Burstein and Linton (2002) in “ The Impact of Political Parties, Interest Groups and Social Movements Organizations on Public Policy: Some Recent Evidence and Theoretical Concerns” argue that all three types of organizations have substantial impacts on policy. But specifically interest groups and social movement organizations will affect policy only to the extent that their activities provide politicians with information and resources relevant to the re-election campaign. This view of the role of interest groups and social movement organizations in the policy process seems to me somewhat diminished and should be qualified further. While I do feel that that these policy actors do provide a great deal of information regarding public opinion they also play an important part in shaping, cultivating and voicing public opinion and hence driving the policy process. In “Social Movements and Policies: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty”, Kenneth Andrews (2001) uses his “movement infrastructure” model to frame an analysis of social movements in the policy process. He demonstrates that social movements do in fact have the ability to shape public policy and programs and that this ability is enhanced when the movements possesses a strong infrastructure. In this paper I examine briefly the “Occupy Wall Street” movement within the context of both arguments in hopes of determining whether the worth of this movement was simply information provision or could it influence policy formulation.
“Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) began on September 17, 2011 when protesters occupied Zuccotti Park in Wall Street, New York City’s Financial district. The protest movement soon became a social movement that raised awareness to the social and economic inequality that exists in American society. The main issues were the greed, corruption and the influence of “big” financial corporations on government. The result they claimed was inequality in income and wealth distribution concentrated in the hands of 1% of the US population. The movement made consensus-based decisions determined at general assemblies, which focused on direct, protest action and petitioning of authorities for redress. The organization itself is structured along a consensus-based process composed of over 70 working groups and spokes councils. Decisions are made at assembly meetings, in which participants are given room for dissent, which allows for the formation of complex ideas. The actual meetings do not have formal leadership and everyone present is allowed to speak with priorities given to women and minorities. This has created the perception that the organization itself has no leadership and in fact members argue its doesn’t rather leaders emerge when they are needed and fade back into the ranks when the necessary task is complete. This is to maintain the purity of the democratic structure of the organization.
If the aim of the OWS was exclusively to bring awareness to the inequalities that exist within US society then one can in fact make an argument for information provision as the role played by this social movement in the policy process. President Barack Obama during a news conference remarked that the organization was expressing the frustration felt after the financial crisis especially since the responsible parties were resistant to efforts to reduce future abusive practices. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would recant on an earlier statement he made condemning the protest action as dangerous and inciting class warfare later expressing sympathy for the participants. While House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi came out in support of the movement. This evidence is consistent with the arguments made by Burstein and Linton that social movement organizations are able to influence the policy process by providing information to elected officials. However, Andrews’s argument also has some merit here, as when one examines the structure of the OWS it seems that the organization was intended to through its activities simply to bring awareness and therefore exert indirect influence on policy formulation.
Andrews (2001) distinguishes between movements that are dramatic, disruptive and threatening to elites and those that garner sympathy and support by third parties as well as movements that acquire routine access to the polity through institutional tactics and movements that are able to effect change based on its leadership, organization and available resources. The Occupy Wall Street movement can easily fit into the first two models as it was dramatic, disruptive and threatening to elites and it did garner sympathy and support from third parties. Andrews (2001) maintains that movements that belong to these models shape the process of change by mobilizing other actors and have little or no direct influence. Within the framework presented by Andrews (2001) the OWS movement could not directly influence policy that will bring about income and wealth equality because it did not have a strong movement infrastructure, which includes a strong leadership structure, and organization that crosses social and geographic boundaries and a resource based that draws substantially on its members for both labor and money. Therefore in assessing the role of social movements organizations in the policy process one must consider the infrastructure of the specific organization as this determines the ability of the organization to directly or indirectly influence public policy formulation.
By Deon Gibson
References
Burstein, Paul and April Linton, “The Impact of Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Social Movement Organizations on Public Policy: Some Recent Evidence and Theoretical Concerns,” Social Forces, 81(2), 2002
Andrews, Kenneth T., “Social Movements and Policy Implementation: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty, 1965 to 1971,” American Sociological Review, 66(1), 2001
“Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) began on September 17, 2011 when protesters occupied Zuccotti Park in Wall Street, New York City’s Financial district. The protest movement soon became a social movement that raised awareness to the social and economic inequality that exists in American society. The main issues were the greed, corruption and the influence of “big” financial corporations on government. The result they claimed was inequality in income and wealth distribution concentrated in the hands of 1% of the US population. The movement made consensus-based decisions determined at general assemblies, which focused on direct, protest action and petitioning of authorities for redress. The organization itself is structured along a consensus-based process composed of over 70 working groups and spokes councils. Decisions are made at assembly meetings, in which participants are given room for dissent, which allows for the formation of complex ideas. The actual meetings do not have formal leadership and everyone present is allowed to speak with priorities given to women and minorities. This has created the perception that the organization itself has no leadership and in fact members argue its doesn’t rather leaders emerge when they are needed and fade back into the ranks when the necessary task is complete. This is to maintain the purity of the democratic structure of the organization.
If the aim of the OWS was exclusively to bring awareness to the inequalities that exist within US society then one can in fact make an argument for information provision as the role played by this social movement in the policy process. President Barack Obama during a news conference remarked that the organization was expressing the frustration felt after the financial crisis especially since the responsible parties were resistant to efforts to reduce future abusive practices. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would recant on an earlier statement he made condemning the protest action as dangerous and inciting class warfare later expressing sympathy for the participants. While House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi came out in support of the movement. This evidence is consistent with the arguments made by Burstein and Linton that social movement organizations are able to influence the policy process by providing information to elected officials. However, Andrews’s argument also has some merit here, as when one examines the structure of the OWS it seems that the organization was intended to through its activities simply to bring awareness and therefore exert indirect influence on policy formulation.
Andrews (2001) distinguishes between movements that are dramatic, disruptive and threatening to elites and those that garner sympathy and support by third parties as well as movements that acquire routine access to the polity through institutional tactics and movements that are able to effect change based on its leadership, organization and available resources. The Occupy Wall Street movement can easily fit into the first two models as it was dramatic, disruptive and threatening to elites and it did garner sympathy and support from third parties. Andrews (2001) maintains that movements that belong to these models shape the process of change by mobilizing other actors and have little or no direct influence. Within the framework presented by Andrews (2001) the OWS movement could not directly influence policy that will bring about income and wealth equality because it did not have a strong movement infrastructure, which includes a strong leadership structure, and organization that crosses social and geographic boundaries and a resource based that draws substantially on its members for both labor and money. Therefore in assessing the role of social movements organizations in the policy process one must consider the infrastructure of the specific organization as this determines the ability of the organization to directly or indirectly influence public policy formulation.
By Deon Gibson
References
Burstein, Paul and April Linton, “The Impact of Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Social Movement Organizations on Public Policy: Some Recent Evidence and Theoretical Concerns,” Social Forces, 81(2), 2002
Andrews, Kenneth T., “Social Movements and Policy Implementation: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty, 1965 to 1971,” American Sociological Review, 66(1), 2001
RSS Feed