María Inclán’s research while affiliated with Center for Research and Teaching in Economics and other places

Using an innovative protest survey of protest participants and nonparticipants from two major student demonstrations in Mexico City, I test the assumption that protest participation triggers vary across protest events even for similar demonstrating groups. Building on previous research, I compare the motivations, dynamics of mobilization, and political attitudes of students taking part in a ritual demonstration (the annual commemoration of the 1968 students’ movement) and one reactive protest (a march organized by the #YoSoy132 movement in response to Enrique Peña Nieto’s presidential campaign). The results suggest that the level of students’ political interest is more influential in their decision to take part in a reactive demonstration, while for a ritual demonstration, the decision to participate tends to be driven more by their collective identity as students. These findings add to the growing literature on contextualized contestation and debunking the myth of the protestor, in this particular case of the protesting student.

Using an innovative survey of six major street demonstrations in Mexico City between 2011 and 2013, this study compares political attitudes of protest participants and nonparticipants. The analysis offers three relevant findings. The results suggest that in comparison to protest nonparticipants, demonstrators tend to be more politically involved and experienced individuals, mobilized through their personal and organizational networks. The intensity of these factors’ effects as protest participation predictors varied across demonstrations, showing that protest participation is triggered by different factors. And the diversity of mobilizing factors shows that protest participation in Mexico City is complex, and is a common form of political participation for the plural, mobilized civil society.

What happens to insurgent social movements that emerge during a democratic transition but fail to achieve their goals? How influential are they? Are they able to survive their initial mobilizing boom? Using the development of the Zapatista movement during Mexico’s democratic transition in the 1990s, this book seeks to answer these questions. The Zapatista movement is probably the best example of an influential and salient insurgent social movement emerging during a democratic transition that successfully mobilized sympathy and support for the indigenous agenda inside and outside of the country, yet failed to achieve its goals vis-à-vis the Mexican state. Why did such an influential movement fail to have its demands fully met? The answer is illustrated using a sliding door analogy to explain how the Zapatista movement developed within almost simultaneous openings and closings of political opportunities for its mobilization, success, and survival. Framing the relative achievements and failures of the movement within Mexico’s democratization is essential to understanding how social movements develop and survive and how responsive an electoral democracy can actually become. As such, this book offers a test of the quality of Mexico’s democracy and the resilience of the Zapatista movement, identifying the extent to which emerging political forces have incorporated dissident and previously excluded political actors into the new polity.

What happens to insurgent social movements that emerge during a democratic transition but fail to achieve their goals? How influential are they? Are they able to survive their initial mobilizing boom? Using the development of the Zapatista movement during Mexico’s democratic transition in the 1990s, this book seeks to answer these questions. The Zapatista movement is probably the best example of an influential and salient insurgent social movement emerging during a democratic transition that successfully mobilized sympathy and support for the indigenous agenda inside and outside of the country, yet failed to achieve its goals vis-à-vis the Mexican state. Why did such an influential movement fail to have its demands fully met? The answer is illustrated using a sliding door analogy to explain how the Zapatista movement developed within almost simultaneous openings and closings of political opportunities for its mobilization, success, and survival. Framing the relative achievements and failures of the movement within Mexico’s democratization is essential to understanding how social movements develop and survive and how responsive an electoral democracy can actually become. As such, this book offers a test of the quality of Mexico’s democracy and the resilience of the Zapatista movement, identifying the extent to which emerging political forces have incorporated dissident and previously excluded political actors into the new polity.

What happens to insurgent social movements that emerge during a democratic transition but fail to achieve their goals? How influential are they? Are they able to survive their initial mobilizing boom? Using the development of the Zapatista movement during Mexico’s democratic transition in the 1990s, this book seeks to answer these questions. The Zapatista movement is probably the best example of an influential and salient insurgent social movement emerging during a democratic transition that successfully mobilized sympathy and support for the indigenous agenda inside and outside of the country, yet failed to achieve its goals vis-à-vis the Mexican state. Why did such an influential movement fail to have its demands fully met? The answer is illustrated using a sliding door analogy to explain how the Zapatista movement developed within almost simultaneous openings and closings of political opportunities for its mobilization, success, and survival. Framing the relative achievements and failures of the movement within Mexico’s democratization is essential to understanding how social movements develop and survive and how responsive an electoral democracy can actually become. As such, this book offers a test of the quality of Mexico’s democracy and the resilience of the Zapatista movement, identifying the extent to which emerging political forces have incorporated dissident and previously excluded political actors into the new polity.

What happens to insurgent social movements that emerge during a democratic transition but fail to achieve their goals? How influential are they? Are they able to survive their initial mobilizing boom? Using the development of the Zapatista movement during Mexico’s democratic transition in the 1990s, this book seeks to answer these questions. The Zapatista movement is probably the best example of an influential and salient insurgent social movement emerging during a democratic transition that successfully mobilized sympathy and support for the indigenous agenda inside and outside of the country, yet failed to achieve its goals vis-à-vis the Mexican state. Why did such an influential movement fail to have its demands fully met? The answer is illustrated using a sliding door analogy to explain how the Zapatista movement developed within almost simultaneous openings and closings of political opportunities for its mobilization, success, and survival. Framing the relative achievements and failures of the movement within Mexico’s democratization is essential to understanding how social movements develop and survive and how responsive an electoral democracy can actually become. As such, this book offers a test of the quality of Mexico’s democracy and the resilience of the Zapatista movement, identifying the extent to which emerging political forces have incorporated dissident and previously excluded political actors into the new polity.

What happens to insurgent social movements that emerge during a democratic transition but fail to achieve their goals? How influential are they? Are they able to survive their initial mobilizing boom? Using the development of the Zapatista movement during Mexico’s democratic transition in the 1990s, this book seeks to answer these questions. The Zapatista movement is probably the best example of an influential and salient insurgent social movement emerging during a democratic transition that successfully mobilized sympathy and support for the indigenous agenda inside and outside of the country, yet failed to achieve its goals vis-à-vis the Mexican state. Why did such an influential movement fail to have its demands fully met? The answer is illustrated using a sliding door analogy to explain how the Zapatista movement developed within almost simultaneous openings and closings of political opportunities for its mobilization, success, and survival. Framing the relative achievements and failures of the movement within Mexico’s democratization is essential to understanding how social movements develop and survive and how responsive an electoral democracy can actually become. As such, this book offers a test of the quality of Mexico’s democracy and the resilience of the Zapatista movement, identifying the extent to which emerging political forces have incorporated dissident and previously excluded political actors into the new polity.

What happens to insurgent social movements that emerge during a democratic transition but fail to achieve their goals? How influential are they? Are they able to survive their initial mobilizing boom? Using the development of the Zapatista movement during Mexicos democratic transition in the 1990s, this book seeks to answer these questions. The Zapatista movement is probably the best example of an influential and salient insurgent social movement emerging during a democratic transition that successfully mobilized sympathy and support for the indigenous agenda inside and outside of the country, yet failed to achieve its goals vis--vis the Mexican state. Why did such an influential movement fail to have its demands fully met? The answer is illustrated using a sliding door analogy to explain how the Zapatista movement developed within almost simultaneous openings and closings of political opportunities for its mobilization, success, and survival. Framing the relative achievements and failures of the movement within Mexicos democratization is essential to understanding how social movements develop and survive and how responsive an electoral democracy can actually become. As such, this book offers a test of the quality of Mexicos democracy and the resilience of the Zapatista movement, identifying the extent to which emerging political forces have incorporated dissident and previously excluded political actors into the new polity.

This article offers a review of the most salient studies on Latin American social movements published in the last 25 years. It not only assesses the questions and empirical implications that these studies have uncovered, but it also points out theoretical and empirical puzzles that are currently investigated or are yet to be examined. In doing so, this article reviews two type of studies: those that in the author’s opinion cover the most salient movements in the region and those that offer us most promising propositions for the development of the subfield in the future. With this review, the author hopes to open the debate and help include Latin American social movements within the systematic study of comparative social mobilization in sociology and comparative politics. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Sociology Volume 44 is July 30, 2018. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Using an innovative survey of protest participants and nonparticipants from five major street demonstrations in Mexico City in 2011 and 2012, this study tests the assumption that influences on protest participation vary across different types of events; namely, ritual demonstrations and reactive protests. The comparison is based on two assumptions: that these are two of the dominant forms of protest in contemporary Latin America, and that specifying the context for different types of social movement participation provides a better understanding of the individual mobilization process for groups seeking to defend their rights or gain new benefits. The comparative analyses reveal some crucial differences. Political interest and previous political experience are more influential in the decision to take part in reactive demonstrations. For ritual demonstrations, the decision to participate tends to be driven more by personal and organizational connections.