The Effects of Using Security Frames on Global Agenda Setting and Policy Making
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations Dissertations and Theses November 2015 The Effects of Using Security Frames on Global Agenda Setting and Policy Making Sirin Duygulu Elcim University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2 Part of the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Duygulu Elcim, Sirin, "The Effects of Using Security Frames on Global Agenda Setting and Policy Making" (2015). Doctoral Dissertations. 438. https://doi.org/10.7275/7247615.0 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/438 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EFFECTS OF USING SECURITY FRAMES ON GLOBAL AGENDA SETTING AND POLICY MAKING A Dissertation Prepared by SIRIN DUYGULU ELCIM Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 2015 Political Science © Copyright by Sirin Duygulu Elcim 2015 All Rights Reserved THE EFFECTS OF USING SECURITY FRAMES ON GLOBAL AGENDA SETTING AND POLICY MAKING A Dissertation Presented by SIRIN DUYGULU ELCIM Approved as to style and content by: _______________________________ R. Charli Carpenter, Chair _______________________________ Peter M. Haas, Member _______________________________ Maryann Barakso, Member _______________________________ James Ron, Member ___________________________________ Brian F. Schaffner, Department Chair Political Science iv DEDICATION To my family for their relentless support… v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have been possible without the intellectual and emotional support of a number of people. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Charli Carpenter who agreed to chair this dissertation four years ago when I did not know whether the idea I had in my mind was worth pursuing. It’s her support, guidance and patience to go through countless number of drafts that made this project possible. I am grateful to the members of committee for seeing the potential in this work and supporting me with their eye-opening feedback. Peter Haas’s guidance made me see the bigger picture, and Maryann Barakso’s insights into interest group politics as well as James Ron’s suggestions about how to develop the study made it possible for me to turn a very rough first draft into this dissertation. I also would like to thank MJ Peterson, Joshua Busby, Clifford Bob and Wendy Wong for their comments on different parts of this work. I am also thankful to the participants of the BISA-ISA Annual Conference in 2012 for deepening my understanding of the securitization theory. I am extremely grateful to the interviewees, who preferred to remain anonymous, for sharing insights that fundamentally changed the way I see conflict diamonds and securitization. I thank University of Massachusetts Graduate School, International Studies Association and Okan University for a number of conference travel grants that allowed me to workshop my ideas and learn from very different audiences. At University of Massachusetts, Amanda Brule, Jeanette Harvie, Meltem Duran, Zeynep İnanç, Gizem Zencirci, Aycan Kapucu, Colleen Tarsi and Ruchika Singh made the years I have spent in Amherst memorable; Ilke Ercan turned a humble apartment into v a home by being the best roommate one can hope for; and if it was not for Melinda Tarsi I would not have found the courage or the will to continue to this journey. I am also thankful to Donna Dove, Jennifer Southgate, Stephen Marvell, Michelle Goncalves, Trish Bachand, and Barbara Ciesluk for their administrative support throughout the years. At Okan University, Mustafa Kibaroğlu, Ayşegül Kibaroğlu, Zeynep Alemdar, Hasret Dikici Bilgin, Umut Azak, Mehmet Kabasakal, Nihan Köseoğlu, Hasan Pekşen, Pınar Sayan, İrem Yalkı, Ceyda Ovacı and Emre Çakmak, both helped me develop this work with their feedback and made it possible for me to write this dissertation while working at a full-time academic job with their patience and support. I am also grateful to my dearest friends Günsu Usanmaz, Selin Derya Bilkur, Yasemin Veli Kara, Dilan Ceren Akşahin and Gamze Turan for believing in me. I am thankful to my father for dreaming this career for me and having the vision to send his only child across the ocean to pursue it and my mother who taught me to be strong and who stood by me in every turn and every fall. I would like to thank my husband who did not complain once even though I spent every holiday and every weekend of the first year of our marriage on revising this dissertation. Thank you for making me a better person. Lastly, I thank my grandmother for being my biggest supporter. vi ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF USING SECURITY FRAMES ON GLOBAL AGENDA SETTING AND POLICY MAKING SEPTEMBER 2015 SIRIN DUYGULU ELCIM, B.A., SABANCI UNIVERSITY M.A., KOC UNIVERSITY Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST Directed by: Professor Charli Carpenter Why do transnational advocacy campaigns on environmental, health, human rights or humanitarian causes sometimes (but not always) frame these problems as security issues? This is an important question because there is an under-analyzed assumption made by some transnational advocacy networks (TANs) and securitization studies scholars that framing an issue as a security threat has an overall positive effect on convincing states to take actions in addressing transnational social problems. The lack of systematic comparison across cases limits our ability to reveal the advocates’ motivations in adopting security frames and the contrasting effects that securitization might have at various stages of advocacy campaigns. It is crucial to address this question as it will help us better understand the sources of transnational advocacy campaigns’ influence over states as well as the inner dynamics of advocacy strategies. The study conducts a systematic comparative analysis of thirty-eight transnational advocacy campaigns to test whether the assumed correlation between using security frames and reaching advocacy success would hold when analyzed comparatively. The vii study then takes a closer look at the question by conducting a comparative analysis of nine cases and an illustrative analysis of a securitized campaign (Conflict Diamonds) to address the similarities between securitization and other acts of framing as well as to shed light onto the inner dynamics of securitization. Based on this analysis, the study argues that rather than being unique and correlated to transnational advocacy success, as argued by the literature, security frames operate like any other frame, and in order for such framing decisions to translate into advocacy success they need to coexist with an enabling strategic environment. The study also provides insights into the conditions that shape advocates’ framing choices. In addition to the widely cited role of the broader political context, the study also finds the advocacy networks’ own dynamics as well as the advocates’ previous experiences and their fields of expertise to be important in shaping their framing choices. The study also argues that advocates engage in multivocalization, which refers to the inclination of the advocates to invoke multiple frames simultaneously to reach out not only to targets of influence but also to potential allies with the goal of strengthening their networks. The analysis also reveals that the motivations behind adopting security frames are more complex than appreciated by the securitization literature in two ways: (i) a security frame does not have to be tailored toward states or security organizations, it can also be crafted to get the attention and the cooperation of non-state actors; and (ii) a security frame might appeal to an audience not necessarily because of the security threat it voices but because of the non-security concerns it silences. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………....xiv LIST OF FIGURES………………………….……………………………...…………...xv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………..…xvi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 The Puzzle ................................................................................................................1 Relevance of the Research Question ........................................................................5 What is Missing from the Existing Studies and Why it is Important to Explore This Question?..............................................................................13 Contribution of the Study.......................................................................................17 How does This Study Go about Exploring the Research Question? .....................19 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................27 Introduction ............................................................................................................27