for action since one does not have to learn for a future that is not worth living
(Wahlström et al, 2019). The main objectives can be summarised as:
Ending the depletion of fossil fuels as part of an energy turnaround;
Abolishing subsidies for fossil energy production;
Increasing investment in renewable energy;
Expansion of local public transport as part of a transport turnaround;
Active voting rights from the age of 16 to increase the participation opportunities
of young people (FFF, 2020).
Fridays for Future Germany developed together with scientists short and long-term
goals that imply demands on national politics. By 2020, subsidies for fossil fuels should
be abolished, a quarter of all coal-fired power stations should be shut down and a
carbon tax of around 180 euros per tonne of CO2 should be levied on all greenhouse
gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions are to be reduced to net-zero by 2035; a
coal phase-out is to be generated by 2030, and energy supply is to consist of 100%
renewable energies by 2035 (FFF, 2020).
➣Power structures
Since the group's statutes give the group members influence over the group's political
work and its decisions are effective, it makes sense to examine FFF's internal power
structures. FFF members actively participate in the political work of the group and
influence its agenda. Central positions are circumvented by holding strategy debates
and discussing fundamental questions of the movement. The movement comprises
more than 500 local groups in Germany as well as various nationwide working groups
that deal with national and international issues (FFF, 2020).
Figure 1: Organizational structure within the federal level (FFF Germany, 2020)
The strategy working group does not see itself as a body but as a collector of opinions
that formulate binding guidelines. Local groups are encouraged to consider the
proposed strategies and provide feedback. The space for this and the networking is
provided by the working group. The movement also prefers smaller protests at the
district level, organized by local groups. At the moment, it would be difficult to make
decisions and develop or implement new ideas due to the size of groups organized on a
federal state level (Rosbach, 2019). Since many leading members of FFF are
representatives of parties such as the Greens or NGOs, they are criticized for exercising
too much control over important decisions, which not only endangers FFF's democracy
but also leads the movement in a systemic adaptive direction. This would make it
impossible to achieve the system-critical objectives. Luisa Neubauer, also known as the
German Greta, is a member of the the Greens party and spokeswoman, organizer, and
best-known face of the FFF movement in Germany, which even praised Chancellor
Angela Merkel (Rosbach, 2019).
➣Financing
Although the importance of money for influence can be discussed, studies show that
offering money to politicians increases the probability of access by organized interests
(Kalla, Broockmann, 2015). Therefore, in the following the financing model of FFF will
be briefly examined.
All financial resources Fridays for Future has at the federal level are held in the
movement's donations account, which is managed by a partner organization, the
Plant-for-the-Planet Foundation. This is intended to ensure the professionalism of
financial management and to ensure that money is only disbursed against proper
accounting. The donation account exists primarily to reimburse money that local groups
spend on mobilization materials (such as flyers, posters, etc.), but also for the technical
costs of strikes, fixed costs such as telephone conference rooms or server costs, and
reserves for special events. The budget plan focuses a maximum of 300 euros per
month per local group, regardless of their size or reach. If amounts over 300 euros are
involved, these can be approved in a telephone conference after consultation with the
local group delegates. As an alternative to financing local needs, NGOs or alliances are
also asked for financial support at the local group level and donations are collected via
the GoFundMe
platform (FFF, 2020).
2.3 Modus Operandi
The social movement FFF can be defined as a campaign group that mobilizes individual
citizens, activists, and the general public for climate protection. They have the capacity
to provide their followers as needed, which implies that they can also decide not to
provide them or advise against such a mobilization (Halpin, 2011). The following
activities are used by the interest group to gain political influence on public opinion, the
media agenda, the political agenda, draft laws, and parliamentary decisions.
➣External lobbying through public relations
FFF is based on the concept of lobbying from the outside through public appeals to the
media and the mobilization of group members and citizens to influence politics. They
contact reporters, write letters to decision-makers, publish research reports, organize
public conferences and strikes, commit civil disobedience, petition and make statements
in social media (...).
If a lobby group represents diffuse interests more than specific interests, it will
increasingly use the form of external lobbying. As its interest is too general, it indirectly
lobbies to avoid technical information and specialization. Its lobbying activities target
different vertical levels such as regional, national, federal, and transnational, as well as
horizontal levels such as the legislative and executive. FFF said that in 2019 they had
focused very much on the federal government, state governments, and local authorities.
In 2020, they want to focus more on economic players in order to motivate companies
to exit coal through corporate campaigns. In January 2020, for example, FFF protests
took place against Siemens
' involvement in a coal mine in Australia. Initially, the
company postponed its decision due to the enormous protests but finally opted for the
Adani coal mine (Rosbach, 2019).
➣Media attention through representation
The movement does not have a precisely defined constituency because of its general
interests and therefore cannot offer selective incentives to its members. As a result,
they are forced to go public by using the media to attract as many supporters as
possible and to overcome the problem of collective action. The number of people
represented by the interest group is crucial, as their votes determine the prospects for
the re-election of political actors as well as their legitimacy.Protest actors seek to
influence policy through unconventional channels, which is why they need public
attention for their cause (Baringhorst, 2014). However, access to the media public is
challenging and requires precise knowledge of journalistic logic, for example, the
concentration on strong images, the focus on people instead of institutions or ideas, and
special provocation of conflicts and deviations from norms in order to be perceived
(Marcinkowski, 2015).
The FFF movement generates media attention by personalizing it in the form of Greta
Thunberg and provokes conflicts or deviations from the norm by young people not
fulfilling their compulsory schooling. Since the group has few resources at its disposal, it
uses social networks to spread its logic and generate resonance through provocative
slogans and hashtags. Therefore, the SMO can access the media without a lot of
resources in the form of capital, employees or expertise (see Appendix).
Above all, the movement addresses non-voters and young people by suggesting the
need for an international revolution. The public gets better informed about the climate
crisis through local alliances, information campaigns and panel discussions, workshops,
school newspapers, own events, citizen dialogues as well as appearances at trade fairs
(...) in order to mobilize members.
FFF relies on a decentralized system with small local groups, which should lead to more
freedom of action and improved communication among each other, as direct contact
with potential followers can be generated more easily. For example, there is a concept
for a mobilization app for FFF Germany, which could more easily mobilize new
participants and disseminate information to society more quickly. Weekly newsletters
and promotional material are also created according to the nudging principle known
from marketing. Created templates are offered for download on social media and are
given away or sold on a non-profit level. There is also an FFF Podcast, which serves
different platforms such as Spotify and iTunes on a weekly basis and deals with topics
related to climate and environmental protection. For the presentation of the contents,
both self-written "technical texts" and interviews are used (FFF, 2020).
The initiator Greta Thunberg also generates a lot of attention, for example, because of
her speeches at UN climate conferences, in world economic forums, and the EU.
However, it was found that her media significance is higher than her importance for
mobilization in Germany. In surveys, most Fridays for Future supporters say that
personal conversations with friends were more decisive for participation in the
demonstrations than Greta (Wahlström et al, 2019).
Unlike established organizations, the ever-growing movement must first deal with its
identity, which carries the risk of splitting or weakening it. This development is
ambivalent for the established organizations such as Greenpeace Germany, as the new
environmental movements are raising awareness of their core issue, but offering
interested people alternatives for their involvement. Even parties such as the Greens
who claim to be a climate-friendly party in Germany, find themselves in a competitive
situation. However, Green City Councillors do not see FFF as a competitor because of
its various groups of supporters (Rosbach, 2019).
➣Politicalization of climate change through connections
Networking skills and connections are key factors in the influence of interest groups. For
example, a lobbyist should be a good listener, attentive, polite, honest, credible, and
related to them, but above all, he should have good networking skills ( Kanol, 2014).
Through cooperation and networks, FFF reaches the public attention of media and
politicians. They work with accepted truths based on the findings of global
environmental scientists. They also describe themselves as a peaceful and non-violent
movement, as many minors who are politically active for the first time in their lives take
part in demonstrations, which gives FFF a different “responsibility” from other
environmental activists. Climate change is being politicized by the emergence of a new,
mass youth movement which is not only concerned with the ecological question but also
with the whole struggle against exploitation and oppression, against racism, sexism,
and imperialism. This is particularly suggested at the demonstrations and conferences.
FFF is in cooperation with companies, individuals, political parties, and NGOs. The
website for-future-buendnis lists a variety of alliances that invite a wide range of civil
society groups to participate. The initiatives range from parents to entrepreneurs,
churches, scientists, farmers, and sportsmen. Petitions can be signed to support FFF's
climate demands or to organize own actions (for-future-buendnis.de, 2020).
This attracts both wage earners and trade unions, leading to increased mobilization and
company actions (more than 4,000 companies and 26,800 scientists have already
signed the demands). FFF is also supported by NGOs active in the environmental
sector. For example, the international Club of Rome expressly welcomes the worldwide
FFF protests and in Germany, primarily Germanwatch and Greenpeace support the
SMO (Wahlström et al, 2019).
Fridays for Future is extra-parliamentary. Children and young people deliberately keep
their distance from the political parties, as they are too bureaucratic large organizations
that take too long to bring about change and do not want them to be instrumentalized by
politics.Through the feeling of self-efficacy, the distance to the parties increases rather
than decreases (Rosbach, 2019).
However, there are sporadic meetings and public discussions with party representatives
throughout Germany in order to be active where decisions are made. Furthermore, a
Youth Council for Environment and Sustainability was established in 2019, which is an
initiative of the SPD/CDU state government of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. It enables
climate activists to submit questionnaires to the government, request environmental
data, and meet with ministers in person. This coupling with the state government means
that they have to subordinate themselves to existing systems there, for example through
financial applications. The youth environmental council receives 50,000 euros from the
state government for two years and can be rated as a way of internal lobbying
(Rosbach, 2019).
2.4 Assessment of Effectivity
The following section aims to assess the extent to which the SMO is effectively
achieving its objectives. The existence of different channels of influence, such as
external and internal lobbying, the occurrence of counterproductive lobbying and the
influence in different phases of the political process, such as agenda-setting and
implementation, represent restrictions for measurement (Dür, 2008). By means of the
process tracking method, an attempt is made to evaluate FFFs' preferences, their
attempts to influence, their access to decision-makers, the reactions of decision-makers
to their attempts to influence, the degree to which their preferences are reflected in the
outcomes, and satisfaction with the result through FFF statements. FFF's activities in
relation to the policy area of climate protection in which the SMO is involved are always
taken into account.
FFF's preferences are to change legislation, such as active voting rights from the age of
16, and to change executive power regulations regarding sustainable energy reforms.
So far, none of these preferences have been implemented by decision-makers, despite
the great media and civil society response. Public attention can provide access to
parliament or government because politicians are increasingly responsive to published
opinions and media pressure (Marcinkowski, 2015). According to Binderkrantz et. al. (
2015), spillover effects from the media to parliament occur in particular.
Parliamentarians who want to draw attention to themselves and their goals thus use the
media attention of the Fridays for Future movement. This applies not only to parliament
in general but also to parties in particular, precisely because of their interest in being
elected. Even if not all factions mention the movement frequently, the comments of
politicians on Fridays for Future are consistent with the number of mentions in the public
media (see Appendix). The Left and the Greens have a positive view of the FFF, while
the AfD has a negative view. Members of the government factions CDU/CSU and SPD,
as well as the FDP, react cautiously to FFF (Wahlström et al, 2019).
Despite this, FFF's preferences are not sufficiently reflected in the political outcomes, as
no new, more consistent climate package has been adopted, which according to FFF's
statements leads to great dissatisfaction. Given the amount of people that have been
mobilized and the attention that FFF has received, it can be rated as frustrating to see
that the German government has not done anything to seriously advance climate
protection.
However, effectivity is not only assessed by the extent to which an actor realizes his
interest in political outcomes but in societal outcomes that can be classified as very
successful regarding FFF (Hathaway, 2015). Greater awareness of citizenship,
combined with greater citizenship practice, can contribute to the wider inclusion of
previously marginalized groups in society and strengthen social cohesion between
different communities, as is the case with the FFF alliances (Gaventa, 2011). SMO
supporters, for example, experience that through FFF they can influence the political
agenda within months and influence their positions in elections. For example, the last
European elections were very clearly influenced by FFF since the selected activities
were elementary in order to strive for political influence and a large representative
number of supporters has participated in the various activities (FFF, 2020).
In order to form a democratic voice of the youth, the distance of the SMO from the
established political establishment also represents a great opportunity. It can always
question the political decision-making system, which with the current constellations may
not be able to decide on such far-reaching environmental policy steps as are necessary.
It can be concluded that FFF has a comparatively large number of members in its
competitive field, membership can bring with it a high degree of influence within the
movement, the group is privileged in the policy area of climate protection by
successfully generating territorial politicization, and its objectives reflect a high degree
of influence.
With regard to possible contradictions between internal procedures and the stated goals
of FFF, it can be criticized that, due to the growth of knowledge and know-how, social
media and the Internet as an instrument of soft power to win followers, more attention
must be paid to the extent to which values and cultures of power are cultivated and
challenged. Mobilization can be used across power levels to strengthen certain voices
in the public sphere and create new forms of exclusion for others. To transform power
fundamentally, FFF must be able to work simultaneously across forms, spaces, and
levels, a field of action that they cannot achieve alone (Lipschutz, 2007).
Ultimately, a key challenge for FFF is to develop more democratic and overarching
alliances that also address issues of representation and accountability (Gaventa, 2011).
At the very least, information on the funding and activities of the global civil society
group should always be made available in a timely manner and internal processes
should be opened up to external scrutiny (Radford, 2010).
Finally, it can be criticized that a large part of global civil society seems far from
transforming power, but is merely a central and element in an expanding neoliberal
governmental regime. It contributes to legitimizing, reproducing, and sometimes
internally transforming this regime, its functioning, and its objectives (Lipschutz, 2007). It
is therefore not enough to carry out local activities and voluntary organizations to protect
equality and democracy under conditions of historical inequality and gigantic centers of
private power. Accordingly, there is still no substitute for sustainable and democratic
political action (Ehrenberg, 2011).
3. Conclusion
In the face of increasing international competition, bourgeois governments are ensuring
that climate protection is not at their own expense. As long as profit interests determine
the economy, there can, therefore, be no question of a sustainable or effective
environmental policy. In order to implement effective global measures, the economy
would have to be restructured according to the interests of working people and the
requirements of environmental sustainability. Nevertheless, the protest organization
FFF is showing itself to be steadfast.
This analysis has shown that firstly, the nature and quality of FFF's mobilization and
association strategies are of great importance; secondly, the ability to build links and
alliances with reformers within the state and other institutions is crucial; thirdly, changes
in globalization, including the emergence of new forms of communication and
networking across borders, offer new opportunities for FFF to act while creating new
barriers to inclusion. As noted in Section 2, FFF has sometimes linked actions and
activities across levels of power, leading to a social, but not yet political transformation.
4. Bibliography
Baringhorst S. (2014) Internet und Protest. Zum Wandel von
Organisationsformen und Handlungsrepertoires Ein Überblick. In: Voss K.
(eds) Internet und Partizipation. Bürgergesellschaft und Demokratie. Springer
VS, Wiesbaden
Binderkrantz, A. (2005). Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged
access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies
, 53
(4), 694-715.
Dür, A. (2008). Measuring Interest Group Influence in the EU: A Note on
Methodology. European Union Politics
, 9
(4), 559-576.
Ehrenberg, J. (2011) The History of Civil Society. Edwards, M. (ed.) (2011) The
Oxford Handbook of Civil Society.
Oxford : University Press, pp 15-25.
For Future Bündnisse (2020), online available at:
http://www.for-future-buendnis.de/#wpdgiqfhbskpksumciipfrxtsbeiuvfutnqy
(accessed: 02.05.20)
Fridays for Future Germany (2020): Website, online available at:
https://fridaysforfuture.de/ (accessed: 02.05.20)
Gaventa, J. (2011) Civil society and Power. Edwards, M. (ed.) The Oxford
Handbook of Civil Society.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.416-427.
Hathaway, T. (2016) Lukes Reloaded: an actor-centred three-dimensional power
framework. Politics Vol 36(2), pp 118-130. Online from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9256.12099/epdf. [accessed
12/12/2016].
Halpin (2011). Explaining Policy Bandwagons: Organized Interest Mobilization
and Cascades of Attention.
Jordan, G., Halpin, D., & Maloney, W. (2004). Defining Interests: Disambiguation
and the Need for New Distinctions? The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations, 6(2), 195–212.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2004.00134.x
Kalla, J., & Broockman, D. (2015). Congressional officials grant access to
individuals because they have contributed to campaigns: A randomized field
experiment. American Journal of Political Science.
Kanol, D., 2012. Should the European Commission enact a mandatory lobby
register?. Journal of Contemporary European Research
, 8
(4).
Lobbypedia (2020): Website, online available at:
https://lobbypedia.de/wiki/Hauptseite (accessed: 02.05.20)
Lowery, D. (2013). Lobbying influence: Meaning, measurement and missing.
Interest Groups & Advocacy
, 2
(1), 1-26.
Marcinkowski F. (2015) Die „Medialisierung“ der Politik. In: Speth R., Zimmer A.
(eds) Lobby Work. Bürgergesellschaft und Demokratie. Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Radford, J.S. (2010) The “Dark Side” of Civil Society – An Introduction. Civil
Sociology. Online from
https://civilsociology.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/dark-side-of-civil-society-introdu
ction/. [accessed 1/4/2017].
Rosbach, Jens (2019): Fridays for Future, Zwischen Rebellion und Kooperation
online available at:
https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/fridays-for-future-zwischen-rebellion-und-kooper
ation.724.de.html?dram:article_id=462929 (accessed: 02.05.20)
Wahlström, M, Sommer, M, Kocyba, P, de Vydt, M, De Moor, J, Davies, S,
Wouters, R, Wennerhag, M, van Stekelenburg, J, Uba, K, Saunders, C, Rucht, D,
Mickecz, D, Zamponi, L, Lorenzini, J, Kołczyńska, M, Haunss, S, Giugni, M,
Gaidyte, T, Doherty, B and Buzogany, A (2019): Protest for a future:
Composition, mobilization and motives of the participants in Fridays For Future
climate protests on 15 March, 2019 in 13 European cities. Project Report. Protest
for a Future. online available at:
http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/6571/7/20190709_Protest%20for%20a%20future_GCS
%20Descriptive%20Report.pdf (accessed: 02.05.20)
Appendix: Press Review Fridays for Future (October 2019)
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
This article reviews the literature on the mandatory government regulation/self-regulation approaches to regulating interest group behaviour. The findings of the author suggest that the voluntary register of the European Commission is bound to fail. The European Commission should implement a mandatory register as soon as possible if the genuine aim of the incumbents is to overcome the Commission’s accountability deficit.
Article
Full-text available
How much influence do interest groups have on policy outcomes in the EU? This question is highly relevant for both debates on the democratic legitimacy of the EU and our understanding of policy-making processes in this entity. Nevertheless, because of the difficulties inherent in measuring interest group influence, it has been addressed by only a small number of studies. The purpose of this research note is to stimulate further research by clearly identifying the methodological problems and suggesting ways of how to overcome them. In doing so, I distinguish three broad approaches to measuring interest group influence: process-tracing, assessing �æattributed influenceÆ, and gauging the degree of preference attainment. Although the review reveals that all three approaches have their shortcomings, I conclude that the difficulty of measuring influence should not be exaggerated either. Methodological triangulation, �æmethod-shoppingÆ, and larger-scale data collection should allow us to improve on the state of the art.
Article
Full-text available
This article notes the systemic lack of conceptual clarity in the social sciences and attempts to illustrate the adverse consequences by closer examination of the particular example of the interest group field. It indicates the significant ambiguities implicit in the term. Not all policy-influencing organisations are interest groups as normally understood, but because there is a lack of an appropriate label the term interest group is used by default. The article seeks to distinguish between interest groups and other policy relevant bodies—often corporations or institutions. It finds disadvantages in adopting a functional interpretation of the interest group term (i.e. any organisation trying to influence public policy). While the wider range of organisations are crucial in understanding the making of public policy, it is confusing to assume that this wider population are all interest groups. The article instead advances the complementary notions of pressure participant, policy participant and interest group. This slightly expanded repertoire of terms avoids conflating important distinctions, and, in Sartori's term permits ‘disambiguation’. The core assumption is that the search for comparative data and exploration of normative questions implies some harmonisation in the interest group currency.
Article
Executive SummaryAll too often, research on the influence of interest organizations in democratic politics produces null findings. What are we to make of these results? In part, the answer may lie in our conception of influence – what it is and what might constitute evidence for it. But even when more complete conceptions of influence are considered in better research designs, null results will still occur. They merit explanation. To address these issues, I will first try to provide a broader conception of influence and its many possible meanings by exploring the older theoretical literature on urban power from the 1950s and 1960s, considering along the way what the different interpretations might tell us about lobbying. And second, I will develop a catalog of null hypotheses and discuss how these bear on interpreting the many null findings in influence research. Finally, I discuss the implications of this analysis for the future of influence research.
The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society
  • J Ehrenberg
• Ehrenberg, J. (2011) The History of Civil Society. Edwards, M. (ed.) (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society. Oxford : University Press, pp 15-25.
Lukes Reloaded: an actor-centred three-dimensional power framework
  • T Hathaway
• Hathaway, T. (2016) Lukes Reloaded: an actor-centred three-dimensional power framework. Politics Vol 36(2), pp 118-130. Online from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9256.12099/epdf.
Congressional officials grant access to individuals because they have contributed to campaigns: A randomized field experiment
  • J Kalla
  • D Broockman
• Kalla, J., & Broockman, D. (2015). Congressional officials grant access to individuals because they have contributed to campaigns: A randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science.
The "Dark Side" of Civil Society -An Introduction . Civil Sociology
  • J S Radford
• Radford, J.S. (2010) The "Dark Side" of Civil Society -An Introduction. Civil Sociology. Online from https://civilsociology.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/dark-side-of-civil-society-introdu