. .

 .

  

.. .. 

   ..  .. .   .

.  ..              ... . .

  . 

    

  .   

                  .        .    .             

   .     



  



              .            . .    .        .        .     ..           ..     .   



   

          ..

    .     .. .            .                    

           .                  .          .. .      

   

      ..      ..  ..         .                          .    .                 .               .    ..  



        

   

                               .     .           .     .    .     .       .     .     .          .     ..     ..          

    .

     .  .    ..      .      . 



    

  .. . . .. .

 .

 . . .             . . .

...



   

    

.  .  .        .

.      ...

. ..

.  . .. .. ...   . .    .        .. . ..  .

     .             .. 

   

 .. ..   .      . .. .  .   

.  .

. .            . .   .  .   .

 .

... .    .     

 

.

.. .. .

   

  .        .  .      

. .    .

. ...  . . .. .

.   ... .  . ... ..   .                        .  .

 .  .    .    

   

.         .       .    ...                             .          ..           ..           .               .  .   .     .               .    ... 

 .       . 

    

. ... 

   

     .                 .. .  .. .

. .. . ..

....

     .         ... .. .

    ..     .      .  ... .



 . ... . ...   

  

.. .

             . ..  .

.. .    ..   ..            .  .   .. 

  

 . .         ..  ..

     . .   .      .        . .. .       

 . .    

.

.

  

          .          .    .   . .       ..  .    .. .   .    .    .    

. .  ..              .    .    .                 .  

.         ..       .     ..             

  

   .            .. . .         . . .

.. .    .  .   .     . ... .      ....  .   ..  . .. . .            .   ..   .

  

 . .   .   ..        .  . .  .       .     .      .. .     .  .  .             .    . .  . . . . .. ... .      . .     

  

  

.. 

    .         .   ..    . .      .  . 

..          .  .  .   .. . .     . 

     

  

          .      .  . . .  .  .  .    .. .  ....     . .  . ..  . . .              .  .  . . .. . . 

  

 ..  

.  .  .         .. . .. .    . . . .   .  .    .    .  .

   .     .   .          ..

  

.       .      . .     

   .   . 



. .     .   ..    ..  .. .          .    .. 

    . .             .

  

.   . . .  .. ..   .  .      

     . .  . .    ..  ..

.. .    .    .

. . .   . . 

  

   . .     . . .  .

 . .. . .                           .     .  . . . ... 

  

 . ..

. 

. .           .  . . .  . . .     . .. .    .  

  .   ..   

  

        ..   . ...            . .      .. . ...  .  . ..  ..

 . .

 . ..            .             . .     ..   .      .     .  

  

      .   . . 

    .          .      .    .. .. .                            .  .  ..  . .  ..   ... .  ..

  . .       .    .  . .    . .. ... ... 

  

.. ...  ..   .. .  ..               . ..  ..    . .  .     . 

   .    .  ..  .  .                    .             .    .          .  ..   .   ..

 .. . 

  

  

 

   

 

. 

    

   .       ..      .            .    .     .               .. ..    ..   

  

.  .  .  ..      .  . .. . 

  .  . .   . .    .. .. . . . .  .   . .. ..   .      ..    .  . .   . ..

  

  .. . . .. 

.  .. . .   .  ..  .  .

 .. ...  .   ...   .

 .  .       

 . ..

  

 ..  ... .... ...      .         . .. .. .. .. . ...... . .  ..

  ..  .       . 

 ..

  .. ..       

  

 . .   .. ..      . . ...     .     . .      .        .. . . . .                 .  .    

. ...  ... ..  ..           

  

   .  . . .. ...  .. .  

     .. . .. .    ..  ...    ...  .             .    

 . .. ..

.

  

.. . .          ..   .  . .  . .. .   .    .    

  .         

             .

        .

 ..  .   

  

             . 

  ... .. .. . .. . .  . . . 

 .            .

   

    .. ...  ... .. . . ..  .     .



  

    .      ..         .  

  .   .   .  ..

. .   ..    

   .. .

  ... ..  

     .       . ..             .     . .   . 

  

.

  

 .. . .   .   .. ..  .  ..   .. . .. . . .

.. . .. . .. . ..     .   

.

  

 . . . .   .            ..   

 .. . ....   . .   .

 

  

.. . . ... .    .     

.

..

.  

         

 . 

  .         .   . .       .      ... .     .. . .

  

       .      . .      ..  

      

   

 .    . .  ..  . .      .             

 . ..    . .   .     .                    .     ..

  

. .  .   . 

.           . .  .    . ... ..... . . .

. .... . 

.

.. .

 .   .     .   . 

     .   .    . 

  

.

.

 . . .. .. 

 .

  

. . . 

. ..  .           .   .               ...

      .

 

  

 .           .  ..

..

 

.    .   .  ..  .  ...

.  ..

.



.. .. 

 . . .. .. 

  



.. .    .  . .   . .  .. .. .... .    .         ...  .. .  ..

....

 

.  .  .    .  .  .       .  .....

  

... . ... ..   .. . ...  .

   .  .

. ...    .       ... .. .           .. .  .... ..  ... 

 .. .

    

  

.. . .    . .  

 .. ..  .  

.. .

.  . .     .

  .     .  ..    .

.



  

  

  .   .   .   .... .                    .    . . .. ..    .. ..  .         .  

 .   .  .

     .   .   ...      .     . .  .   ...

..



  

  

.   .. .  

. ...

 . . .       . .

. . .    .    .      . .    .   . . ..   .  .... 

    

  

.

... ....  . .      .       .    .    .  

 .. . . .       .

. . . ..             

 .   

 ... ..... .... . ..  ...  

  

 

.    .  ..     . .. . .       .          .    . ..

  

.





.

..



.. ..    

 

  

  

   

 



 .  ...

..  

  .. ... .   ... . 

  

..

 . 



. .   . .  

 . .     ..  . . .    .. .  

 .  . 

    

        

  . .     .

. . . ..  ..  .. . 

.    

..          .             . .             .        .        .

       .. .    . 

  

  .

 

   







.



 

     .   

 

           

  

  .                  .     .  .  .   ..   .  .  .   .. 

          .  .     .       .  . .   

  . 

  

   .  . .  . .   . .. .  .         .        .     . . ..          .       .   ...       . .  

 .. . .. ... ..

 .

  . .. ...      

  

.. . ..



..  .          ..   

.            .

  .   .            ... .    .

   .       .. 

  

. . .    . ..         ...   .   .   .   

  

. ..  ..     .    .  .      . .   .  .  ..

. .. . .  . ... 

     .. .. . . 

  

. ..      .    .. ...   .. .                .    .    .   .  .  .    . . .  .      .                 .   ..  . . ...        .. .

  

 ..  

. 

.  . .   .  .      .     ..     .     . .   . . .   . ..     .         ..  .  .. 

.. .. .

 . . .

  

..         .  .. . .. .. . ... ..  ..  ..  .   ..     .. .  .       .. .

 . .   . . .    .  . . .     . .. .  

  

.   .   . .    . . ..

 .    .    .. .  ..  .  ..

 .  . . . 

       .          .. .

  

   ...          

 . . . 

  

.. .    ..   .                .. . . ..                 .

         .                   ... ..    .  . .  ..  ... 

      .          .  

  

...   ..  ...

  .   .       .                     .

 .    .        . 

. . ..  . .    .           

  

  

     





.               ..

  

       . .. .  . .. . . . .. . ..   .      .   . 

  

.    . .. .  

 . 

   .    

... . ..  ..

. .    .       

 ... . ..  . ..



   . 

  

.

    ..      . .   ..

 

..                 .   .    .   .  ..          .                 

   .  



  

  

                 

      

      

 

                     ..      

  

    . . .. .   .      .

. .

  

.. .. .. .  ... .. .       ..  .. ..  .     .     .   

 .  ..  .   

. . . .                

 .

  

  .         .          .   

 .  . ..  ..  ...    .  . .. . . .. .. .   

   

   . .   .       .              .       .       

  

           .  .   ... .          ..    ..          .   

   .  .     ...        . . .   ...  

  .

     

  

  . .

    .  . 



 

 

...                .

   . ..  . 

       .   .. .        .  . 

.

  

  .

  . . . .                       

         

     

 .  

...       . .... .  . .. . .... ..  . 

  

 . ..  .  .. .              .             .     .  .     .    ...    . . .  . ..  .. . . . .

               ..  .  

  

.         .   ...           .     .... .              .        .          . . .. 

..   .. ..

             ..  ... . .....  .. ..  ..... ...   .  . . 

  

..   . . . .           

. 

 . . . . .     .    .  ...       .   ..  . .  .    .      . .. .    ... ..

  

                 . .  . .  

  

 .       .  . .    .         . . . . ..  .   .  .                            ...  .              .. . 

  

.  

.   . 

     .  ... .     .

..  . .. .     .           .  .   .   

  .   . .     

    

    .

     

.



.     ..

 .  

 .           .  .    

....

. .    .

 

. 

  

 .   ...    .

.  .. .. ..

.. . . .. .    .   ...       . .  .    .

.   .   

              

  

 .. ... .. .  . 

... ... ..... . . ..... . 

..      .     ..  . .   .          ..     . . .    .  . .  .   .. . . 

  

 .



. .   . .          .   .  ..  .. .  .   ... .      . 

 .. .          .          .      .. .. .     ...  ..

  

  

. 

 .  ..        .

 ..   .  .

. . .   . .. ..    .      . . ..

.

   .

    



  . ... ..  . .. . .       . .  .                .  .       

 ..    .  ..   .   . .   .   

   .

    

. .   .

..    . .     ..    . . .     . .... .. ... .. . . . ..   ..  

. 

    . .   .   .  .

 

  

                .  .. .  .  ....      .       .      .  .    ..  ... .   .  .      ..  .          . ... .             .

 . .. 

  

    

. .    .  .   .             .  ... .  .. ..    . .... . 

..  .        .

   .   .   .  

           .

   ..  

  

    .  . .  . . ..                  .  .        .   ... . ..  ..      .  . .      .   . . ...   

      

.

. .

     ...    .

 ..  . .

    .              . . .     .   .

..  

  

   

                      .      .           .   

                     

      

  

  . 



         

       .             

  

 . ...  ...   

     .   . .    .

  



        



  

. 





    

  .. .    

. ..       .    .

   .    . 

  



   . . .   .       .    .   .. . .. . . .      ..  ... ...             

. .          .       .    . .

 .  ..       .

  

                 .                .. .     .   .. . 

   .  .... ..     . .. . . 



    

.    .    . .. .. ...  .. .  .    . .

       . .    . .  .    .

  .

.           . ... 

. .. . .   .             . . .. .. ..          

.  .           . . .. . 

  

  .

     .  

.. 

.

 .   . 

         

.      . . .   .        . .

.    

  

   . .        .     . ..      .    .. ..  ..  .      .  .       .. .. ..       .                    .   . 



  .

 ..  .  .   ..   ...

 . .. . .. . . . .  

. .. . . ... . . .. 

   . 

  .. .    .  

      

..

  . .  .. . .  ... . .       . .  ..  ...  .  

. .

. ..

.. ... ..                 





 .



  .

  

 

   .   

   .

 



.    ..            

.  . .

..  .  .  .

    .

.                            .  . .   .  .  . .    . .

     . .

... .  .. .

 



  

..  . ...  . . .       . ... ..  .      .. . . . . .  .   . 

.                .  .            ..          . .

.

  .

    ..   .        .. . 

  .  

 

   .       



. 









 





  ... .  .. .  . .. 

..    .         .  ..                      .

   ... .  

.    ..    .

.

   

         

        .. . .. 

. .





    .      







. 

 





 







  

 

  

.. 

                   

  . .  .  . .

. 

  

  .

 



    .. .  . 

   ..

           









 

 





  



      

..    

 .

            



.





 



  .

.    . .      . 

  

.   .       

. 

 

 .

.

  

 .. 

  

  

.

 .   .

    .

. 

          .          

. 

 

 .

.

  .

 .  

.



                   

      .. .      .   .  

. 

  

 .   . .    .  

 



.         

. 





.

           .          ..             

  .

.  

.



.



                   

   . . .

  

...  . .. .

               .

 .  . ..      . .      . 

.  .  

..  . .. .   .. ..  . 

  .

  .. .

   . .  . .

   . .. ... ... .. .  . .. .     .  .

.  

  .. 

  

. . . .                      .            .  .    .       . 



           .          ..           .      . ..

   .. . . . ..

    

   

     . . . . .   

 . 

  .      .   . .  .. 

.  ..  

  .

   

 

  



    . 



      .        .  

                    .  

  

  ..  

    .          



   . ..     .  .. ..    ..

  



  .

  ..

         . .       .   .               .    . ..  . ..

     

  

  .. 

  

  

  .. ..

  

  

      .    .            .    ..  ...      .

  ..           

  .

 . . .  .. .   .    . .       .     .  

 .  . . .. . .   ..

         .  .   ..   ..             .    . .            ..

  

. .            .    .      

  4

The Structural Bases of Civil Society

Arguing that civil society should be analyzed as a network is one thing; conducting such an analysis is quite another, as it means identifying meaning- ful patterns out of complex webs of exchanges. Cooperative ties between civic organizations are similar to other social relations in that they “can in theory go anywhere, but they go to a somewhere very regularly” (Sampson 2012 , 351). More specifi cally, patterns emerge from variable combinations of differ- ent types of ties. This chapter searches for these patterns through a structural equivalence approach, identifying sets of organizations that have, if not identi- cal, at least relatively similar allies and partners within the broader networks. This exercise reveals clusters of relatively dense interaction alongside sets of organizations poorly connected to each other. It also shows, most importantly, that collaborative ties distribute differently within civic sectors: some sets of organizations are densely connected by multiple links, combining resource exchanges and shared memberships (social bonds , as defi ned in Chapter 3 ); others are only dense in terms of resource exchanges (i.e., in terms of transac- tions ). Different combinations of social bonds and transactions illustrate the different modes of coordination of collective action introduced in Chapter 1. At the same time, for all its analytic centrality, this chapter has no practical relevance, at least if by that we mean the illustration of specifi c political and social dynamics. This is a matter for the following chapters, which illustrate how identifying structurally equivalent positions enable us to address impor- tant substantive questions. The fi rst issue, addressed in Chapter 5 , refers to the nature of the actors engaged in social movements and other collective action processes. The second (Chapter 6 ) looks at the evolution of collective action over time and how collaboration networks change depending on whether their foundation is based on actors’ perspectives or on their involvement in a series of public events. The third question has to do with the relation between civil society, political parties, and political institutions, and with whether leadership

70

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 7700 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:52:30:52 PPMM The Structural Bases of Civil Society 71

and centrality within civic sectors are refl ected in uneven organization relations with public representatives and public institutions (discussed in Chapters 7 and 8 ). In this sense, the present chapter is nothing more than a bridge between an analytic model and its application to a number of specifi c empirical problems (readers interested in the substance of the argument rather than its technicali- ties might indeed consider skipping it altogether).

The Overall Structure of the Network: Resource Exchanges How do sustained cooperative ties combine into broader structural patterns in the two localities? Figures 4.1 and 4.2 present the Glasgow and Bristol networks based on their most important collaborations. The two structures look fairly sim- ilar. Density is relatively low in both cases, with 2.3 percent of possible ties actu- ally found in Glasgow, and 1.5 percent in Bristol. 1 Although on the low side, these densities are still within the norm for organizational populations of that size.2 Both networks also display a fairly decentralized and integrated structure (Table 4.1 ). Leaving aside a small number of isolated organizations (no more than one-tenth in either city, indicated by diamonds in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 ), all the other civic organizations are linked into one single component. Both networks are signifi cantly less centralized and more connected than random networks. The tendency of their members to link in small, cohesive clusters is also stronger than by chance, although the average length of the paths between one organization and another is still relatively greater than that of a purely random graph.3 Glasgow and Bristol civic networks emerge as “decentralized, polycentric models of inter- organizational relations in which a tendency to form clusters of dense interaction and exchange couples with the presence of links between clusters that facilitate general network connectivity” (Baldassarri and Diani 2007 , 755–6).4

1 The density of a network is given by the proportion of actual ties between its N nodes and the number of possible ties (n/(N× N–1)/2). 2 E.g., the forty-two nodes Milanese environmental network of the mid-1980s had a higher den- sity at 0.05, which however corresponded to about 2.1 ties per node, the same fi gure as in Glasgow (Diani 2003 , 109); while the 70 × 70 San Francisco Bay environmental network of the early 2000s showed a density of 0.1, corresponding to 6.9 ties per actor (Ansell 2003 ). 3 We use Freeman’s (1979 , 227–8) measure of centralization , defi ned as Σ (cmax – c(vi))/max Σ (cmax – c(vi)), where c(vi) is the degree centrality of vertex vi and cmax the maximum degree centrality. Connectedness is defi ned as 1 – [V / N (N–1) /2)], which is the total number of mutu- ally reachable pairs divided by the maximum number of possible pair combinations (Krackhardt 1994 , 96). The clustering coeffi cient of an actor refers to the density of its open neighborhood (i.e., the subgroup of actors that are connected with A), and measures the probability that two members of such neighborhood will be connected. A graph-level measure of clustering is then computed as the mean of the clustering coeffi cients for all the actors (Watts 1999 , 33). The aver- age distance among reachable pairs is computed as the mean of the shortest geodesic distance for each connected pair, i.e., the number of intermediate linkages between actors A and B (Watts 1999 , 29). See also Baldassarri and Diani ( 2007 , 753–4). 4 This structure is quite different from the centralized one that emerged, e.g., from the exploration of Milanese environmentalism in the 1980s (Diani 1995 ; 2003 , 114).

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 7711 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:52:30:52 PPMM Figure 4.1 Network of alliances, Glasgow (density = 0.023). Legend: Block 1: Shaded circles Block 2: White squares Block 3: Black triangles Block 4 (Isolates): White diamonds

Figure 4.2 Network of alliances, Bristol (density = 0.015). Legend: Block 1: Shaded circles Block 2: White squares Block 3: Black triangles Block 4 (Isolates): White diamonds

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 7722 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:52:30:52 PPMM The Structural Bases of Civil Society 73

Table 4.1 Basic Properties of the Alliance Networks

Glasgow Bristol Density 0.023 0.015 Isolates 10% 7% Components (apart from isolates) 1 1 Degree range 0–22 0–17 Average degree 2.84 1.95 Centralization (Freeman 1979 ) 15.71% 11.39% Connectedness (Krackhardt 1994 ) 0.82 0.87 Average distance(between nonisolates) 3.93 4.93 Clustering coeffi cient (Watts 1999 ) 0.156 0.145

Even though in both cities only a tiny proportion of possible links is activated, we cannot really depend on visual inspection to generate meaning- ful interpretations of their distribution. Some type of data reduction is there- fore necessary. In this book we follow an approach of structural equivalence (Degenne and Forsé 1999 , ch. 4; Knoke and Yang 2008 , 76–9; Scott 1991 , ch. 6–7), positing that social actors are equivalent as being connected to the same alters. 5 Accordingly, civil society organizations may fi nd themselves in a similar structural position because they are all connected to the same organi- zations without necessarily working necessarily.6 Figure 4.3 illustrates some basic equivalence patterns with reference to the set of organizations linked to the Glasgow branch of CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) at the time of the survey. In that particular small network the Green Party, the Iona Community, and the groups coordinating the Globalised Resistance and Justice No War campaigns were structurally equivalent, as their only tie was to the same node, CND , but not directly connected; in contrast, the Faslane Peace Camp and the Trident Ploughshares campaign also shared resources with CND , but were also directly connected to each other. This placed them in a different structural location. The approach based on equivalence has been at the core of attempts to defi ne social structure as a set of positions and roles, defi ned by distinctive dis- tributions of ties, and by the expectations associated with those ties (Borgatti

5 Structural equivalence is just one of several strategies to reduce the complexity of network data (Lazega 2007 , 31–5). Elsewhere, we have shown, e.g., how the distribution of triadic structures within civic networks may enable the detection of the basic mechanisms facilitating cohesion between civic organizations (Baldassarri and Diani 2007 , 756–9). 6 Another approach, based on cohesion, implies fi rst of all looking for subsets of a network char- acterized by high density of interaction. In the case of civil society, this would mean searching for clusters of organizations that are involved in dense collaborations with each other, and possibly for the factors that may be behind their exchanges, such as shared interests, similar values, social capital ties between their members, etc. (see, e.g., Baldassarri and Diani 2007 ).

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 7733 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:53:30:53 PPMM 74 Mario Diani

Green Party

Iona Community

Justice No War

CND

Trident Ploughshares

Globalised Resistance

Faslane Peace Camp Figure 4.3 Structural equivalence: The ego-network of CND Glasgow in 2001.

and Everett 1992 ; Doreian, Batagelj, and Ferligoj 2004 ; Wasserman and Faust 1994 , 356–61). This particular conception of structure has its weaknesses, as its assumption that one node’s structural position is defi ned by its direct ties prevents us from grasping the fact that nodes can be linked to different alters, however occupying in their turn a similar position (after all, industrial workers may occupy the same position in society by virtue of being linked to different capitalists, not necessarily to the same one). Still, a structural equivalence approach is worth pursuing, for various reasons. First of all, even staunch supporters of alternative, more sophisticated concepts such as “regu- lar equivalence” 7 have acknowledged that, for all their conceptual superior- ity, they have to date yielded modest empirical results (Ferligoj, Doreian, and Batagelj 2011 , 443). Moreover, focusing on structural equivalence makes sense because large networks grow out of the nesting of local relational structures (Martin 2009 , 13–16). Finally, structural equivalence approaches capture two important dimensions of collective action: they refl ect the fact that each actor owes its particular position not only to its direct acquaintances but also to the organizations it may reach through intermediate actors; moreover, such

7 It has long been noted (e.g., Borgatti and Everett 1992 ) that the original formulation of struc- tural equivalence did not really capture the notion of roles and positions, as it did not take into account the fact that position is not necessarily determined by similar ties to specifi c concrete alters, but rather, to alters that may be different, but share in turn a similar structural position. Alternative approaches have been referred to as regular equivalence or structural isomorphism (Borgatti and Everett 1992 ; Degenne and Fors é 1999 , 86–92; Scott 1991 , 142–5). In the example introduced in Figure 4.3 , peripheral groups interested in the peace issue might fi nd themselves in a similar structural position even if they were not all connected to CND , and even if some of them were linked to other peace organizations, playing a similar coordination role within peace campaigns as CND.

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 7744 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:53:30:53 PPMM The Structural Bases of Civil Society 75

approaches further enable the analyst to capture the embeddedness of actors within specifi c settings. As equivalent actors share – at least in a pure model of equivalence – all the same partners (have, in other words, the same “neigh- borhood”), all actors in the same structural position are directly connected through just one intermediate step (think, e.g., of our example of peace organi- zations in Figure 4.3 ). On this ground, it can be sensibly argued that structural equivalence is far from opposed to approaches based on density and cohesion, but rather combines elements from the two perspectives (Borgatti and Everett 1992 , 9). Christopher Ansell has effectively summarized this point by noting that structural equivalence implies not only the importance of belonging to a concrete set of dyadic relations, but also of belonging to a broader network of ties. Like the clique model, structural equiv- alence identifi es actors that belong to the same network. But the clique model identifi es membership in specifi c subgroups by identifying where networks have become rela- tively closed. In contrast, structural equivalence identifi es common networks in terms of both direct and indirect ties. Structural equivalence identifi es network communities that are not closed. (Ansell 2003 , 126) Structural equivalence makes even more sense in the analysis of organizational fi elds consisting of organizations that are relatively homogeneous and for which the variety of role systems is relatively limited. In the analysis of civic networks, it is of paramount importance to identify specifi cally who works with whom. This exercise may reveal important information about the salience of ideological differences, the rank of issue priorities, the acceptability and popularity of specifi c tactics and strategies, and so forth. For example, as we saw in Chapter 3 , organizations that rely a great deal on voluntary work and symbolic incentives to participation must be careful not to engage with actors that their members perceive as incompatible in terms of agendas and/or tactics, or whose leaders cannot be trusted. Structural equivalence relies on a variety of classifi catory techniques (Scott 1991 , ch. 7; van Meter 1999 ). Although their specifi c methods and algorithms are different, they all aim at identifying subsets of nodes in a network, with similar relations to other nodes.8 Among clustering techniques, Concor (for Convergence of Iterated Correlations) was the fi rst developed explicitly for network analysis (Breiger, Boorman, and Arabie 1975 ; White, Boorman, and Breiger 1976 ). Concor partitions a network into a number of blocks, the incumbents of which have relatively similar – although very rarely strictly iden- tical – patterns of ties to the rest of the network.9 Our attempt to simplify the

8 A 2-mode network matrix reports in the rows the nodes of a network and in the columns the events, activities, etc., the sharing of which may be taken as a reasonable proxy for the existence of a tie (Borgatti and Everett 1997 ). 9 In practical terms, the original matrix is fi rst split into two blocks, which may in turn be the object of further partition, as long as the structurally equivalent positions identifi ed are substan- tively meaningful to the analyst (Scott 1991 , 134–40). Critics have pointed out the ambiguous

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 7755 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:53:30:53 PPMM 76 Mario Diani

structure of civic networks led to the identifi cation of four sets (in the language of network analysis, blocks ) of relatively equivalent organizations.10 In this chapter we provisionally associate each block with a number, without further qualifi cation: a) Block 1 (forty-fi ve incumbents in Glasgow, fi fty in Bristol: shaded circles in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 ); b) Block 2 (twenty-six incumbents in Glasgow, fi fty in Bristol: white squares in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 ); c) Block 3 (forty-one incumbents in Glasgow, twenty-fi ve in Bristol: black triangles in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 ); d) Block 4 (twelve incumbents in Glasgow, nine in Bristol: white diamonds in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 ). How do ties distribute within and across these blocks, generating specifi c pat- terns? As block 4 comprises organizations that were not connected to any other organization in the local network we can exclude it from these preliminary analyses. Let us start by looking at the raw data and at the ratio of observed to expected exchanges, with ratios higher than one suggesting a stronger than random inclination to alliance building, and ratios less than one implying the opposite ( Table 4.2 ). We can easily identify some analogies between the two cities, yet with some important qualifi cations. In both cities, the main diago- nal of the tables shows that ties tended to concentrate within two blocks, 1 and 3, while organizations in block 2 were linked to each other by very few ties (three in Glasgow, eleven in Bristol). Again in both cities, the propensity of organizations to exchange with others in the same structural position was stronger among the incumbents of block 3 than those of block 1 (about twice in Glasgow and four times in Bristol). Also common to both cities was the imbalance between out-ties and in-ties for organizations in block 2, with organizations in that position being identi- fi ed as important partners more often than identifying other network members as such. This was particularly pronounced in Glasgow: they sent out altogether fourteen ties, corresponding to a small fraction of the ties one would have

nature of the computation through which Concor generates its partition of a network (e.g., Wassermann and Faust 1994 , 380–1). They have also noted the lack of objective criteria to determine what partition best fi ts the data (Doreian 1999 ; Doreian, Batagelj, and Ferligoj 2004 ). At the same time, it has often been acknowledged that Concor tends to generate substantively interpretable results (Knoke and Yang 2008 , 85–91). Moreover, its fi ndings are most problem- atic when graphs consist of several different components, which is not the case here (Scott 1991 , 140). My earlier analysis of Milanese environmental organizations (Diani 1995 ) supported claims stressing the heuristic superiority of Concor over standard hierarchical clustering meth- ods (other applications include Knoke et al. 1996 ; Lincoln and Gerlach 2004 ; Pavan 2012 ). 10 It is worth stressing once more that this clustering procedure does not identify the number of blocks that objectively best fi ts the “real” structure of a network. The number of structurally equivalent blocks is determined by the researcher. For attempts to identify objective criteria see instead Doreian, Batagelj, and Ferligoj ( 2004 ).

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 7766 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:53:30:53 PPMM The Structural Bases of Civil Society 77

Table 4.2 Distribution of Ties Across Structurally Equivalent Blocks

Glasgow Bristol Blocks Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 1674033523130 (1.47) (1.48) (0.77) (1.44) (0.84) (1.63) 2 8 3 6 19 11 19 (0.30) (0.20) (0.24) (0.52) (0.31) (1.03) 3 44 15 116 32 18 50 (1.03) (1.42) (3.06) (1.74) (0.98) (5.67) N452641505025

Note : Ratio of ties observed/expected in brackets; isolates excluded.

Table 4.3 Densities in the Interorganizational Alliances Network

Glasgow Bristol Blocks Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 1 0.034 0.034 0.018 0.021 0.012 0.024 (1.45) (1.43) 2 0.007 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.015 (.22) (0.27) 3 0.024 0.033 0.071 0.026 0.014 0.083 (3.02) (5.64) N452641505025

Note : Overall densities = 0.023 in Glasgow, 0.015 in Bristol; ratio block density/overall density for the main diagonal in parentheses.

expected to be randomly sent from block 2 to block 1 (ratio 0.3) and block 3 (ratio 0.24), and received fi fty-fi ve ties, signifi cantly more than expected (ratios being 1.48 from block 1 and 1.42 from block 3). In Bristol, the fl ows were less imbalanced, with thirty-eight ties sent from block 2 and forty-nine received ( Table 4.2; see also Table 4.3 reporting the distribution of densities within and across blocks). Finally, there were also nonnegligible fl ows of exchanges between blocks 1 and 3. We can now draw some preliminary conclusions on the distribution of ties across local civic networks, and summarize in this light the main traits of resource exchanges and the associated features of collective action in the two cities. Flows of exchanges within the civic sector were strongly imbalanced, which enables us to identify three sets of organizations embedded in quite different relational patterns. First of all, we had a set of organizations (those in block 3 in both cities) engaged in alliances with other civic organizations across the whole network, yet with a clear preference for starting alliances with actors in the same structural position (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3 ). In other

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 7777 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:53:30:53 PPMM 78 Mario Diani

Table 4.4 Distribution of Important Partners Across Structurally Equivalent Blocks

Glasgow Bristol Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Total Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Total Overall partners 9.62 6.18 11.15 9.07 10.04 8.52 11.64 9.67 Within local 3.11 .45 4.76 2.84 2.26 .83 4.00 1.96 networks* Ratio within/ 0.35 0.09 0.44 0.30 0.25 0.12 0.38 0.22 total* N 45 38 41 124 50 59 25 134

Note : Differences between blocks signifi cant at .001 in both cities.

words, organizations in those blocks were not only structurally equivalent following similar – and dense – ties to third parties; they were also cohesive and densely tied to each other. Another set of organizations (those in block 1) were also linked to each other by a number of ties that was signifi cantly above the average, yet density was lower than in block 3 (in Bristol, the ratio between observed and expected ties in block 1 was 1.44 vs. 5.67 for block 3; in Glasgow, it was 1.47 vs. 3.06 in block 3). These organizations were also less inclined to concentrate their alliances within a specifi c structural position. They rather engaged with organizations across the sector. Finally, a far from negligible number of organizations showed a limited (for the incumbents of block 2) or null (for those of block 4) interest in get- ting involved with fellow organizations acting in their cities. Altogether, they amounted to almost one-third of the total in Glasgow (31 percent) and almost half in Bristol (44 percent). For organizations in block 2, structural equivalence depended overwhelmingly on their receiving ties from organizations located in other structural positions, as they had a limited inclination to search for major allies within the local context. They may have been important partners for other members of the network, but were not particularly engaged with the network as a whole (particularly in Glasgow, but also in Bristol). Because of their limited active involvement in local civic networks, organizations in block 2 were actually close to the isolates in block 4. Taking into account that incum- bents of the two positions turned out not to differ on any theoretically interest- ing property, it makes sense to treat both as part of block 2 in the remainder of this book (see also Diani and Bison 2004 ). It is worth stressing that when talking of isolation or of limited involve- ment we do so in reference to an organizational fi eld that we have seen could be taken as representative of the most active organizations in the two cities ( Chapter 2). The incumbents of block 2 were slightly less connected than the others in general; however, they were particularly reluctant to engage within local civic sectors, while they were comparatively more inclined to name as

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 7788 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:53:30:53 PPMM The Structural Bases of Civil Society 79

important partners groups or associations located in other areas of the country. As Table 4.4 shows, while the differences in out-degrees within local civic sec- tors were very pronounced, the difference in the overall number of partners was more limited (if still signifi cant). In Glasgow, incumbents of block 2 directed 9 percent of their ties to other core actors within the local civic network (the same fi gures for incumbents of block 1 and 3 were 35 and 44 percent, respec- tively); in Bristol, they do so in 12 percent of cases, versus 25 and 22 percent, respectively.

Modes of Coordination: Matching (and Mismatching) Resource Exchanges and Boundary Defi nition Resource Allocation and Network Density While the analysis conducted so far looks at the overall distribution of ties within civic networks, focusing on the internal structure of blocks gives us important additional insights into the prevalence of various modes of coordi- nation of collective action within broad organizational fi elds. If organizations with relatively similar allies share the same position in a network, the density and the nature of the ties between them will refl ect their capacity to act col- lectively, and eventually the type of coordination predominant among them. The argument that structural position per se does not lead to collective action goes back all the way to Marx, to say the least, but it has been more recently popularized among social movement analysts by Tilly’s (1978 ) adoption of the concept of catnet (White 2008 ). Not only categories, but not even structurally equivalent positions per se are certain predictors of collective action. For this to happen in either case, we need relatively dense networks between the incum- bents of structural positions. Let us fi rst of all test the signifi cance of the density of alliance ties within each structurally equivalent block.11 In Table 4.5 , the intercept represents the probability that two organizations in different structural positions identify each other as important partners. In the case of Glasgow, this corresponds to .016. The coeffi cients associated with each block tell us how much the prob- ability of a tie within that block differs from the intercept. For example, a

11 For this purpose we used a test of autocorrelation for categorical variables in order to allow for the lack of independence between cases. The procedure enabled us to test whether organizations were more likely to identify as allies or to have identity links with organizations occupying the same structural position – i.e., located in the same block – rather than with other groups. In particular we used the procedure indicated as “network autocorrelation with categorical vari- ables” in Ucinet 6 (Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman 2002 ). The signifi cance test was based on the distribution of the density scores obtained in fi ve thousand random permutations of the original data matrix. We looked at density measures within blocks, rather than at ratios, as this method enables us to conduct similar tests on valued networks, such as those that we will use later in this chapter (e.g., we will look at how organizations in civic networks are linked by comemberships in cliques, the number of which may – and usually does – exceed one).

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 7799 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:53:30:53 PPMM 80 Mario Diani

Table 4.5 Test of Homophily Tendencies within Structurally Equivalent Positions in Civic Networks, all Alliance Ties

Glasgow Bristol Blocks Coeffi cients Signifi cance Blocks Coeffi cients Signifi cance Intercept 0.016 0.999 Intercept 0.013 0.970 Block 1 0.018 0.005 Block 1 0.009 0.018 Block 2 –0.010 0.105 Block 2 –0.007 0.017 Block 3 0.055 0.000 Block 3 0.071 0.000 R2 .015 0.000 R2 .015 0.000

coeffi cient of 0.018 for block 1 in Glasgow tells us that the probability of hav- ing a tie between two organizations there equaled 0.016 (the intercept) plus .018, namely, 0.034 (i.e., the density of that block, see Table 4.3 ). Such increase over the intercept was signifi cant at .005 level. 12 Although the explained vari- ance accounted for by these models was very limited, there were consistent and clear indications for both cities that densities in blocks 1 and – particularly – 3 did not distribute in a random way, in contrast to densities in block 2. The profi le of the networks changes in some important ways, again con- sistently across the two cities, if we look at a more robust measure of cohe- sion , namely, the number of 2-cliques13 in which two organizations are jointly involved. In our case, a 2-clique included organizations that were all connected to each other through at least one shared contact to another clique member; in other words, they may not have been each other’s most important partners, but were linked to at least one other organization that they both regarded as important. While there may be a number of reasons for not being directly involved in an alliance, the principle of transitivity suggests that “your allies’ allies are your allies”; accordingly, sharing many alliance partners is as good an indicator of connection – and perhaps a more robust one – than a direct tie. One could expect that the higher the number of cliques in which two organiza- tions were jointly involved, the stronger their connection and their integration within similar social circles. On this particular measure, Glasgow turned out to be much more connected than Bristol, with 1,778 2-cliques versus 159. 14 The pattern, however, was the same in both cities, with these particular links being overrepresented in block 3 (Tables 4.6 and 4.7 ).

12 In other words, only twenty-fi ve out of the fi ve thousand graphs generated by as many permuta- tions produced larger increases of density than the one found in the real data. 13 In the technical language of network analysis, a 2-clique consists of a set of nodes that are all linked through paths of maximal length two. 14 The analysis was conducted on matrices that had been made symmetric by treating asymmetric ties as symmetric. Had we focused on strictly symmetric data we would have only identifi ed twelve 2-cliques in Glasgow and fi fteen in Bristol. The distribution of clique memberships across the different blocks, however, would not have changed.

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 8800 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:53:30:53 PPMM The Structural Bases of Civil Society 81

Table 4.6 Densities in the Joint Involvement in 2-cliques, all Alliances Network

Glasgow Bristol Blocks Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 1 13.212 2.791 16.743 0.340 0.128 0.874 2 1.023 6.506 0.058 0.334 3 39.910 3.473 N452641505025

Note : Valued symmetric matrix, only upper part showed. The discrepancies in the densities across the two cities are due to the huge differences in numbers of 2-cliques detected in the two cases: 1,778 in Glasgow versus 159 in Bristol.

Table 4.7 Test of Homophily Tendencies within Structurally Equivalent Positions in Civic Networks

Glasgow Bristol Blocks Coeffi cients Signifi cance Blocks Coeffi cients Signifi cance Intercept 8.957 0.999 Intercept 0.346 0.987 Block 1 4.254 0.122 Block 1 –0.006 0.136 Block 2 –7.934 0.004 Block 2 –0.288 0.000 Block 3 30.952 0.000 Block 3 3.127 0.000 R2 0.073 0.000 R2 0.114 0.000

Note : Joint involvement in 2-cliques, all alliance ties.

The analysis conducted so far shows that the incumbents of the position we have called “block 2” were poorly connected to each other and inclined to work mainly independently from the rest of local civil society, at least in terms of active involvement: they were, in other words, closest to an organizational mode of coordination. On the contrary, the strong density of ties in block 3 in both cities, and the relatively strong density of ties in blocks 1, suggests their proximity to social movement or coalitional modes of coordination. However, in order to make more specifi c claims about network dynamics in blocks 1 and 3 of our civic networks, we must look at processes of boundary defi nition.

Defi ning Boundaries through Relations Social boundaries may be associated with symbolic production, social rela- tions, or most plausibly with variable combinations of the two (Lamont and Molnar 2002 ). They imply a symbolic defi nition of an “in” and an “out,” such as that feelings of belongingness and solidarity and identities are likely to be more present inside a certain group/collectivity than outside (Abbott 1995 ; Karafi llidis 2008 ; Tilly 2005a ). In the case of the voluntary organizations that

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 8811 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:53:30:53 PPMM 82 Mario Diani

operate within civil society, it makes even more sense to ask to what extent they also feel bonds to their alliance partners, which go beyond specifi c initia- tives or campaigns and also imply some kind of broader and long-term mutual commitment. These bonds are essential in contexts in which the existence of the collective actor – and hence the construction of boundaries – is so much dependent on interactive processes between formally independent groups and associations (and indeed individuals). In order to explore such bonds we may start, rather than from actors’ representations, from a relational perspective. We may assume, in other words, that the distribution of certain types of relations represents a reason- able proxy for the presence of specifi c boundaries. We could, of course, take interorganizational alliances, and their distribution across local networks, as a sign of the presence of boundaries, but that would be too weak a crite- rion. In themselves, resource exchanges may be driven by purely instrumen- tal calculations, without prefi guring the emergence of modes of coordination with distinct, if informal, boundaries. It is wiser to focus on stronger criteria, such as those refl ected in overlapping personal memberships. In this regard, Simmel’s (1955 ) well-known idea of the intersection of social circles provides a useful starting point for exploring boundary defi nition in relational terms. The main strength of Simmel ’s approach lies probably in its capacity ability to recognize the dual nature of memberships in social groups : 15 individuals differentiate their personality through multiple group memberships; at the same time, groups are distinctive in that they result from the convergence of specifi c individuals, but are also connected to each other by the fact of sharing some of their members. The relation between individuals and organizations in social movements has attracted wide attention (Melucci 1996 ; Taylor and Whittier 1992 ; Whittier 1995 ). By referring to Simmel’s concepts we may locate the idea of movement participation as involvement in multiple groups and associations, both political and subcultural, within a specifi c analytical framework. Attention to overlap- ping memberships represents a criterion to systematically assess the structure of specifi c movements (Diani, 1995 ) as well as broader movement sectors (Carroll and Ratner 1996 ; Diani 2009 ; Mische 2008 ; Vasi 2006 ).16 Activists may also draw their personal acquaintances from milieus directly connected with the core group they belong to. There are, of course, exceptions: membership in sectarian organizations may entail, for example, a drastic reorganization of individual relationships, up to the point that virtually all meaningful social relations develop within the group. In most cases, however, more inclusive

15 Breiger (1974 ). See also Krackhardt (1992 ; 1999 ), Livesay (2002 ), Pizarro (2007 ), and Karafi llidis ( 2008 ). 16 For explorations of how patterns of participation and mechanisms of group defi nition are af- fected by memberships in a broad range of social groups, see among others Gould (1995 ), Lubbers, Molina, and McCarty (2007 ), de Federico de la R ú a ( 2007 ).

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 8822 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:53:30:53 PPMM The Structural Bases of Civil Society 83

styles of participation allow for multiple group memberships and connections. These represent an important connecting element through civil society: It’s often the individuals within the groups that do the collaboration and the network- ing and sometimes this is done almost independently of the grouping. So though they are linked in, it is often the individuals and through those individual relationships that people are with groups. So you will fi nd that there isn’t necessarily what I would see as a formal networks with some groups, but the individuals and their connections with groups create a formal network. (Representative of black and minority community group, Bristol) It is important to note that while in the case of interlocking directorates in busi- ness organizations shared personnel may simply refl ect mechanisms of control, this is different for voluntary organizations that rest largely on solidarity incen- tives. There, multiple involvements provide an indicator, no matter how rough, of whether core activists perceive two organizations as compatible and close to the point of sharing their individual commitments between them. This applies to both grassroots campaign milieus and more formal associations: [Mr. X] . . . is involved in a more professional organization like Transform Scotland but also worked in the M74 campaign and he was also involved in the swimming pool thing . . . the Housing campaign people, they are all encompassing so they know every- thing, they are involved in everything. . . . (Local activist, Glasgow) My wife is the chair of [organization A]. On our committee there are members who are on other committees, Mrs. Y’s sister-in-law runs [organization B]. One of the directors of [organization C] is on our committee. . . . (Representative of Muslim capacity build- ing organization, Bristol) Simmel’s concept of the intersection of social circles also supports a relational, nonessentialist view of identity , which emphasizes people’s capacity to estab- lish connections between different actors and episodes, relevant to their own lives (Flesher Fominaya 2010 ; Melucci 1996 ; Pizzorno 1978 ; Somers 1994 ): People in our movement are usually inspired . . . by lots of other people in the past that have done things . . . there is certainly a high proportion of people that kind of see a much broader perspective of it and see that we are part of a social movement and have looked at other social movements to various degrees . . . from the seventeen year olds to the seventy year olds, there’s an awareness of other movements in that both learning from them but being part of them, and being part for each generation. (Representative of direct action peace group, Glasgow) At the same time, the balance between various group memberships and the resulting collective identifi cations is far from stable. Different group loyalties may fi nd themselves at odds as people may tend again to concentrate on spe- cifi c organizational loyalties: Typically, if you go to a public meeting which might be Stop the War in Kosovo as it was a few years ago or Stop the War Coalition now . . . you will see people that you recognize from CND but you will also see people whom you probably met in other organizations

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 8833 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:53:30:53 PPMM 84 Mario Diani

Figure 4.4 Glasgow, block 1, all resource exchanges.

as well. One of the things is that if you are signed up to all these things I suppose people sometimes their loyalties do get split, they sign up in eager anticipation, in eagerness to join these organizations and then perhaps after a while they fi nd one or two where they feel most at home. (Representative of peace organization, Bristol) When looking for boundary mechanisms, a reasonable proxy is represented here by social bonds , namely, those interorganizational ties that imply both resource exchanges and the deeper connections created by the multiple mem- berships and/or the personal friendships of organizations’ core members. 17 In order to illustrate in a preliminary way why interorganizational alliances and boundary defi nition processes do not necessarily match, let us look at the two blocks that we saw to be densest in terms of resource exchanges in the two cit- ies, starting with Glasgow. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 represent the structure of blocks 1 and 3, without ties to or from actors in other positions. For all the differences in density highlighted in the preceding text, they both appear as quite dense networks of resource exchanges. However, if we look at the smaller proportion of interorganizational ties that we have defi ned as social bonds (Figures 4.6 and 4.7 ), the picture changes drastically. Density dropped in both cases, for obvious reasons, social bonds

17 As we noted in Chapter 3 , the presence of such ties was detected by asking respondents whether their organization shared core members or notorious personal friendships with other orga- nizations’ core members. While we may have obviously missed many more ties of which our respondents were unaware, this is still satisfactory as: (a) we were not interested in friendship or multiple involvements per se but in their role as channels of symbolic and emotional content that rendered two organizations closer to each other; (b) such a role could be played in the most effective way by ties that were also known to other core members of the organization, thus strengthening a shared interpretation of the situation and making claims about the proximity between two organizations.

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 8844 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:54:30:54 PPMM The Structural Bases of Civil Society 85

Figure 4.5 Glasgow, block 3, all resource exchanges.

Figure 4.6 Glasgow, block 1, social bonds.

being a subcategory of resource exchanges. But the amount of reduction dif- fered dramatically in the two cases. The density of block 1 in terms of social bonds came close to nil; whereas organizations in block 3 were still connected through a substantial number of ties. This visual impression suggests that what looked like two fairly similar structural positions in terms of resource exchanges were actually substantially different if one looked at stronger types of ties. Before commenting extensively on the implications of this for our understanding of civil society we need, how- ever, to submit this intuition to a more formal test, and also look at Bristol (where a visual inspection of the networks would generate the same impres- sion). To this purpose we look at the distribution of social bonds across the

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 8855 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:54:30:54 PPMM 86 Mario Diani

Figure 4.7 Glasgow, block 3, social bonds.

three blocks in both cities (Tables 4.8 and 4.9 ). One result is trivial, namely, the very low density of ties in block 2.18 Other points, however, are more interest- ing, and worth commenting on. To begin with, these were very disperse networks, as the number of ties was very limited, less than 1 percent of the possible ties in both cases: the density of the overall network based on social bonds in Bristol was 0.0092, corresponding to 162 ties, twice the size (or less small) than that of the same network in Glasgow (0.0045, corresponding to 69 ties). Similarly to what we had found for all resource exchanges, block 3 was by far the densest in both cities. The same pattern applies if we look at a more robust measure of cohesion, namely, the strength of ties between two organizations, given by the number of 2-cliques in which they were both involved. On this ground, the Bristol network turned out to be the densest: while Glasgow presented a much larger number of 2-cliques in terms of overall interorganizational ties, civic organizations in Bristol seemed more likely to engage in multiple cliques based on social bonds (sixty-eight vs. twenty-six). Despite these slight variations, only organizations in block 3 were found to be linked by a signifi cantly higher number of clique comemberships in either city (Tables 4.10 and 4.11 ) .19

18 It could not be otherwise as the presence of interpersonal links between organizations was probed only for those organizations that were linked as major partners, and these ties were, as we saw, signifi cantly absent from block 2 (see Tables 4.2 – 4.3 ). 19 There are however some noticeable differences in the relative distribution of ties across blocks. E.g., while in the case of resource exchanges Glasgow was overall denser, but the densest block was block 3 in Bristol, as when it comes to social bonds the pattern is reversed. The overall density of the network is higher in Bristol than in Glasgow, but the structural position with the

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 8866 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:54:30:54 PPMM The Structural Bases of Civil Society 87

Table 4.8 Distribution of Social Bonds Across Structurally Equivalent Blocks (Ratio of Ties Observed/Expected in Brackets)

Glasgow Bristol Blocks Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 1 7 6 4 35 27 21 (0.78) (0.78) (0.48) (1.55) (0.99) (1.83) 2 4 2 1 16 7 17 (0.52) (0.31) (0.14) (0.59) (0.22) (1.25) 36435131117 (0.72) (0.57) (4.72) (1.13) (0.81) (3.08) N 453841505925

Table 4.9 Densities in Social Bonds

Glasgow Bristol Blocks Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 1 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.014 0.009 0.017 2 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.012 3 0.003 0.003 0.021 0.010 0.008 0.028 N453841505925

Table 4.10 Densities in the Joint Involvement in 2-cliques, Social Bonds

Glasgow Bristol Blocks Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 1 0.009 0.006 0.011 0.140 0.076 0.153 2 0.001 0.011 0.049 0.145 3 0.187 0.343 N453841505925

Note : Symmetric matrix, only upper part showed.

Table 4.11 Test of Homophily Tendencies within Structurally Equivalent Positions in Civic Networks, Joint Involvement in 2-cliques, Social Bonds

Glasgow Bristol Blocks Coeffi cients Signifi cance Blocks Coeffi cients Signifi cance Intercept 0.009 0.999 Intercept 0.111 0.539 Block 1 –0.000 0.590 Block 1 0.029 0.223 Block 2 –0.008 0.398 Block 2 –0.062 0.023 Block 3 0.177 0.000 Block 3 0.232 0.000 R2 0.045 0.000 R2 0.007 0.026

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 8877 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:54:30:54 PPMM 88 Mario Diani

Defi ning Boundaries through Solidarities Another possible way to explore boundaries with network criteria is by asking whether the organizations that are identifi ed as important partners by others are also seen, at the same time, as the recipients of particular feelings of solidar- ity. Organizations may start alliances, and identify important partners, purely on the basis of instrumental motives. There is no need to feel engaged emo- tionally or to feel linked to other organizations with which one cooperates, if their contribution is important for the pursuing of a specifi c objective or cause. At the same time, in the milieu of voluntary organizations, cooperation is not always purely driven by instrumental calculations. Often, organizations set up alliances with other groups that they regard as crucial partners in the pursuing of broader goals, that have longer-term implications, and around which a dis- tinctive solidarity may develop. In our case (Tables 4.12 and 4.13 ), about one-quarter (23 percent) of the most important ties, making up the Glasgow network, turned out also to have a longer-term solidarity component; in Bristol the proportion was twice as large, reaching 46 percent. Again, to test the strength of the boundary-building mechanisms operating here we may look at the joint 2-clique memberships on which organizations in the different blocks are involved. Cliques refl ect tighter subsets of solidarity links, which suggest stronger boundary defi nition mechanisms than the simple presence of specifi c solidarity ties. Here we fi nd the same pattern as mentioned previously: organizations in block 3 are linked in signifi cantly more cliques, based on solidarity ties, than organizations in other sections of the network.

Conclusions: Network Patterns of Collective Action If we contrast the resource exchange network and those based on the more restricted criterion of social bonds, we notice some important differences between the two structures. Let us recapitulate the main fi ndings. Looking for structural equivalent positions in the network consisting of all resource exchanges (including, in other words, both transactions and social bonds) we identifi ed four positions: two, designated as block 1 and block 3, were rela- tively dense internally; one had low density; and the fourth consisted of iso- lated organizations. Given the similarity in their incumbents’ traits, from now on we collapse the last two into a single position, designated as block 2. Among the organizations involved in dense network positions, those in block 3 displayed in both cities a pronounced homophilic tendency. While being also

highest density (a ratio of observed to expected ties of 4.72 vs. 3.08) is in Glasgow. There is some discrepancy between Glasgow and Bristol in the fact that a nonparametric test of homophilic tendencies yields different indications in the two cities: in Glasgow, only organizations in block 3 (see Table 4.10 ) are signifi cantly more likely to set up social bonds among themselves, whereas in Bristol this seems to be the case – if marginally (p < 0.049) – also for organizations in block 1.

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 8888 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:54:30:54 PPMM The Structural Bases of Civil Society 89

Table 4.12 Densities in Solidarity Ties Attached to Alliance Ties, Joint 2-clique Memberships

Glasgow Bristol Blocks Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 1 0.018 0.009 0.015 0.059 0.022 0.086 2 0.009 0.007 0.024 0.022 0.009 0.062 3 0.015 0.024 0.195 0.086 0.062 0.380 N453841505925

Table 4.13 Test of Homophily Tendencies within Structurally Equivalent Positions in Civic Networks, Solidarity Ties Attached to Alliance Ties, Joint 2-clique Memberships

Glasgow Bristol Blocks Coeffi cients Signifi cance Blocks Coeffi cients Signifi cance Intercept 0.016 0.999 Intercept 0.047 0.539 Block 1 0.002 0.367 Block 1 0.012 0.238 Block 2 –0.009 0.361 Block 2 –0.038 0.010 Block 3 0.179 0.000 Block 3 0.333 0.000 R2 0.045 0.000 R2 0.007 0.026

engaged in substantial exchanges with organizations in other blocks, they were signifi cantly more inclined to engage with those in the same structural position. In substantive terms, in both cities, a section of civil society appeared highly cohesive and strongly interconnected, and also substantially, if not as strongly, linked to other civic sectors. Again in both cities, the organizations located in block 1 were also signif- icantly more inclined to exchange among themselves rather than with other organizations, yet this inclination was weaker than in block 3, and there was a relatively greater propensity to engage with other organizations in the net- work. Their strongest ties were to organizations in block 3, which rendered the two blocks very close in terms of resource exchanges. In network terms, both block 1 and 3 combined structural embeddedness with relational (clique-based) embeddedness (Ansell 2003 ; Gulati and Gargiulo 1999 ). If we looked only at the distribution of resource exchanges generically defi ned, it would even be legitimate to treat the two dense blocks, 1 and 3, as one single structural position. However, this would not really be the best strategy. An inspection of the distribution of stronger ties (social bonds) in the two cities shows that boundary defi nition work affected block 1 and block 3 differently. In both Glasgow and Bristol, block 3 was more cohesive on this particular criterion: incumbents in that position were more densely linked

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 8899 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:54:30:54 PPMM 90 Mario Diani

through direct social bonds, were more involved in cliques based on those ties (relational embeddedness ), and also shared more feelings of mutual solidarity than those in block 1. All this points to much more substantial boundary work going on, and to much tighter boundaries, in block 3 rather than block 1. Whether they were entirely isolates or they owed their structural position to the fact of being chosen by others, organizations in block 2 refl ected a view of collective action that was largely focused on specifi c organizations, and in which external collaborations were occasional only. They refl ected, in other terms, structural embeddedness mechanisms, but not relational ones (they were neither internally cohesive in resource exchanges nor in boundary defi nition). However, this did not mean that lower relational density was synonymous with political irrelevance. Incumbents in block 2 were there largely because they were identifi ed by organizations in the denser parts of the network as impor- tant partners, which testifi es to their infl uence (more on this in Chapter 7 ). What these data tell us is that these organizations were far less inclined than the others to engage with the local civic sector; at the very least, they did not tend to identify important partners among local actors. The specifi c organiza- tion seemed to be the focus of the action, not the organizational fi eld, or any kind of collective actor, at least defi ned at the local level. A purely formal analysis of civil society networks highlights a very similar structure across two otherwise quite different cities. The three structural posi- tions that we identifi ed may be broadly associated with three of the different modes of coordination of collective action discussed in Chapter 1 . More specifi - cally, organizations in block 2, a position that showed low cohesion in resource exchanges and no specifi c relational boundaries, could be arguably closest to an organizational mode of coordination of collective action. According to such a pattern, collective action would be largely promoted within the bound- aries of specifi c organizations, with little effort invested in interorganizational exchanges or in the construction of broader systems of solidarities. The incum- bents of block 2 indeed included some of the very groups and associations that one would have expected to act following an organizational logic: charities such as Barnardo (in both cities); environmental protection associations such as the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) in Glasgow and the Recycling Network in Bristol; or organizations such as Amnesty International (in Glasgow) or Greenpeace (in Bristol), all notoriously reluctant to compromise their profi le as independent organizations by engaging systematically in alliance work with other groups. There were also, however, unusual suspects like, in Bristol, the Greens or CND , as a result of local political tensions; or, in Glasgow, some of the campaigning groups, fi ghting the privatization of public housing in the city.20

20 Of course, one has to take into account the possibility that some organizations be misplaced. However, this happens with all clustering procedures, and represents an unavoidable price to pay for the advantages of data reduction, a fact not always appreciated by critics (Saunders 2007 , 232–3).

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 9900 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:54:30:54 PPMM The Structural Bases of Civil Society 91

In contrast to block 2, block 3 displayed the highest cohesion in resource exchanges and also the most neatly defi ned boundaries, suggesting the stron- gest feelings of collective identity among its incumbents. The high levels of interorganizational networking across multiple relations made this position the closest to a social movement mode of coordination: organizations were not the sole focus of action; they were instead part of a much broader collec- tivity, the members of which interacted at multiple levels. The incumbents of block 3 actually included many of the organizations normally associated with social movements, such as the local branches of Friends of the Earth (in both cities), CND and other antiwar organizations in Glasgow, and left-of-Labour political groups again in both cities (Socialist Party in Bristol and its Scottish counterpart – Scottish Socialist Party [SSP] – in Glasgow). They also included, however, organizations that one would not immediately associate with social movements such as Oxfam (in both cities). Finally, the third position, block 1, was quite dense in resource exchanges, but in contrast to block 3, such exchanges did not take place in a relational setting characterized by strong boundary work. On the contrary, there was no indication of the dense latent ties that might have strengthened the internal solidarity and distinct profi le of the organizational fi eld. The structural pattern in this particular position seems closest to a coalitional mode of coordination. Consistently with the profi le of instrumental alliances as highly heterogeneous settings, incumbents of this position had a very mixed profi le, ranging from fairly protest-oriented groups such as the Poverty Alliance or Positive Action in Housing to the education-focused Meridian in Glasgow, or from asylum seekers and migrants’ rights campaigning groups to charities such as Princess Carers in Bristol. The structure that we have just detected – and in particular the similarities across cities – might be simply the artifi cial result of the clustering procedure we have adopted. Other analyses of civic networks in specifi c localities suggest, however, that this may not be the case. For example, Eggert used Concor to identify structurally equivalent positions within migrants’ organizational fi elds in Lyon and Zurich. She found very different structures in the two cities: in Zurich, the migration fi eld was split into three poorly communicating blocks, each of which displayed an internal structure close to a social movement mode of coordination; in Lyon, structural positions were relatively densely connected to each other and differed in their internal structural properties. The main question that this chapter leaves open is obviously whether the formal network structures we have just identifi ed actually help us to capture important substantive aspects of the political process in the two cities, and to differentiate between different types of organizations. Is there any match between these general characterizations of different network processes, and the traits we normally associate with social movements, voluntary associations, charities, and so forth? Chapter 5 looks systematically at the characteristics of the organizations that occupy different structural positions in civic networks.

99781107100008c04_p70-91.indd781107100008c04_p70-91.indd 9911 111/20/20141/20/2014 22:30:54:30:54 PPMM 7

Network Centrality and Leadership

As the previous chapters showed, although the two cities differed substantially in the location of different types of organizations across different structural positions, they shared nonetheless some important features, central to politi- cal representation and the policy process. In both cities, the incumbents of a social movement position claimed to act on behalf of some excluded groups and in confrontation with explicitly identifi ed social or political opponents ( Chapter 5 ). They were also connected by stronger ties, developed through joint involvement in protest events over the years (Chapter 6 ). Both fi ndings seemed to support a standard view of social movements as representatives of interests that were being denied routine access to the polity, operating through nonroutine repertoires of action.1 At the same time, social movement analysts have long shown the relation between social movements and political institu- tions to be far more complex than that (e.g., Meyer and Tarrow 1998 ; Tarrow 1989 ). In recent decades, political scientists have paid growing attention to the role of groups and associations, representing citizens’ interests, in governance networks and urban regimes (Mossberger and Stoker 2001 ; Sikkink 2009 ; van Deth and Maloney 2008 ). Rather than as mere advocates of excluded inter- ests, citizens’ groups have been increasingly viewed as active players in pol- icy making and policy implementation (Lowndes, Pratchett, and Stoker 2001 ; Maloney, Smith, and Stoker 1999 ). In order to explore how a network perspective may contribute to our understanding of the relationship between civil society actors, political rep- resentation, and political institutions, we will proceed through two distinct yet connected stages. First, we will explore to what extent the conventional image of social networks as systems of horizontal relations actually provides

1 Examples include Tilly’s early polity model (Tilly 1978 ) or classic new social movement theory (Offe 1985 ).

151

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 115151 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:19:12:19 PPMM 152 Mario Diani

an accurate portrait of civic networks and of the distribution of prestige and infl uence within them. In doing so, issues of representation and leadership within complex and heterogeneous organizational fi elds will be addressed. We will then ask in particular how leadership and brokerage roles are shaped within civic networks; what roles associations that operate through social movement modes of coordination play in broader civic networks; and to what extent umbrella groups actually coordinate local civic actors. In Chapter 8 we set out to explore the structure of exchanges between civic associations and local political institutions, differentiating between actors embedded in various modes of coordination.

Centrality and Leadership in Civic Networks Social networks often conceal hierarchies and asymmetries in the patterns of relations between formally independent actors. We are indeed much more likely to identify imbalanced relations within bureaucratic organizations with a formal hierarchy; or, alternatively, within mass movements and/or communi- ties dominated by charismatic leaders. Networks are instead usually associated with decentralization, informality, and horizontal relations. The absence of for- mally defi ned hierarchical positions and the complexity of the interactions tak- ing place in a network combine to provide a view of networks – in the specifi c case, of civil society networks – as largely acephalous or, at best, policephalous (Gerlach 1971 ; 2001 ). However, this view of networks as horizontal and ultimately egalitarian forms of social organization has long been criticized for its overly optimis- tic, self-legitimizing, and misleading nature (Boltanski and Chiappello 2005 , 212–16; Dumoulin Kervran 2007 ). Focusing on the fi eld of collective action, both common sense and the few available empirical studies of civic networks suggest that networks be far from entirely horizontal. On the contrary, they are often centralized with some actors being involved in a much larger number of ties than others. 2 Of course, the main question is whether any correspon- dence should be expected between actors’ network position and their substan- tive power and infl uence, an issue repeatedly debated over the years (Freeman

2 E.g., in their study of transnational human rights networks Lake and Wong (2009 , 128) noted that networks were far from equalitarian. They suggested that this assumption may be plausible in networks that displayed a structure close to a “distributed” model, in which the centrality of actors followed a Gaussian pattern, or a “small-world” model (Watts 2003 ), with dense hori- zontal clusters linked by few ties, but that it would be implausible in those networks in which centrality was heavily imbalanced and possibly followed a “power-law” distribution, with very few nodes having very high centrality scores (Lake and Wong 2009 , 132). Environmental groups in Milan in the 1980s also operated through heavily centralized networks. Not only that: it also happened that the most central actors in that particular network were substantively infl uential and exerted some leadership both within the environmental fi eld, and in interactions with polit- ical institutions (Diani 2003 ).

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 115252 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:20:12:20 PPMM Network Centrality and Leadership 153

1979 ; Knoke 1990a , ch. 1; Mizruchi 1996 ). Although this hypothesis has gen- erated several empirical studies, 3 it has rarely been tested in research on social movements as well as, more broadly, civil society. When this has been done, it has been more frequently in reference to transnational nongovernmental orga- nizations (NGOs) or to networks dealing with global issues than to local civic networks. 4 This is somewhat paradoxical, as the widespread recognition of the importance of the relational dimension of social movements (Gerlach 1971 ; Melucci 1996 ; Tilly 1994 ) should have paved the way to a reformulation in the light of network concepts of issues of power, infl uence, and ultimately leader- ship within social movements. This oversight may be due to the more general indifference to leadership dynamics among social movement scholars, despite rare exceptions (Barker, Johnson, and Lavalette 2001 ; Nepstad and Bob 2006 ), and to left-libertarian movements’ rejection of authoritative leadership fi gures as a matter of principle (Diani and Donati 1984 ; Juris 2008 ). Whatever the case, civil society actors’ suspicion of formal leadership roles does not automatically eradicate the problems leaders used to tackle, or the need for the functions they used to perform. A relational view of leadership (Melucci 1996 , 335–8) suggests that leadership roles need not entail control over a unifi ed organization, or explicit recognition of authority – not to men- tion charisma – by followers. Instead, such roles may also result from certain actors’ location at the center of exchanges of practical and symbolic resources among movement organizations. This will not generate domination, if by that we mean actors’ capacity to impose sanctions over others in order to con- trol their behavior, but rather varying degrees of infl uence . 5 The latter may consist, for example, of actors’ ability to promote alliances among movement organizations: A lot of these campaigning groups on single issues . . . are actually coming in and hav- ing meetings in our building . . . the other thing is that we’ve kind of an approach that is not about “oh we’re the Unions and we only want to be represent ourselves,” we’ve always had coalition building and this is the historical way the STUC has worked as well, we have always felt that if we can unite many voices around an issue it’s much more powerful than just our voice. (Scottish Trade Unions Council representative, Glasgow) We also play a leadership role in relation to perhaps more focused areas of interest, people who want to come together about welfare policy, people who are concerned about the link between equality policy and social inclusion policy . . . people who are

3 These include intra- and interorganizational behavior, elite structure, party formation, and inter- est representation (see, among others, Brass and Burkhardt 1992 ; Laumann and Knoke 1987 ; Laumann and Pappi 1976 ; Padgett and Ansell 1993 ). 4 Examples of the former include Anheier and Katz (2004 ), della Porta (2007 ), Padovani and Pavan ( 2007 ); of the latter, Rosenthal et al. ( 1985 ), Staggenborg ( 1988 ), Diani ( 1995 ), Schou ( 1997 ), Gurza Lavalle et al. (2007 ; 2008 ). 5 See Knoke (1990a , 3–7) for a discussion of the difference between domination and infl uence from a social network perspective.

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 115353 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:20:12:20 PPMM 154 Mario Diani

concerned about local taxation . . . we provide an umbrella for smaller alliances to occur. (Representative of umbrella antipoverty organization, Glasgow) The fact that some organizations are perceived by media and political insti- tutions as “representatives” of civil society may also result in infl uence and capacity to speak on behalf of others even in the absence of formal recognition. A representative of a black and minority umbrella organization in Bristol illus- trated the bidirectional quality of the relations involving institutional actors on one side and grassroots groups and their “representatives” on the other: The police want to work with us because it allows them to work with . . . community groups, community centers, etc. The police could never hope to do that by themselves . . . people can build up relationship with the feeling that there is a level of independence and if the government should decide that fl avor of the month is no longer fl avor of the month then that doesn’t mean that that issue gets dropped from the agenda. (Representative of black and minority organization, Bristol) Let us now explore more closely the relationship between network posi- tion, infl uence, and civic associations’ properties. There are actually several ways to measure actors’ location within social networks, and therefore their potential infl uence. The simplest is the number of ties that actors receive from other actors in the network, or, in the language of network analysis, in-degree (Freeman 1979 ). Also conceptualized in terms of prestige (Wasserman and Faust 1994 , ch. 5), this measure suggests that an organization will be central in its network to the extent that other organizations identify it as a partner in alliances. We can also estimate associations’ infl uence as their capacity to act as intermediaries between other civic groups, and therefore their potential role as communication links. This dynamic is probably best captured by the concept of social broker , defi ned as an actor connecting other actors not directly related to each other (Boissevain 1974 , 148; Burt 2005 ), often in contexts of network segmentation and “restricted access” (Marsden 1983 , 690): part of our strategy worldwide is to be an honest broker in relationships, whether it be between community-based organizations, very local level ones, intermediary organiza- tions which might be working at a national level but are still NGO-type organizations, and then local Government or national Government at Scottish or UK level. . . . We might do grassroots development work or nationally focused work with Government and lobbying and advocacy, what we might call high level campaigning in that it is focused at Government. But also we work more proactively with Government offi cials, who I would then call in partnerships, it’s not just about using them as a target or a focus of campaigning, we actually do partnership working with Government offi cials and use that role to be almost representative of some of the groups and organizations that we work with . . . because of their size and scale and resources, [they] don’t have the same access and we . . . make use of the fact that [we are] a national large scale organi- zation. (Representative of transnational NGO, Glasgow) Although there are good theoretical reasons to differentiate between measures of infl uence based on number of ties and measures based on intermediation,

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 115454 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:20:12:20 PPMM Network Centrality and Leadership 155

the Glasgow and Bristol networks display a very strong correlation between in-degree and the most basic measure of intermediation, betweennes s (.871 in Bristol, .881 in Glasgow). Hence, the empirical sections of this chapter concen- trate on degree measures, which are also the easiest to grasp intuitively. 6 The distribution of in-degree scores did not indicate signifi cant differences between incumbents of different structural positions; accordingly, we can concentrate here on intercity variations. Let us note fi rst the greater presence in Glasgow of organizations identifi ed as a partner by a nonnegligible number of fellow organizations: more than 10 percent of the total was indicated by at least ten other groups as a relevant partner, against only 2 percent in Glasgow. At the same time, Glasgow also featured a higher share than Bristol of groups that no one else mentioned as important partners (43 percent vs. 36 percent). One in two Bristolian organizations were relevant partners to between one and three other organizations, while only one-third were in the same position in Glasgow ( Table 7.1). Altogether, city society looked slightly less centralized in Bristol than in Glasgow, even though differences in proper centralization indexes were not statistically signifi cant (Baldassarri and Diani 2007 ). However, it may be more interesting to look at the distribution of another indicator, measuring perceptions of infl uence. For each alliance tie identifi ed as important by our respondents, we also checked whether the partner orga- nization was considered infl uential either on the respondent’s organization’s strategy, or on local civil society as a whole. Combining the two indicators does not give us an estimate of one organization’s overall perceived infl uence; it tells us, however, about the extent to which in-degree scores match perceptions of infl uence. Such correspondence was much stronger in Bristol than in Glasgow. In the former, each organization was identifi ed on average by almost one other organization as an infl uential partner, which corresponded to about half of the alliance ties in the city and suggested good correspondence between in-degree scores and leadership dynamics. The relation seemed much more tenuous in Glasgow, where only one alliance tie out of seven was addressed to an organi- zation that the source of the tie regarded as infl uential (an in-degree score of 2.84 on alliance ties vs. 0.41 on infl uential ties). Moreover, three-quarters of Glaswegian organizations were never identifi ed as infl uential by their partners, versus half in Bristol, and only a few Glaswegian organizations were identifi ed by more than one partner as infl uential, versus a quarter in Bristol ( Table 7.1 ). Which organizations combined high centrality with a reputation as infl u- ential players? Data are quite consistent with the profi le of the two cities. In Glasgow ( Figure 7.1 ) we found organizations close to a class model of collec- tive action, whether of the moderate (Scottish Trade Unions Council, STUC)

6 Of course, high correlations between in-degree and betweenness scores do not rule out the pos- sibility of outliers, namely, groups low on number of connections but playing essential broker- age roles between different components of a very fragmented network. However, the particular structure of Glasgow and Bristol civic networks enables us to confi dently exclude this possibility.

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 115555 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:20:12:20 PPMM 156 Mario Diani

Table 7.1 Network Centrality and Perceptions of Infl uence

Glasgow Bristol In-degree Mean 2.84 SD 4.6 Mean 1.96 SD 2.8 0 43% 0 36% 1–3 33% 1–3 49% 4–9 13% 4–9 13% 10–22 11% 10–17 2% Infl uential Mean .41 SD .80 Mean .88 SD 1.25 actora 0 73% 0 54% 1 19% 1 21% 2–4 8% 2–8 25%

a Difference across cities signifi cant at .001 level.

Meridian

FOE

Poverty All

Greens

CND SSP

Oxfam Amnesty

SthSide Closure

STUC

SRCWomDrp

Taleem

Posit Act Hous Figure 7.1 Most central organizations in Glasgow. Legend: Circle: “Group embedded in a coalitional position” Square: “Group embedded in an organizational position” Triangle: “Group embedded in a social movement position”

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 115656 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:20:12:20 PPMM Network Centrality and Leadership 157

HHEAG Care Forum

CSV Soil SARI

FoE

Law Centre Refugee Act ECA

Oxfam Cycling Camp Sustrans Figure 7.2 Most central organizations in Bristol. Legend: Circle: “Group embedded in a coalitional position” Square: “Group embedded in an organizational position” Triangle: “Group embedded in a social movement position”

or the radical (Scottish Socialist Party, SSP) type, as well as transnational human rights and development associations such as Amnesty International and Oxfam; groups mobilizing on behalf of ethnic minority women such as Meridian or the Scottish Race Council Women’s Drop-in Center, and groups focusing on social inequality such as South Side Against Closure (of public pools), and the Poverty Alliance. With the exception of Meridian, this set of organizations looked relatively close, for all their differences, to a classic social, left-wing agenda. In Bristol (Figure 7.2 ), attention to urban regeneration com- bined with environmentalism and global cooperation characterized the sector “leaders,” while no union or left-leaning organization was included among them. The most central and (perceived as) infl uential organizations were either environmental (the Soil Association, Friends of the Earth, Hartcliffe Health

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 115757 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:20:12:20 PPMM 158 Mario Diani

and Environmental Action), or focused on community (Easton Community Association, Community Service Volunteers, the Care Forum), at times with a strong attention to global issues such as development and migration (SARI, Support Against Racist Incidents; Oxfam). But should we really be talking about “leaders ?” The most central groups in the two cities (barring one exception in Bristol) seemed to be connected with each other through collaboration activities, which might suggest the presence of a core of most infl uential organizations within the civic sector. However, some caution is in order before assuming that these organizations may be the defi nite leaders of the sector. First, even some of the most central organiza- tions in terms of exchanges were rarely perceived as infl uential. 7 Second, sev- eral of the core actors in the network were reluctant to view themselves as leaders. They rather portrayed themselves as facilitators in public discourse or alliance work: I go out collecting occasionally for [organization XX] and I fi nd that it is quite well known when I speak to people collecting so it’s obvious that there is some penetration of the public mind but I think this is principally achieved through what appears in the newspapers and what appears on television. . . . I don’t regard us as having much leader- ship. (Representative of transnational human rights group, Glasgow) I don’t think we are as involved in shaping [other groups’] agendas as we might like to be, the other thing is that this is an alliance therefore we are not setting out to particu- larly change those organizations, there is as much learning for us to have from working with those organizations as there is for them from us. So we don’t work with organi- zations in a way where we are looking to set their agendas or change their agendas. (Representative of umbrella antipoverty organization, Glasgow) The most central associations also liked to describe themselves as capacity builders: “We don’t consider ourselves leaders but we do consider ourselves an organization who can provide services, and good services and excellent resources for women from black ethnic minorities, and Chinese, we have a large number of Chinese women who use the Centre” (Representative of black and minority capacity building organization, Glasgow). Nor should we forget that, despite a clear correlation between the two measures, none of the “lead- ing” groups was actually perceived as “infl uent” by a high number of its allies. The average number was somewhere between three and four, which hardly suggests widespread infl uence over the civic sector taken as a whole. More gen- erally, the assumption of leadership roles might have been highly contingent on a particular phase. Agendas change as issues gain and lose prominence; specifi c organizations may face internal crises that undermine their overall infl uence; and so on. We might well have been witnessing forms of distributed leadership in which different organizations took the lead in the promotion of specifi c

7 At the time of the project these included, among those shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2 , Positive Action in Housing, Friends of the Earth, and the Greens in Glasgow, and Sustrans, the Law Centre, or Refugee Action in Bristol.

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 115858 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:20:12:20 PPMM Network Centrality and Leadership 159

campaigns, gaining some infl uence as a result, yet without securing a broad base of long-term support within the sector. 8 Even very established organiza- tions claimed to be happy to play a leading role on one particular theme close to their concerns and expertise while being ready to play second fi ddle to other organizations when it came to other issues: We will take a leadership role consciously [if the issue addressed is] mainstream to our agenda around poverty eradication but if it’s peripheral, but we want to support it, we won’t take a leadership role. . . we will be in partnership with [others], we will work, we’ll add our name to things but we won’t necessarily take a proactive involvement. (Representative of transnational NGO, Glasgow) When looking for organizations spanning huge sections of local civic sec- tors, it may have been appropriate to focus on the umbrella organizations that acted as representatives of the voluntary and community sector at large (e.g., Deakin 2005 , 32): in our case, the Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector (GCVS) and its Bristolian counterpart, the Voluntary Organisations Standing Conference on Urban Regeneration (Voscur). Admittedly, GCVS and Voscur were – and are – not the only umbrella groups operating in the two cities. In particular, one should not overlook the organizations working for specifi c sec- tions of the voluntary and community sector, for instance on ethnic and minor- ity issues, housing, or social exclusion. 9 However, GCVS and Voscur were by far the most important and encompassing organizations at the time of our project. They played an important role within civil society as sources of net- working, offering specifi c resources and professional support to service provid- ers and advocacy groups alike. In doing so they contributed to the bridging of different civic sectors and to the formalization of previously informal ties, functions that are not only relevant for civil society, but also constitute some of the fundamental features of collaborative governance regimes as broadly conceived (Tang and Mazmanian 2010 ). In Glasgow, ten groups actually included the GCVS among their fi ve most important partners in recent years, and thirty-six listed it among their other important collaborations. Likewise, in Bristol, eight groups listed Voscur among their most important partners, and fi fty as a relevant collaboration. In one way or another, about four out of ten groups in each city were involved in meaningful collaborations with their major umbrella organization (see Table 7.2 ). This is quite remarkable, con- sidering that umbrella organizations seem to be in touch only with the most established and formalized groups within the voluntary and community sector (Smith, Maloney, and Stoker 2004 , 528).

8 Diani and Donati ( 1984 ) found analogous forms of distributed leadership within social move- ment fi elds in the Milan area in the 1980s. 9 E.g., the Strathclyde Elderly Forum or the Glasgow Anti Racist Alliance (GARA) in Glasgow, or the Black Development Agency in Bristol. Admittedly, it was sometimes diffi cult to clarify whether an organization was only offering services to the voluntary sector or also campaigning directly.

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 115959 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:20:12:20 PPMM 160 Mario Diani

Table 7.2 Ties to Core Umbrella Organizations, by Mode of Coordination

Coalitional Organizational Social Total Movement Glasgow: Ties to GCVS** 60% 32% 17% 37% N 45 38 41 124 Bristol: Ties to Voscur* 46% 34% 60% 43% N 50 59 25 134

Note : Differences between structural positions within each city signifi cant with *p < .10; **p < .001

Both GCVS and Voscur were largely excluded from this analysis as our focus was precisely on civil society’s capacity to establish ties and network forms of organization apart from the opportunities offered by the professional umbrella organizations serving the sector. At the same time, it is important at least to look at how ties to such organizations distributed across differ- ent structural positions within civil society ( Table 7.2 ). In Glasgow, groups involved in a social movement mode of coordination, and strongly embedded in a specifi c sector of civil society through the multiple memberships of their core members, seemed reluctant to engage with the umbrella organizations of the voluntary sector; in contrast, those involved in a coalitional mode of coordination, which saw alliances mainly in instrumental terms rather than as the basis of a new political subject, seemed far happier to coordinate with the local voluntary sector council. Associations acting mainly on their own stood somewhere in between the two extreme cases. In Bristol, we found the oppo- site pattern: actors in a social movement position were actually the most likely to engage with the local umbrella body, while groups largely peripheral to the local civil society network (those involved in an organizational mode of coor- dination) were the least likely to engage with umbrella groups. There, the social movement emerged once again as a form of coordination among others, largely independent of confrontational, antisystemic elements, and lacking the connec- tion to grassroots protest activity found in Glasgow (see also Diani 2011a ).

Explaining Centrality in Movement Networks Even with the qualifi cations that we have just introduced, it is still worth exploring the possible factors accounting for the network centrality of specifi c actors, and therefore their potential infl uence. The list of possible explanatory variables is unsurprisingly long. First, the size of organizational resources has been found to be a signifi cant predictor of degree and indeed brokerage mea- sures (Diani 2003 ). Resources render an organization more visible, and enable it to develop and sustain multiple collaborations. They also allow the appoint- ment of professional staff, likely to possess greater political and technical skills

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 116060 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:20:12:20 PPMM Network Centrality and Leadership 161

than the average movement activist. This may result in some organizations being better equipped to promote successful campaigns on which other actors may converge, thus increasing their centrality (Staggenborg 1988 ). The ability to support other organizations with specifi c competences and skills was central to many activists’ accounts of their organization’s role: We work with a lot of communities scattered across Scotland and what we do is help them, we provide them with assistance, guidance and support, we help them in funding, and so we help them with things that they want to do. . . . I think that what we do is we provide leadership initially but we then will train people to lead themselves. We run a very extensive training program and part of that we run a fi ve day leadership training course . . . you can’t work with the community and tell them what to do, you have to go with them and listen to what it is they want and try to help him deliver that in whatever way that comes. (Representative of conservation group, Glasgow) I will give direct advice about recycling, I will put people in touch with other people if the enquiry requires that and I think that is a very important part of what we do, is to enable people to get in touch with other people who know more or who can do more that is sort of information dissemination. (Representative of transnational environmen- tal group, Glasgow) Centrality may also depend on an organization’s capacity to cover not just more numerous, but more diversifi ed issues than others. Previous research sug- gests a strong correlation between the scope of associations’ agendas, their presence in different policy domains, and their involvement in alliances (Knoke 1990b, 209–10). Therefore, organizations that have a nonoccasional interest in several issues should be more central in the networks, even controlling for other variables.10 As some organizers put it, Very often [our] work will span a number of interrelated issues and it’s that interrela- tionship among issues that sometimes gives a leadership quality, if one may call it that, to certain organizations where they literally become that linking pin. A number of the organizations who will link to us may be an issue-based organization and they have a specifi c remit around a narrow part of work. . . . Dealing with a number of constituen- cies over a number of issues . . . gives the benefi t of organizations seeing problems from a number of angles which can be quite advantageous. . . . And I think that is an added value that I would associate with this notion of leadership. (Representative of black and minority organization, Bristol) STUC also historically has had a remit from its general Council which is about being wider than the [English] Trade Union Council’s remit. The TUC have always sort of taken a narrow view in terms of “we are there to look at employment right issues, to look at issues that directly impact upon our members in the workplace and we don’t really want to go wider than that and look at the whole wide gambit of social problems that affect working people.” . . . I think the STUC, because we didn’t have a Parliament

10 Here, two associations share a nonoccasional interest in a theme when they indicate an interest in at least two issues out of those, linked to one of the fi ve macrothemes introduced earlier in the text (see Table 2.2 .).

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 116161 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:21:12:21 PPMM 162 Mario Diani

up until recently has always had that role in Scotland of looking at all the wider issues and I think it’s something we’ve maybe not moved away from so much. (Representative of STUC, Glasgow) Associations’ inclination to play an explicit political (if nonpartisan) role might have also affected their network prominence. The point is often made that political skills are ultimately more important than organizational resources as determinants of network centrality. Within bureaucracies, managing the struc- ture and securing its survival is likely to become the fi rst object of concern, to the detriment of organizations’ substantive goals: Where there is an offi ce, there’s staff, there’s a sort of hierarchy and a structure and often we feel we put a lot of energy into the structure and the resources instead of the actual campaign itself. You can sit and have whole meetings of different levels of man- agement committees sorting things out . . . we increasingly feel resentful of that amount of time and energy going into that. . . those things actually don’t necessarily facilitate the campaign. (Representative of direct action peace group, Glasgow) There are various reasons to expect political associations to enjoy greater cen- trality. Through their involvement in multiple public events, of both the protest and the civic type, they may develop connections to more groups than would otherwise be the case (see also Chapter 3 ). Moreover, associations focused on some kind of political activity might have the skills enabling them to speak pub- licly and affect public agendas, thus attracting support from other associations: It may be that as political organizations we see the need for networking more . . . when you are, e.g., an educational charity you get on and do the work that your charity gives, you give seminars, you write publications and that is it, whereas when you are actually trying to infl uence the agenda you have to get out there and infl uence other people so you have to create the networks, you have to create the profi le to then push that agenda. We would certainly defi ne ourselves political with a small “p,” defi nitely nonparty polit- ical, that is fundamental to who we are. You couldn’t say that what we do is not politi- cal. (Representative of human rights organization, Glasgow) Because we take a proactive stance to give information to people, we use our website, we use Internet, we use e-mail to put out information to as many groups as possible on a whole range of social issues, because we take a lead on campaigning issues in particular, we speak out on issues and have taken the lead right across the UK and speaking out on the xenophobia of this government toward refugees and asylum seekers and the xeno- phobia of its policy as well. So that means that when you speak out on issues it gets an organization noticed and attracts customers. So I would say that is why people would say “Yes, we have heard of them”. . . we are also more inclined to work with grassroots groups who are in touch with the issue, have their fi nger on the pulse of local issues. (Representative of black and minority housing organization, Glasgow) For some activists, not just political action but protest in particular was crucial, as it offered more space for exerting some kind of “leadership by example”: I think it perhaps leadership by example, by saying that, if there is something you don’t like then you don’t just lay down and take and also one of my favorite slogans is to

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 116262 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:21:12:21 PPMM Network Centrality and Leadership 163

“agonize organize” you know, you have to do something about it and I suppose because we communicate a lot about what we do, the image of people out in a canoe sailing out in front of a Trident Submarine, the image of women with wet suits with hammers going forth to go and behandle this submarine just is empowering, that just as a human being you can take action, you can do something against one of the biggest and might- iest things that faces us. It then I hope encourages people that if somebody wants to build an incinerator on your doorstep, or build on your local park or do things like that then you can feel as an example to people, if they get together, if they organize, if they use all the traditional methods but if it comes to it they go and occupy it, they go and sit on the road, they go and do things then there will be support for that and they can achieve things. (Representative of direct action peace group, Glasgow) Consistently with the logic of division of labor we highlighted in Chapter 3 , groups focusing on service delivery might have indeed considered engaging with groups that were more focused on political action. They might have been happy for others to engage in tactics that they deemed useful but that they would not be prepared to adopt directly, sometimes for statutory reasons too, as in the case of charities: We will still stop short at being a campaigning organization and we really don’t want to do that, other people can do that better than we do. . . we won’t protest, we can present a case, there is a difference between going and supporting something and presenting a case to a body than standing up. We still won’t cross that line. (Representative of con- servation group, Glasgow) At the same time, aspiring leaders might suffer some serious drawbacks from focusing too much on protest: “The more extreme people view the things that you advocate, the more isolated you then become. So even if you wanted to be within the move of the networks, you are not made to feel welcome anyway” (Representative of black and minority group, Bristol). The empirical analysis ( Table 7.3 ) identifi ed once again both analogies and some differences across the two cities. 11 In Glasgow, in-degree centrality was signifi cantly accounted for by two variables. Associations tended to be more central if they had been around for some time, and therefore were more con- solidated and more visible in the local political scene. However, this was not a refl ection of bureaucracies playing more central roles as the formalization index was not signifi cantly correlated to centrality. Strong involvement in pub- lic events was also a positive predictor of associations’ recognition as impor- tant partners. Taken together, these data pointed to a civic sector in which

11 We also included in the models “years in existence” as a control variable. In general, one might have expected groups that had been only recently established to play more peripheral roles in social movement networks. Alliance building depends on factors such as a relatively consolidat- ed organizational structure, the spread of information about the organization and its perception by prospective allies as a relevant political actor, its public visibility. This cannot be achieved overnight. At the same time, beyond a certain threshold, the impact of the length of the period in existence should have decreased.

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 116363 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:21:12:21 PPMM 164 Mario Diani

Table 7.3 Predictors of Centrality Scores (in-Degree; Zero-Infl ated Poisson Regression)

Glasgow Bristol B S.E. B S.E. Years in 0.015 0.004 Years in 0.004 0.004 existence** existence Political action –0.113 0.118 Political action* –0.247 0.109 Bureaucracy –0.183 0.153 Bureaucracy 0.182 0.119 Public events** 0.337 0.122 Public events 0.086 0.114 Issue range 0.028 0.137 Issue range*** 0.318 0.097 (Constant)** 1.096 0.410 (Constant) 0.092 0.269 Log pseudolikelihood = -306.0781 Log pseudolikelihood = -247.5267 Prob > chi2 = 0,0000 Prob > chi2 = 0,003 Infl ated model (no signifi cant Infl ated model (only signifi cant variables) variables) Bureaucracy* –0.623 0.309

p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

a long-term, sustained involvement in city public life resulted in associations playing a central role in alliance networks. In Bristol, the pattern was quite different. The range of issues covered by associations turned out to be an important predictor, as those with a broader agenda were more likely to be identifi ed as important partners in the sector. Interestingly, in contrast to Glasgow, groups’ strong participation in public events did not result in their being identifi ed as important partners. Nor did the adoption of political forms of action, of the conventional as well as of the confrontational type.12 While in Glasgow the most important factor behind a central position was a long, established, and vocal presence in the city’s public life, in Bristol network centrality seemed related to organizations’ capacity to promote relatively broad and diversifi ed agendas, while engaging minimally with explicit political action and pressure.

Conclusions Let us try to summarize our fi ndings on the internal stratifi cation of civic net- works. First of all, the analysis of centrality suggested quite a different com- position of the core of local civic networks. In particular, in Glasgow they

12 Two independent regressions, featuring respectively an index of protest and pressure repertoires in place of the synthetic index of “political action,” included in the equation in Table 7.3 , yielded exactly the same results.

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 116464 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:21:12:21 PPMM Network Centrality and Leadership 165

included major political organizations of the old and new left, most notably the trade unions, the Scottish Socialist Party, and CND . None of their Bristolian counterparts13 seemed to play a signifi cant role in Bristol’s networks. This fi nding points to quite different ways of conceiving the relation between local political parties and civil society. In one case, there was a relatively strong inte- gration, consistently with the dominance of the Labour Party and its collateral groups in Glasgow; in the other case, the civic sector appeared to be more dis- connected, for better or worse, from established political actors (see also Cento Bull and Jones 2006 ). The two civic sectors also differed in the mechanisms that accounted for high centrality scores. In Glasgow, a sustained involvement in all sorts of public events and a long-standing presence in the city increased associations’ reputa- tions as important partners within the sector.14 In Bristol, in contrast, central actors rather refl ected a largely pragmatic view of interest representation, as broader and more diversifi ed issue agendas seemed the key factor in attracting to associations a larger share of alliance partners. All in all, it was diffi cult to identify proper leaders within civic networks that appeared so highly differen- tiated in terms of agendas and approaches to collective action. Our next step is to see to what extent differences in centrality within civil society affected the intensity and the quality of the relations that civic associations entertained with local political actors and public agencies.

13 In the case of the Scottish Socialist Party, this consisted of the Socialist Alliance, a coalition of various left-of-Labour political organizations in England and Wales. Active in various composi- tions between 1992 and 2005, from the late 1990s it included the Socialist Worker Party, which was also one of the founders of the Scottish Socialist Party. 14 A regression of “perceptions of infl uence” over the same variables generated identical results, which explains why there is no specifi c discussion of the determinants of perceived infl uence in this chapter.

99781107100008c07_p151-165.indd781107100008c07_p151-165.indd 116565 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:12:21:12:21 PPMM 8

Civic Networks and Urban Governance

In Chapter 7 we found civic networks to be far from horizontal. On the contrary, they displayed deep variation in actors’ capacity to attract support from others and to be regarded as relevant and, often, infl uential partners. It is now time to look at the relation between civil society actors and the polities in which they operate from a network perspective. Network concepts have strongly infl uenced the analysis of policy processes at large. Some (in particu- lar Knoke et al. 1996 ; Laumann and Knoke 1987 ) have used network analytic tools to map the multiplexity of interactions within specifi c policy domains and to illustrate the central role of interest groups in the workings of contem- porary state. Others (e.g., Bruszt 2008 ; Piattoni 2010 ; Sø rensen and Torfi ng 2007 ; Stoker 1998 ) have drawn more loosely upon the concept of network to capture the peculiarity of governance processes, going beyond the strict formal boundaries of state and supranational institutions. The urban dimension of politics has been repeatedly explored in an effort to link urban transforma- tions, the emergence of new political actors, and the growth of new patterns of interest representation and mechanisms of local governance. In that context, the mobilizing role of civil society organizations in reference to both political advocacy and service delivery has attracted special attention (DiGaetano and Strom 2003 ; John 2001 ; 2009 ; Le Gal è s 2002 ; Lowndes, Pratchett, and Stoker 2001 ). That is also the focus of this chapter. In the next section, we look at different types of connections between civic actors and local institutions, and at some possible determinants of an intense relationship. We then move on to assess briefl y the quality of local democracy and the response to the partici- patory innovations introduced in Britain in the late 1990s, again taking as a reference point the quality of the interactions between civic and local institu- tional actors.

166

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 116666 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:05:18:05 PPMM Civic Networks and Urban Governance 167

Civil Society and Political Institutions The relationship between civic organizations and institutions has been the subject of an enormous amount of research and debate since the 1980s, partic- ularly in the United Kingdom (e.g. John 2001 ; John 2009 ; Lowndes, Pratchett, and Stoker 2001 ; Maloney, Smith, and Stoker 1999 ; Smith, Maloney, and Stoker 2004 ; Taylor 2003 ). From a network perspective, we asked fi rstly whether organizations located in different structural positions, that is, involved in different modes of coordination, also enjoyed different relational patterns to institutional actors. As collective action has been classically regarded as the favorite option for organizations excluded from the polity (Tilly 1978 ), actors involved in a social movement mode of coordination might have been reason- ably expected to be less connected to institutions; conversely, actors operating through organizational modes, namely, focusing on their own organizational boundaries and making limited investments in the building of broader collec- tive actors, should have enjoyed stronger and more diversifi ed connections to local government, statutory agencies, and their staff. However, several lines of more recent research, including Tilly’s own (e.g., Tilly and Tarrow 2007a ) have emphasized the continuity between social movement and other forms of politics, or claimed the impossibility of differentiating altogether between “social movements” and “interest groups” (Burstein 1998 ). We also explored the hypothesis that organizations that were regarded as infl uential by their alliance partners may also enjoy more signifi cant access to different types of institutional actors (Diani 2003 ). Being identifi ed by many civic organizations as an infl uential alliance partner might have also turned the same organizations into credible interlocutors for public authorities. More specifi cally, we assessed these arguments with reference to the following dimensions: (a) exchanges with individual institutional actors, that is, local politicians and civil servants; (b) overall levels of collaboration with local council units and with public pri- vate partnerships; (c) overall levels of satisfaction with their relation to local political institutions; and (d) opinions about the general state of the voluntary and community sector. Table 8.1 summarizes some forms of the relation between civic associa- tions and institutional actors. Although local politicians and civil servants were originally treated as two distinct categories, no consistent differences emerged between them; hence data are presented in aggregate format. Let us focus on differences across cities fi rst. These were signifi cant for only three items, indi- cated in bold: associations in Glasgow were more likely to pass information to politicians or civil servants than in Bristol, and to help them in the design and implementation of public policies; at the same time, a signifi cantly higher share of associations (about one-third) claimed not to be involved in any collabo- ration whatsoever with institutional actors. On most items, however, the two cities were fairly similar, confi rming once again the substantial homogeneity of the two civic sectors. Exchange of information, in both directions, was the

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 116767 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:06:18:06 PPMM Total Movement

Total Coalitional Organizational Social

Movement Glasgow Bristol cant differences across cities. cant differences across cities. 7164 6858 6820 8342 55 24 54 74 39 63 62 20 60 59 20 21 58 59 34 50 49 20 66 30 51 52 60 12 25 52 53 40 51 44 20 31 762722 61 37 29 58 36 65 32 30 27 46 18 24 51 19 32 48 16 48 36 18 30 Coalitional Organizational Social

4135718191217 Civic Associations’ Relations to Institutional actors (Politicians and Civil Servants) and Civil Servants) (Politicians Associations’ Relations to Institutional actors Civic

Bold characters indicate signifi

: information to information them information from them demands to the public to key decision makers making policy them any help them any any help from them Table 8.1 Note We pass We receive We They represent our connect them We They connect us help them with We We do not give do not give We do not receive We No ties at all N 45 38 41 124 50 59 25 134

168

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 116868 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:06:18:06 PPMM Civic Networks and Urban Governance 169

most frequent type of relation, followed by politicians and civil servants acting as representatives of citizens groups’ constituencies. The role of civic actors as bridges between institutions and the public seemed to be more limited. Contacts with local politicians were particularly important as they represented the easiest and socially most acceptable way to keep alive essential connections between civic groups and the political milieu: We don’t have formal links with any of the political parties so that we can maintain and be seen to maintain our independence. . . . It is one of the things we guard very closely because we wouldn’t want to be seen to be favoring one party over another so any event that involves a politician will involve more than one so that there is representation of at least two, but preferably all three of the major parties. Most of our links with any of the parties come from our work with member of the Scottish Parliament and that’s all of them. (Representative of human rights group, Glasgow) Altogether, only one group out of ten seemed to have no collaboration whatso- ever to specifi c institutional actors, and this isolation was more pronounced in Bristol than in Glasgow. This suggests a very high number of contacts indeed, as another, slightly earlier study indicated that in Birmingham about 56 percent of civic organizations were in regular contact with council offi cers or councilors (Maloney, Smith, and Stoker 1999 , 807).1 Flows of individuals between public offi ce and senior posts in the voluntary and community sector seemed to be another important indicator of interconnectedness between the two: In fact people fl ow in and out of working for the local authority and working for [local] organizations. In particular I was thinking of Friends of the Earth. I’ve known people fl ow from being offi cers within the local authority into working for the organizations such as the Recycling Consortium and then out to working directly for Friends of the Earth. I can think of one case of that. I know that’s not saying that’s all but there does seem to be this fl ow of people around the environmental organizations. (Representative of local environmental group, Bristol) The most striking fi nding, however, related to the very modest differences between structural positions within each city. Social movement actors in Bristol were signifi cantly more inclined to see themselves as bridges between institu- tions and the public, while their counterparts in Glasgow were reluctant to see institutional actors as useful sources of contact for their activities (i.e., as friendly gatekeepers), but those were the only notable differences. This con- trasted starkly with what is reported throughout the previous chapters, at least in reference to Glasgow. We had a better grasp of the relationship between civil society and politi- cians/civil servants when we looked for possible predictors of a more diversi- fi ed and richer collaboration. To this purpose we regressed the same variables used to predict centrality within the civic sector on an additive indicator of

1 The fact that our unit of analysis is skewed toward the most central organizations within civic networks probably accounts for a huge part of these differences.

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 116969 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:06:18:06 PPMM 170 Mario Diani

Table 8.2 Poisson Predictors of Amount of Ties to Politicians and Civil Servants (Range 0–6; B Coeffi cients)

Glasgow Bristol B S.E. B S.E. Years in existence 0.000 0.002 Years in existence 0.000 0.003 Political action 0.025 0.049 Political action*** 0.218 0.046 Bureaucracy** 0.138 0.049 Bureaucracy*** 0.247 0.065 Public events** 0.111 0.035 Public events 0.044 0.045 Issue range 0.010 0.028 Issue range –0.039 0.040 Movement –0.085 0.102 Movement 0.152 0.122 position position Infl uence –0.045 0.048 Infl uence** 0.069 0.028 (Constant)*** 1.168 0.100 (Constant)*** 0.861 0.100 Prob > chi2 = 0.0015 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log pseudolikelihood = -221.67778 Log pseudolikelihood = -220.06152 Pseudo R2 = 0.0316 Pseudo R2 = 0.0826

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

institutional relationships, combining all the different types of relations pre- sented in the preceding text (range 0–6; see Table 8.2 ). We added location in a social movement position and the number of times organizations had been recognized by others as infl uential to the list of independent variables. 2 In both cities, having a bureaucratic structure and being able to count on the resources associated to it correlated positively with a more diversifi ed relation to indi- vidual institutional actors. In Glasgow, this corresponded once again with high levels of involvement in public events, protest and civic alike. This signals the capacity of local institutions to engage with civic groups that were highly involved in the political life of the city, regardless of their specifi c approach. In Bristol, by contrast, broad links to institutions seemed rather the preserve of groups able to take up leadership roles within the civic sector: ties to insti- tutions were positively correlated with perceptions of infl uence in the sector and with the political nature of civic groups (meaning the groups’ willingness to engage in broad repertoires of action, and their self-defi nition as explicitly political actors, rather than as service providers: see Chapter 2). As for connections to institutional bodies, we looked in particular at links to various city council departments , and at involvement in public-private part- nerships. Ties to units of city councils were numerous, regardless of whether

2 See Table 8.1 . The measure of infl uence was included in the model rather than the simple in-degree , used in earlier studies (Diani 2003 ), to reduce issues of multicollinearity (in contrast to in-degree, “infl uence” does not correlate with any of the other independent variables). However, running a model with in-degree instead of infl uence generated exactly the same results.

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 117070 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:06:18:06 PPMM Civic Networks and Urban Governance 171

Table 8.3 Ties to Council Departments and Involvement in Public-Private Partnerships

Glasgow Bristol Total Percentage of units with which group is in touch out of all departments None 9% 8% 8% Less than one-third 47% 45% 46% Between one- and two-thirds 29% 40% 35% More than two-thirds 15% 7% 11% Percentage of units with which group has satisfactory relations None 26% 24% 25% Less than one-third 15% 10% 12% Between one- and two-thirds 29% 23% 26% More than two-thirds 30% 43% 37% Involvement in partnerships 0 45% 35% 40% 1 22% 24% 23% 2–3 13% 18% 16% More than 3 20% 23% 22%

associations focused or not on the local sphere ( Table 8.3). In both cities, less than 10 percent of the organizations had no ties to any city council department; almost half of them were connected to up to one-third of their council depart- ments (there were twelve units in Glasgow, six in Bristol), while the rest had more diversifi ed contacts (between one-third and two-thirds of council depart- ments in most cases). The two cities did not differ signifi cantly in civic organiza- tions’ collaborations with council departments, and also displayed similar levels of involvement in partnerships. However, associations were less involved with partnerships than with council departments: close to 40 percent participated in none, while a slightly smaller proportion of organizations participated in two or more. As in the case of connections to politicians and civil servants, ties to city council departments and involvement in partnerships did not show any signif- icant difference between structural positions within civic networks (Table 8.4 ). In particular, associations occupying a social movement position were just as involved in institutional collaborations as other organizations. What accounted, then, for associations’ involvement with council depart- ments and partnerships? We can fi t here the same model we used to predict ties to politicians and civil servants. Let us look at ties to council units fi rst ( Table 8.5 ). In both cities, associations with high formalization and a strong bureaucratic profi le were the likeliest to engage with a broad range of council departments, consistently with what emerged from the analysis of ties to indi- vidual institutional actors. The positive relationship between institutional con- tacts and amount of participation in local public events in Glasgow was also

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 117171 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:06:18:06 PPMM

Total Movement 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 41 38 49 41% of council departments with which they collaborate partnerships Total Coalitional Organizational Social Movement Glasgow Bristol 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.2 Number of 46 36 36 39% Percentage Coalitional Organizational Social Relations to Council Departments and Involvement in Partnerships by Structural Position within Civic Networks within Civic Networks Position Structural by in Partnerships Relations to Council Departments and Involvement

of council departments with which they collaborate partnerships N 45 38 41 124 N 50 59 25 134 Percentage Number of Table 8.4

172

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 117272 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:06:18:06 PPMM Civic Networks and Urban Governance 173

Table 8.5 Poisson Predictors of Ties to City Council Departments (Range 0–6; B Coeffi cients)

Glasgow Bristol B S.E. B S.E. Years in –0.005 0.003 Years in –0.007 0.005 existence existence Political action 0.035 0.077 Political action 0.081 0.057 Bureaucracy* 0.136 0.064 Bureaucracy*** 0.269 0.065 Public events* 0.163 0.068 Public events –0.017 0.064 Issue range** 0.131 0.042 Issue range 0.073 0.044 Movement –0.264 0.154 Movement 0.174 0.146 position position Infl uence 0.002 0.063 Infl uence –0.023 0.044 (Constant)*** 1.313 0.149 (Constant)*** 0.746 0.134 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Prob > chi2 = 0.0004 Log pseudolikelihood = –313.07404 Log pseudolikelihood = –215.72883 Pseudo R2 = 0.1060 Pseudo R2 = 0.0592

*p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Table 8.6 Logistic Coeffi cients Predicting Involvement in Public-Private Partnerships

Glasgow Bristol Odds S.E. Sig. Odds S.E. Sig. Ratios Ratios Years in 0.993 0.011 0.540 Years in existence* 0.972 0.013 0.036 existence Political action 1.243 0.321 0.398 Political action 1.137 0.238 0.539 Bureaucracy** 2.207 0.566 0.002 Bureaucracy*** 2.152 0.495 0.001 Public events* 1.791 0.450 0.020 Public events 0.893 0.219 0.645 Issue range 0.900 0.130 0.468 Issue range 0.847 0.131 0.282 Movement 0.386 0.204 0.072 Movement 1.447 0.784 0.495 position position Infl uence 1.415 0.401 0.220 Infl uence 1.161 0.211 0.413 Prob > chi2 = 0.0009 Prob > chi2 = 0.080 Log likelihood = -73.112213 Log likelihood = -71.698867 Pseudo R2 = 0.1436 Pseudo R2 = 0.1173

*p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

confi rmed. Covering a broad range of issues also seemed to matter, the only instance of agenda differentiation having some relevance in Glasgow but not in Bristol. Associations with a bureaucratic, professional structure were also more likely to be involved in at least one partnership (Table 8.6 ). Participation in

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 117373 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:06:18:06 PPMM 174 Mario Diani

public events in Glasgow once again mattered. In Bristol, organizations more recently established also seemed more likely to become involved in partner- ships. The overall indication from the analysis of ties to councils and part- nerships confi rms the greater institutional involvement of associations with a formalized structure. While this is hardly surprising, it is not the only element of note. In Glasgow, associations with a strong public profi le, active in many important local events on a broad range of issues, were more likely to have intense collaborations with council units. This was by no means guaranteed, as they might have been inclined to take to the streets and go public as an alterna- tive to more discreet and lower profi le work with local government branches. The fact that the relation also held when we focused on protest events instead of looking at all events (p < .001) further strengthens the case for the impor- tance of public arenas in shaping Glasgow civic politics.

The Quality of Local Democracy Of course, apart from the sheer amount of institutional collaboration, it also matters how civic associations evaluated not only their dealings with councils and partnerships, but also more generally the state of the volun- tary sector. The repeated attempts conducted by British governments over the years, in different formats, to involve citizens and their associations in the planning and, in particular, implementation of public policy have met with a mixed reception. Claims that a growing involvement of the voluntary and community sector in public policy would result in citizens’ empowerment and in a revitalization of fading communal solidarities have been repeatedly questioned. Public-private partnerships have been portrayed as dominated by business actors (e.g., DiGaetano and Strom 2003 , 379–80), and schemes such as the New Deal for Communities have been associated to market logics and a top-down view of institutional innovation rather than to community, solidaristic logics, and bottom-up perspectives (e.g., MacLeavy 2009 , 872). The very use of the term community has been questioned as a purely rhe- torical device, serving to legitimize “depoliticized and demeaning versions of empowerment” (Shaw 2008 , 34; for a more radical view of the issue, see, e.g., Farrar 2003 ). While not all analysts have been comprehensively skeptical toward the new participatory trends in British policy in the 1990s (Smith, Maloney, and Stoker 2004 ; Stewart 1996 ; Stoker 2005 ), it is nonetheless important to explore to what extent critical stances echoed with civic associations’ perspectives on these themes. Table 8.7 summarizes group representatives’ views on a number of general issues. There seemed to be two major underlying dimensions, one measuring the overall attitudes toward the spread of consultative mechanisms and the role of New Labour in bringing them about; the other, assessing trends of grassroots participation in the voluntary sector. On the fi rst set of issues, there was substantial disagreement on the nature and real impact of the policy

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 117474 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:06:18:06 PPMM Civic Networks and Urban Governance 175

Table 8.7 Opinions on the Situation of the Civic Sector in the United Kingdom

Agree with Approve of Aware of statement partnerships and participation professionalization crisis Participation in public-private 52% .711 partnerships and consultative forums facilitates networking between citizens organizations Public-private partnerships 46% .703 and consultative forums give citizens organizations access to useful information about grant opportunities Professional staff play a very 67% .554 positive role in citizens organizations The 1997–2001 Labour 39% .534 government was more open to citizens organizations’ demands than its predecessors Public-private partnerships 35% –.614 and consultative forums are exercises in public relations without any value to citizens organizations Less and less people are willing 41% .661 to participate in protest activities Most voluntary organizations 25% .593 are more interested in their survival than in their ultimate goals Less and less people are willing 43% .591 to devote themselves to unpaid work to voluntary organisations Explained variance20% 15%

Note : Respondents were asked twelve questions about their level of agreement, on a fi ve-point scale, with a number of statements about the current situation of voluntary and campaigning groups in contemporary Britain. Principal component analysis generated two rotated (Varimax solution) factors with eigenvalue above 1. The 1–100 scales used in Table 8.8 refl ect the percentage of statements with which respondents fully or partially agreed, out of those with factor loadings of .5 or higher. Statements with lower loadings are not reported.

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 117575 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:06:18:06 PPMM 176 Mario Diani

innovations introduced by New Labour. About 40 percent recognized substan- tive progress over previous Conservative governments: We are now getting much more into partnership with the [Scottish] Executive. . . . I think just with the coming about of the [Scottish] Parliament and having a Labour Executive especially, we have sort of been trying to look both ways in the last couple of years so we are still doing the “out in the street stuff” as much as we possibly can and trying to keep our connection with the people and with all these groups but we are also doing all the behind closed door stuff to a degree that we’ve never done before . . . in some ways we are able to say, “well on issues we do agree with the Government on, we will use as much public funding as possible to progress those issues but on other areas we reserve our right to still hit the streets and get together with all those other groups.” (Representative of Scottish unions, Glasgow) The open question was, however, to what extent participatory schemes were really capable of involving citizens in policy planning and implementation. About half of respondents stressed in particular the positive role of partnerships in supporting networking and providing access to crucial information, while a similar share saw in them primarily a public relations exercise (Table 8.7 ). For critics, the implementation of the schemes was far too top-down, as well as too bureaucratic in its procedures, to be effective: The government rhetoric is that the community and voluntary sector is central to its policies in all sorts of areas but the impact of that is that it co-opts organizations so they lose their own agenda, they are so bogged down with bureaucratic processes. . . . I think these are unexpected impacts from something well meaning . . . [for example] Neighbourhood Renewal initiative . . . is meant to be community led but in reality com- munity groups and local people have had very little real participation in that and most of the money is being spent before local alliances and partnerships have been formed to determine how the funding should be spent, and how the strategy should develop, so there’s a lot of tensions around just about all of those 10 communities. . . . [The scheme] is very clearly making a difference in different neighborhoods if there are organiza- tions that see themselves as political campaigning organizations to challenge them. (Representative of umbrella organization, Bristol) However, not all voices were so dismissive of the potential impact of those schemes on communities’ mobilizing capacity: We come into contact with a number of fairly active residents groups who really do want to try and put the squeeze on the authorities. . . . In that sense these sorts of groups will recognize opportunities such as Neighbourhood Renewal . . . what I see is that the top-down structures that seek to change social conditions for people in the environment or in that specifi c location have stimulated a level of interest in local people and local groups. Where we are not just willing to sign and tick the boxes to say we have attended meetings but there is a lot more scrutiny as to what’s happening and I think there’s a lot more political pressure. (Representative of community association, Bristol) Another related criticism of participatory schemes, linked to its presumed top-down nature, had to do with the selective nature of the process and the

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 117676 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:06:18:06 PPMM Civic Networks and Urban Governance 177

tendency to differentiate between “insider” and “outsider” groups within the voluntary sector. While this was by no means a novelty in the relation between civic associations and political institutions, many questioned whether there had been any real improvement. Criticisms included, for example, councils’ attempts to control the community sector: Informal groups [that] were not liked by local councilors . . . were killed off, and the organizations which was supposed to replace them never developed. . . . In general, com- munity initiatives are very much affected – mostly although not always negatively – by Labour internal politics. . . . There is a particular history of local council politics, namely its attempts to control the community groups. . . . From [their] perspective, many vol- untary organizations are “dismantling the state,” and they should either be brought to obedience or hammered. (Representative of umbrella organization, Glasgow) I’ve taken part in consultations where, because of the nature of [our] organization . . . they’ll have us at the meeting but they won’t have other organizations . . . the small NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] are not on it, the local authority wouldn’t have them. And there is a whole thing about local government not wanting to relate to very local organizations because they seemed to be politically biased whereas us again they don’t have that problem. (Representative of transnational NGO, Glasgow) Differences in council attitudes also varied depending on the issue, with rep- resentatives of consensual issues such as human rights being much more wel- comed than groups challenging council policies: I think there is this whole question . . . of not upsetting the powers that be, which depends a bit on the issue, certainly in terms of our relationship with Glasgow Council . . . [they] will quite happily adopt radical positions on some of the issues we are involved in whereas community groups concerned about housing fi nd themselves fi ghting Glasgow Council because there the relationship is a different one. Similar themes were addressed when discussing the current state of citizens’ participation. While a sizeable majority (two-thirds) seemed to appreciate the positive contribution that professional staff could make on behalf of civic associations (Table 8.7 ), more than 40 percent of respondents were skepti- cal of citizens’ will to mobilize, in voluntary action in general as well as in protest: The last meeting I attended in George Square, and it had a small march associated with it, the square was only one-third full, now that is painful as a demonstration of Glasgow’s interest in antinuclear attitudes and peace. We used to get vast meetings, great big marches. . . . A meeting would fi ll the square, people would be overfl owing onto the other side of the street. . . . It applies to the Labour Party, it applies to the Trade Unions. I was a member of the Labour Party who fought the 1945 and 1950 campaigns, you know the nationalization campaigns, the really big ones, the ones that mattered. (Representative of human rights transnational organizations, Glasgow) About a quarter of respondents went as far as to blame civic organizations for focusing exclusively on their own survival. Funding mechanisms were singled

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 117777 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:06:18:06 PPMM 178 Mario Diani

out for making civic organizations heavily dependent on public agencies and politicians: Neighborhood associations, development trusts and that sort of thing are not confron- tational in any way. They are very careful not to be confrontational, I think a lot of the time because they get funding from the local authority. . . . There are economic organiza- tions, local entrepreneurial creations which are concerned about urban regeneration for example but they don’t consider it their responsibility to confront because a lot of the time they are almost “in bed,” if you know what I mean, with the local authority. (Representative of interfaith organization, Bristol) At times, this led to an overall dismissal of the role played by the voluntary sector: “The voluntary sector is something I really don’t like and I think is just terrible, it’s an adjunct of government and bureaucratic systems throwing up professionals who would represent no one, except somehow themselves or their sector” (Representative of black and minority organization, Bristol). According to critics, this tended to happen when voluntary organizations became too identifi ed with institutions, to the point of ending up acting on their behalf in relation to policy implementation: [Some organizations] are contracted to National Asylum Support System, what does that mean? That means you are doing the job of the Home Offi ce. The job of the Home Offi ce is essentially racist. Dispersal of refugees, the treatment of refugees and they are just a service provider catering the demands of the Home Offi ce, that is not about equal rights, it’s not about refugee rights, it’s not about representing the rights of refugees it’s about cannoning out the contract of the Home Offi ce. (Representative of black and minority housing association, Glasgow) At the same time, there was recognition of the diffi culties that voluntary orga- nizations faced when trying to combine the free expression of their policy options with their fi ght for survival: [Charities] have sold themselves and therefore they cannot speak out as much as they could. For example, it was walking on a knife edge last year, the whole of the last eigh- teen months, when we had to speak out on issues on asylum . . . and each time it was quite frightening to think “could this affect our funding,” particularly with local issues, for example, the issue of detention . . . politically minded organizations are going to say whatever because they have nothing to lose, charities have a lot to lose, they have fund- ing to lose and I am very conscious of that when I speak out on these issues, because it is important to speak out but plan to do it in a way so that you can save your organiza- tion. (Representative of black and minority housing association, Glasgow) On both sets of orientations, differences across structural positions within civic networks followed the pattern highlighted in the previous chapters, that is, they were signifi cant in Glasgow but not in Bristol. In Glasgow, groups in the social movement position were more critical of the participatory schemes that emerged under New Labour, and less pessimistic about the presumed crisis of participation and protest; in Bristol, they did not differ from the rest of the sec- tor (upper rows in Table 8.8 ). However, when we turned to how organizations

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 117878 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:07:18:07 PPMM Total

Movement 19% 11% 17% 15% 66% 52% 52% 57% 53 45 47 48 38 40 32 38

partnerships useless departments out of total ties professionalization (1–100) (1–100)

Total Coalitional Organizational Social Movement Glasgow Bristol 29% 5% 22% 19% Find public-private 40 49 34 41 Participation crisis 53 45 36 45 Approve of PPPs and 43% 49% 55% 49% Positive ties to council Coalitional Organizational Social

Opinions About the Overall Situation of the Voluntary Sector and Own Group’s Relations with Institutions Sector and Own Group’s Voluntary Situation of the About the Overall Opinions

< .05; **p .01 (differences between structural positions within each city) partnerships useless professionalization to council departments out of total ties

N*p 45 38 41 124 N 50 59 25 134 Find public-private (1–100)* Approve of PPPs and (1–100)** Participation crisis Positive ties Table 8.8

179

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 117979 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:07:18:07 PPMM 180 Mario Diani

evaluated their own specifi c contacts with council units and partnerships, we found not only strong similarities between the two cities , in line with previous chapters, but also between structural positions within the same city . Civic associations rated about half of their ties to council departments as positive (49 percent in Glasgow, 57 percent in Bristol: Table 8.8 ), a fi gure largely comparable to the 50 percent of their counterparts in Birmingham claiming a good working relationship with their council according to a similar study (Maloney, Smith, and Stoker 1999 , 808). More specifi cally, all associations were linked to at least one council unit; although about one-quarter of them were wholly dissatisfi ed with their experience, 30 percent of the organizations in Glasgow and more than 40 percent in Bristol regarded as satisfactory more than two-thirds of their ties to council units (these fi gures are not reported in Table 8.8 ). As for participation in partnerships, associations with such experi- ences (55 percent in Glasgow, 65 percent in Bristol) evaluated them in largely positive terms: among them, only 15 percent of organizations in Bristol and 19 percent in Glasgow actually found their participation useless ( Table 8.8 ). Moreover, groups in a social movement position were neither more critical of council departments nor more dismissive of partnerships than other organiza- tions ( Table 8.8 ). Where some difference could be found, as in Glasgow, this tended to be found between associations involved in coalitional processes, who were the most critical of partnerships, and those working largely on their own, by far the most in favor. In sum, there seemed to be – in Glasgow in particular – a gap between the overall perceptions of the role of partnerships and other institutional col- laborations, and the evaluation of groups’ direct experience. In Glasgow at least, associations involved in social movement processes might well have been critical of institutional collaborations as long as they remained on the ground of general principles, but they were more positive (or at least no more critical than the rest of civil society) when it came to their concrete experiences. Even direct action groups seemed to have some kind of “working relation” with the institutions: There are some publicly announced blockades, actions where because there’s a large number of people coming and there are safety issues about parking and make sure peo- ple don’t get run over, things like that where we have to work together. Also if there is going to be a large number risking arrest, they have to be prepared for that, you know that if they have police stations properly briefed for lots of people coming in, people have a less uncomfortable time than if we spring three hundred people on them. So we work together and we give a certain amount of information, we give it, we don’t nego- tiate, we say this is what we are doing, and they say, this is what we are doing and we communicate but we might negotiate about parking spaces or something like that but we don’t water down our protest to anything that the police say. (Representative of direct action peace group, Glasgow) Each group’s specifi c experience with council departments and/or partnerships seemed indeed very much mediated by intervening factors such as the quality

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 118080 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:07:18:07 PPMM Civic Networks and Urban Governance 181

of the civil servants concerned, or the nature of the specifi c issues addressed. However, it proved diffi cult to attempt broader explanations for these variables as the models fi tted have so far not shown any explanatory capacity on this particu- lar ground. 3 They worked, though, if on a modest basis, when the focus was again on broader attitudes toward the voluntary and community sector, and related policies, in general (see Table 8.9 ). Formal structure and bureaucratization, again, turned out to be a crucial predictor of a positive approach to professionalization and the new collaborative arrangements, such as partnerships, so central to the New Labour agenda of the late 1990s and early 2000s. By contrast, organizations with a political profi le in Glasgow were less likely to approve of the civic sector’s growing professionalization, consistently with the more contentious political cul- ture of the city, while in Bristol it was longer established groups that had a critical attitude toward that trend. We found lower consistency across cities when we looked for predictors of a positive attitude toward trends in participatory and protest politics ( Table 8.10). In Glasgow, involvement in a social movement mode of coordination decreased the chance of seeing a decline in civic engagement; in Bristol, this was the result of greater involvement in public events.

Conclusions The analysis of connections between civic groups and institutions generated some interesting “nonfi ndings”: namely, there were no particular correlations between structural positions within civic networks, assumption of leadership roles, and links with public agencies and political institutions. While civic net- works were internally diverse in terms of the centrality of their actors, social movement actors appeared to be as much and possibly even more involved in institutional collaborations as other types of organizations. From the perspec- tive of modes of coordination, different structural blocks did not differ in their relation to institutions: incumbents of social movement blocks were similarly connected to, and similarly satisfi ed with, institutions, as were associations working mainly on their own. In other words, associations’ involvement in one or another mode of coordination did not seem to refl ect the need to overcome particular forms of exclusion from the polity. Some actors’ embeddedness in dense networks of cooperation and joined memberships (i.e., in a social move- ment mode of coordination) did not seem to be a response to their limited access to the political process. Nor were the same actors more dissatisfi ed than others with the quality of their collaborations with local institutions.

3 Another study of city politics found a trusting relation with city councils to be signifi cantly correlated with dependence on public funds (Smith, Maloney, and Stoker 2004 , 523). Including these variables in our models did not affect the (lack of) results, although it should be noted that our dependent variable was not “trust” but a more context-dependent “positive relationship to council units,” hence, not strictly comparable.

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 118181 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:07:18:07 PPMM 182 Mario Diani

Table 8.9 OLS Predictors of Support for Partnerships and Professionalization (Range 0–6; B Coeffi cients)

Glasgow Bristol B S.E. B S.E. Years in existence 0.021 0.116 Years in existence* –0.218 0.090 Political action** –6.868 2.958 Political action –0.378 2.530 Bureaucracy*** 8.276 2.381 Bureaucracy*** 9.581 2.597 Public events 3.637 2.641 Public events 2.079 2.649 Issue range –0.500 1.802 Issue range 1.492 1.926 Movement –3.020 6.054 Movement –3.203 6.853 position position Infl uence –3.045 2.496 Infl uence 0.422 1.686 (Constant)*** 49.057 7.201 (Constant)*** 48.278 5.261 Prob > F = 0.0001 Prob > F = 0.0038 R-squared = 0.1857 R-squared = 0.1314

*p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Table 8.10 OLS Predictors of Concern About Fall in Participation (Range 0–6; B Coeffi cients)

Glasgow Bristol B S.E. B S.E. Years in existence –0.071 0.102 Years in existence –0.099 0.092 Political action 1.854 3.097 Political action –0.832 2.365 Bureaucracy –3.102 2.651 Bureaucracy 2.725 1.947 Public events 1.767 2.765 Public events* 5.933 2.493 Issue range 1.549 1.660 Issue range –0.439 1.574 Movement –14.099 5.373 Movement position –4.717 5.344 position** Infl uence –6.041 3.836 Infl uence –2.166 1.547 (Constant)*** 44.362 6.232 (Constant)*** 41.871 4.247 Prob > F = 0.0434 Prob > F = 0.0573 R-squared = 0.0816 R-squared = 0.1071

*p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < .001

This does not mean that all types of civic actors enjoyed similar levels of access. The most consistent predictors of an extensive and satisfactory (or less frustrating) collaboration with institutions across the two cities were in fact high formalization and high bureaucratization: these accounted for the extent of ties to politicians and civil servants and to city council departments in the two cities, for the levels of satisfaction associated with the experience, and for

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 118282 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:07:18:07 PPMM Civic Networks and Urban Governance 183

the overall positive evaluations of the role of participatory mechanisms such as public-private partnerships. The only other signifi cantly consistent factor was involvement in public events in Glasgow (see Table 8.11 ), thus confi rming once more the strong, explicitly public dimension of city politics. Other factors playing only an occasional role were also dependent on local peculiarities: for example, the most recently established civic groups in Bristol were more likely to be involved in public-private partnerships, and to hold a positive view of ongoing processes of the institutionalization and professionalization of the sec- tor. This seemed consistent with available accounts of Bristol city politics that point, with a very different degree of approval, to the role of the Bristol Labour Party to resist staunchly the introduction of market-oriented reforms in the delivery of public services advocated by Margaret Thatcher’s governments in the 1980s. It was only in the late 1990s, with the advent of new generations of local administrators, that the neoliberal agenda – by that time fully embraced by New Labour – was eventually implemented (DiGaetano and Strom 2003 , 381; Stewart 1996 , 132). The lack of a clear relationship between centrality in civic networks and ties to public institutions might at least be partially explained by the role that umbrella organizations undoubtedly played in both cities, as key service pro- viders to the sector and its advocates in the public sphere. In other words, the most central actors in civic networks might not have operated as bridges between civil society organizations and local institutions, because umbrella organizations had taken up that role in their stead. However, the latter were not evenly connected to the different structural positions of civil society, and no common pattern could be identifi ed across the two cities in that regard. As we saw in Chapter 7 , in Bristol Voscur appeared to have particularly strong ties to the social movement position, while the opposite held true for the Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector (GCVS) in Glasgow ( Table 7.2 ). At the same time, we know that in Bristol the incumbents of the social movement position stood out from the rest of the civic sector only for their propensity to represent groups with limited access to the polity. In other words, the particular connec- tion in Bristol between the umbrella organization (Voscur) and the social move- ment position formed in a context in which social movements were defi ned primarily as a mode of coordination between associations that otherwise did not differ much from the rest of civil society. With movement groups standing out mainly because of their greater involvement in networking, it looks plausi- ble that their activism also entailed more sustained ties to umbrella organiza- tions. In contrast, when the differences between groups in social movements and other actors in civil society were starker, then one would have expected the less radical organizations to be the most engaged with umbrella groups. This is what happened in Glasgow. Umbrella groups might have had a stronger tie to the social movement sector when it was fairly moderate, and a weaker tie when that sector was more radical. In neither case did umbrella groups appear to operate as brokers between noncommunicating worlds.

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 118383 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:07:18:07 PPMM uence

++ reputation XXXXX XXXXX

Issuerange Movementposition Infl ++ ++

events Bureaucracy Public Political Political action ++ XXXXX XXXXX +++ +++ - - Years in Years existence ++ Explanatory Factors of Different Measures Representation Explanatory Factors

Think participation is on decline + Support professionalization Ties to council unitsTies PPPs +++ Table 8.11 Ties to public actorsTies +++ +++ PPPsSupport professionalizationThink participation is on declineBristol In-degree - +++ +++ + - Ties to public actorsTies to council unitsTies ++ + ++ + Glasgow In-degree

184

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 118484 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:07:18:07 PPMM Civic Networks and Urban Governance 185

The evidence that we have just summarized actually offers us the opportu- nity to formulate, if not fi rm conclusions, at least some empirically grounded hypotheses about the role that the participatory forms of consultation in civil society had in fostering the involvement of civil society groups in the making and implementation of public policy. These policies were also – perhaps, pri- marily – aimed at the individual citizen, whose disaffection with established political actors and institutions already appeared dangerously high in Britain by the late 1990s (Lowndes, Pratchett, and Stoker 2001 ; Stokes and Knight 1996 ). But they were also targeting the associations operating in the voluntary and community sector (Deakin 2001 ; Lowndes, Pratchett, and Stoker 2001 ; Stoker 2005 ). Our data suggest that attempts to create opportunities of access for civic associations might have been at least partially successful. It is certainly true that both the intensity and quality of ties to institutions were far stronger among the more bureaucratic and professionalized groups, and that disaffection was strong with both participatory policies, perceived as excessively top-down, and with the substantive performance of local institutions. However, it is also true that both positive and critical relations were not concentrated within specifi c sections of civic society networks. This seemed to mark a signifi cant break from a tradition of local politics that, according to some observers, rested on a fairly neat divide between interest politics, conducted through traditional lobbying, and protest politics. Looking at environmental politics in the 1970s, Lowe and Goyder ( 1983 ) had pointed for example to the stark contrast between the inclusive approach reserved by local and national institutions to citizens groups willing to play by the rules of routine, consensual policy making, and the exclusion from the policy process of actors that utilized confrontation in their action repertoires. This did not seem to be the case any longer in the early 2000s, as groups inclined toward collective action were not less likely than oth- ers to develop collaborative ties of some sort to local political actors or local government units. They might still identify with some kind of social movement (in Bristol even more massively than in Glasgow) and might also adopt orga- nizational forms close to the loose, dense networks that make up social move- ments; still, this did not prevent them from acting as credible interlocutors of local institutions. It is certainly true that the “inclusive turn” did not apply to the most radical sectors of direct action that operated for instance in the con- text of antiroad, environmental, or global justice campaigns between the 1990s and the 2000s (Doherty, Paterson, and Seel 2000 ; Rootes and Saunders 2007 ). However, it created bridges to groups and associations adopting repertoires with some radical and confrontational element, as our evidence suggests. In this sense, the participatory agenda launched by the Labour government in the late 1990s might have facilitated the inclusion of the groups which emerged from that contentious decade into systematic exchanges with local institutions, thus contributing indirectly to the revitalization of largely institutionalized civic sectors – for all their differences – rather than their fragmentation.

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 118585 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:07:18:07 PPMM 186 Mario Diani

Finally, it is also worth noting that the opening of opportunities for vertical communication between civic organizations and institutions did not seem to have reduced the potential for horizontal networking, and therefore for auton- omous mobilization by civil society. In principle, the creation of new institu- tional arrangements might have hampered the acquisition of resources through horizontal networking on the part of civic organizations. Opportunities to exert infl uence through participation in specifi c committees or public agencies, or through ties to specifi c public offi cials or politicians, might have reduced efforts in alliance building. Likewise, the increasing dependence of civic organizations on resources generated through competition for grants or the market might have prompted them to develop their own independent niches within larger organizational fi elds, rather than invest massively in alliance building with their de facto competitors (see, e.g., Doerfel and Taylor 2004 ). Therefore, in situa- tions characterized by relatively open opportunities, civic networks might have consisted overwhelmingly of groups and associations acting through organiza- tional modes of coordination, with little investment in horizontal networking and boundary defi nition, relatively hierarchical structures and no pronounced fragmentation. As it happened, however, both cities showed fairly decentral- ized and connected, if differentiated, structures (Chapter 4 ; see also Baldassarri and Diani 2007 ). Let us now move to the last section of our exploration, con- necting the fi ndings about the politico-institutional role of civic organizations with those about their internal structure, and trying to draw some general les- sons for our understanding of local collective action fi elds.

99781107100008c08_p166-186.indd781107100008c08_p166-186.indd 118686 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:18:07:18:07 PPMM 9

“Networking” Contentious Politics

This book has revolved around two key themes: how moving from an aggregative to a relational view of social structure may enable us to grasp the complexity of collective action within civil society, and how the interplay of civic organizations’ properties and relations varies across localities with dif- ferent social and political profi les. The concept of modes of coordination in particular has helped us to build on long-established notions that social move- ments represent just one form of contention alongside many others within civil society, and that they should not be treated as distinctive, self-contained enti- ties, but rather as specifi c clusters within broader systems of interaction (e.g., della Porta, Rucht, and Kriesi 1998 ; Melucci 1996 ; Tilly and Tarrow 2007a ; Zald and McCarthy 1980 ). Let us now summarize how focusing on modes of coordination may contribute to our understating of civil society and conten- tious politics.

Civil Society as “Society”: Modes of Coordination and Civic Roles Civil society has long been associated with voluntary civic organizations by both theorists and empirical analysts (e.g., Anheier and Themudo 2002 ; Arato and Cohen 1992 ; Fennema 2004 ). Focusing on modes of coordination enables us to treat it as a distinct system of interdependence, expanding on earlier net- work approaches that mostly focused on the transnational arena (Anheier and Katz 2004 ; Katz and Anheier 2007 ). Civil society then becomes an analytic category that can inform empirical research. It is no longer, in the best scenario, a proxy for voluntary action, nor is it, in the worst case, a container for all the actors and actions that do not fall under the heading of the state, the market, or the family. On the contrary, it represents a distinct social system, whose profi le is created primarily by the patterns of relations between its constituent components, and by the interplay between categories and relational patterns.

187

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 118787 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:49:44:49 PPMM 188 Mario Diani

More specifi cally, the analysis presented in Chapter 4 shows that modes of coordination may be associated with specifi c structural positions within civil society, each of which in turn can be linked to a specifi c role (Borgatti and Everett 1992 ; White, Boorman, and Breiger 1976 ). In the case of Bristol and Glasgow, we identifi ed three such roles: a social movement role, a coalitional role, and an organizational role. They are articulated in quite different ways as they imply different levels of investment in alliance building, different cri- teria for boundary defi nition, and an overall variable relationship between specifi c groups or associations and the local political scene. To begin with, the associations and groups embedded in an organizational mode of coordi- nation have sparse or nonexistent interorganizational collaborations among themselves, and disperse (sometimes, null) ties to actors in other positions in the local network. Their structural equivalence is given by the very fact of being isolated from the rest of the network (on this, Borgatti and Halgin 2011 ) or by being identifi ed by other civic organizations as important part- ners, yet without developing any distinctive ties to each other. Overall, they act mainly as independent actors, and in this sense they may be regarded as closest to issue-specifi c interest groups, focusing on developing their specifi c niche within local civic politics. In contrast, groups occupying the structural position associated with a coali- tional mode of coordination are linked by dense relational exchanges not only to other positions but also to each other. However, they are not involved in sig- nifi cant mechanisms of boundary defi nition. This suggests a mode of collective action in which alliance building is primarily driven by instrumental concerns. It maximizes the resources available to pursue collective goals, yet without committing alliance partners to deeper bonds and longer-term solidarities. The role played within civil society by actors in this position may be described in the last instance as the promotion of broad-based collective efforts in pursuit of relatively specifi c and time-constrained goals. Solidarity building is most important among the incumbents of the struc- tural position close to a social movement mode of coordination. There, instru- mental exchanges of resources are embedded in dense multiplex networks, and in deeper ties, activated by core activists’ multiple memberships and personal relations. The subjective perceptions of the incumbents of this position confi rm the plausibility of characterizing it as a social movement role: as Chapter 5 shows, in both cities, groups and associations closest to a social movement mode of coordination are more likely to feel part of social movements. They also display a more contentious approach to politics, as refl ected, for example, in their more frequent identifi cation of specifi c social or political opponents. For all the differences between the two cities, the incumbents of those positions are more likely than others to play the role of sustained advocates of sectors of the population with limited access to the polity, and of carriers of adversarial collective action within civil society.

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 118888 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM “Networking” Contentious Politics 189

Identifying different relational patterns within local organizational fi elds sharpens our substantive interpretation of political dynamics both within and beyond British society. If with variable consistence, cities with quite different traditions of collective action feature nonetheless a set of voluntary groups engaged in relations that are close to a social movement process. This suggests that the growing professionalization of the sector and the increasing depen- dence of voluntary groups on selective funding from state authorities have not entirely undermined the potential for autonomous coordination within civil society. It also suggests that identifi cation with social movements, and involvement in movement networks, is by no means limited to the most radical groups. If anything, “direct action” takes more the form of occasional subcul- tural activism than that of proper social movements with multiple levels of interaction and a signifi cant role for organizations alongside individual activ- ists (McDonald 2002 ; Melucci 1996 ). At the same time, it is worth noting that for all its limitations the opening of institutional access pushed forward by the New Labour administration has had an impact across the different sectors of civil society. As Chapter 8 shows, being involved in a social movement dynamic does not necessarily imply lim- ited institutional access; regardless of their structural position, civil society actors enjoy similar levels of access (whatever its substantive value, that many consider limited), and do not necessarily depend on specifi c brokers to engage with public representatives. We seem to witness at the same time the involve- ment and incorporation of civic organizations, and their persistent attempts to maintain margins of autonomy. It is a more complex dynamic than a drastic distinction between insiders and outsiders/challengers would imply. The whole discussion becomes even clearer if we look at the traits of the incumbents of different positions within civic networks, that is, at the interplay of traits and relations.

Who Plays What (Civic) Role? The Interplay of Properties and Relations When laying out the key themes of this book, we insisted on the tension between variable (attribute)-based approaches and relational ones. What does the empirical evidence presented here suggest in relation to the capacity of either perspective to provide sound understandings of civil society pro- cesses? We have just seen that, in terms of pure relational patterns, the two cities were very similar, as they both had sectors of civil society characterized by social movement, coalitional, or organizational modes of coordination. The two cities certainly differed in the number of groups and associations involved in different modes: in Bristol, the actors involved in an organiza- tional mode substantially outnumbered those involved in a social movement one (44 percent vs. 19 percent of the population); in Glasgow, their number

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 118989 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM 190 Mario Diani

was virtually identical (31 percent vs. 33 percent). But apart from this, the overall structural confi guration of civic networks in the two cities looked very similar. An aggregative view of civil society, focused on civic organizations’ traits, reaches the same conclusions: in terms of their individual characteristics, civil society actors did not differ signifi cantly across the two cities (Chapter 3 ). This holds true even for the repertoires of action used, the degrees of formalization, the opinions about the state of the voluntary and community sector, or the self-representations as charities or as political organizations – all areas where one might have expected a radical city like Glasgow to be very distant from a moderate city like Bristol. There were certainly some differences, for example, in the priority assigned in Glasgow to issues of inequality and deprivation, and in the differential weight of involvement in protest events (higher in Glasgow) and in civic events (higher in Bristol), but overall Glaswegian organizations did not appear more radical than their Bristolian counterparts. Similarities were also strong when we looked at some of the mechanisms behind alliance build- ing ( Chapter 3 ): the logics that civil society actors claimed to follow when starting an alliance were very similar in the two cities, regardless of whether the focus was on the facilitators (Table 3.2 ) or on the obstacles to cooperation ( Table 3.3 ). Rather than pitching one perspective against the other, it seems advisable to view the relational approach as supplementing the variable-based one (Breiger and Melamed 2014 ; Kilduff and Brass 2010 ; Wellman 1988 ), and look for the properties of the actors that occupy distinctive structural positions within civic networks. This approach enables us to deal with an apparent paradox, namely, that taken on their own, both actors’ characteristics and formal net- work properties generate profi les of civil society that seem to run counter to conventional representations of the two cities. Does this mean that observers (e.g., Bull and Jones 2006 ) are mistaken in stressing the differences between the two cities? We might have captured a growing homogeneity in patterns of mobilizing within civil society, that is, the spread of a model of pluralistic inter- est group politics in which, on the one hand, social movement logics of action had secured a distinctive space, but, on the other hand, traditional differences were no longer refl ected in the characteristics of local actors. Well, not quite. The two cities were actually (still) very different, yet their differences resided neither in actors’ properties nor in formal structural properties as such. Rather, they lay in their interplay, namely, in the different ways in which the same properties combined and different structural positions within civic networks related to each other. We actually found only one commonality in the properties of the groups and associations that occupied the social movement position: in both cities, they displayed a disproportionate interest in representing groups that were some- what peripheral in the political process, because of their social marginality or their dissenting opinions. Apart from that, differences ran deep. In Glasgow,

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 119090 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM “Networking” Contentious Politics 191

the social movement mode of coordination seemed particularly popular among actors that exhibited most of the traits normally associated with social move- ments: within the social movement position we found a disproportionate pres- ence of groups with low formalization and high propensity to engage in protest repertoires. The “social movement organizations” (SMOs), identifi ed on the basis of their network position, were actually quite similar1 to the classic SMOs as defi ned in the literature (Kriesi 1996 ; Lofl and 1996 ). This could not be said for Bristol, where groups involved in a social movement mode of coordination were largely similar to the others. In Bristol, radical activists operated primarily through their involvement in subcultural activities, connecting through the use of new and old media, the involvement in distinctive cultural scenes (Haunss and Leach 2009 ) and the patronizing of specifi c caf é s or cultural centers. It was this web of subcultural connections that in Bristol provided the infrastructure to draw upon to promote specifi c actions, unlike in Glasgow, where this was conducted rather through interorganizational networks, in which even radical activists were well integrated (see also Diani 2011a ). Does this mean that in Bristol the classic social movement model had largely disappeared in favor of looser, totally informal network structures? Not necessarily, and most importantly, not entirely. The amount of protest activity promoted in Bristol by informal radical networks was actually quite limited; on top of that, while protest activities were less prominent than in Glasgow, they still occurred, with the involvement of a number of more or less formal organizations. Rather, what we saw in the two cities was the disentangling of two different, important components of the idea of social movement: the idea that movements may be characterized by a distinct set of actors and practices, with specifi c characteristics and specifi c repertoires of action; and the idea that they may be characterized by a distinctive pattern of social relations, in particular, dense collaborations and alliances between groups and associations that remain independent from each other, yet share a sense of solidarity and a common identity that links them beyond the con- tingencies of specifi c events and alliances. In Bristol we had the latter, but not the former. The Bristol case points to a conception of the social movement as a particular form of network organization, different from both self-contained formal groups and purely instrumental, temporally delimited coalitions. Such a form can be appropriated by actors with different traits and repertoires of action, rather than being limited to the “usual suspects.” In this sense it may become a feature of civil society across its different cultural and political components.

1 They were not entirely similar, however, as they were also more prone to engage in routinized pressure politics, which may suggest that even within a supposedly highly political city like Glasgow the main line of divide ran between political (without further qualifi cation) and “non- political” collective action, mainly oriented to service delivery. Still, the overall portrait of SMOs as different from other public interest groups basically held.

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 119191 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM 192 Mario Diani

“Movement Society” or “Movement Societies”? A mode of coordination perspective may also contribute to the recurrent dis- cussion about the emergence, from the 1960s onward, of a “movement soci- ety.” Meyer and Tarrow (1998 , 4) kicked off the conversation, suggesting in particular that social protest had moved from being a sporadic to a constant feature of modern life; that protest behavior was being employed with greater frequency, by more diverse constituencies, and in support of a broader range of claims; and that professionalization and institutionalization had changed the major vehicle of contentious claims – the social movements – into a component of conventional politics. A number of attempts to subject the thesis to empirical test have followed, with mixed results.2 What is interesting as regards the present discussion is not so much whether available fi ndings consistently support or challenge the thesis, but rather the methodological foundations for those tests. All those analyses rested on an aggregative approach, that is, they focused on the presence or absence of traits measured at the level of individual cases. Regardless of whether they looked at properties of individual citizens (e.g., their propensity to engage, or their actual engagement, in protest), of organizations (e.g., their willingness to include pro- test tactics in their repertoire, while staying clear of more radical ones), or of protest events (e.g., the share of events that included open confrontation with police), analysts rarely explored how those elements connected to each other. Looking at relational patterns and modes of coordination can help us address this question. It is certainly true that movements are no longer – if they ever were – the mere expression of the disenfranchised, but a form of action among others and a regular option to different types of social groups (Goldstone 2004 ). But who becomes involved in social movement modes of coordination? Are these always the same actors, or are we looking at different combina- tions of actor properties and relational modes? Glasgow and Bristol offer an interesting illustration of how, if measured in terms of means and percentages, the movement society might appear very similar in the two cases; while, if addressed relationally, the thesis may still hold, albeit subject to being refor- mulated in terms of the presence of two quite different “movement societies.” Both cities seemed to meet the criteria of the movement society thesis. As Chapters 2 and 5 showed, 62 percent of organizations in Bristol and

2 Soule looked at newspaper data on protest events in the United States for the period 1960–86. They found that protest had not really increased in number of events, although events had attracted more people; that there was no evidence of the spread of protest to sectors of the population previously extraneous to it; that few claims had staying power, in the sense of being picked up by other movements, while more claims were localized and issue-specifi c; that more events were promoted through moderate tactics (contra : Rucht 1998 on Germany); and that police were more likely to manage protest moderately. Extending the same analysis up to 2006, and supplementing it with additional evidence (McCarthy , Rafail , and Gromis 2013 ) raised even more doubts about the argument, noting, e.g., a shrinking propensity to protest among the youn- ger generations and a growing harshness in police tactics.

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 119292 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM “Networking” Contentious Politics 193

Table 9.1 A Typology of Polities

Profi le of the incumbents of social movement modes of coordination Distinctive Undistinctive High Polarized polity Movement (Glasgow) society Share of organizations in a social movement mode of coordination Low Exclusionary polity Pluralistic (members vs. polity(Bristol) challengers)

49 percent in Glasgow identifi ed somehow with social movements; 55 per- cent were ready to promote peaceful demonstrations and 40 percent the boy- cott of products; while only 20 percent or less were instead prepared to take up more radical forms of action. This suggested the prevalence of a moderate protest repertoire. Evidence from Chapter 7 also showed that organizations in social movement modes of coordination were as connected as others to local institutions. However, the two cities were radically different in the dis- tribution of traits across positions. Accordingly, it might actually be wise to reformulate the movement society thesis. In order to assess the role of social movements in contemporary society, it may not be enough to look at the extent to which certain characteristics of collective action, often associated with movements, are present within civil society. Instead, it may be advis- able to pay attention to how such traits distribute across different positions within civil society structures. We might for instance generate a simple four- fold typology ( Table 9.1 ) combining (a) the extent to which actors’ traits, normally associated with movements and protest politics, are concentrated within a social movement structural position rather than being spread across society; (b) the extent to which local civic actors are actually involved in a social movement mode of coordination. Accordingly, we could identify extreme cases corresponding, on the one hand, to an exclusionary polity in which social movements very much play the role of challengers excluded from the polity and restricted to a distinct – if possibly highly mobilized – sector of civil society; on the other hand, we could think of a pluralistic and mobilized movement society in which the model of the social movement as a particular form of coordinating collective action is widely adopted by het- erogeneous civic actors. Interestingly, neither Glasgow nor Bristol fi t either category. In Glasgow, even allowing for relatively high levels of institutionalization, the classic model of the social movement (relatively informal, protest-oriented, participatory)

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 119393 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM 194 Mario Diani

had kept its salience, as it very much characterized a specifi c sector of civil society, if a sizable one. The idea of the social movement as a distinct set of practices was also embedded in distinctive network processes. As a result, we might have spoken of a polarized polity rather than a movement society strictly conceived, in the sense that society was actually somehow polarized along the traits traditionally associated with social movements. Those traits corre- sponded to distinct forms of association and therefore distinct social groups. In Bristol, the picture seemed quite different, notwithstanding the fairly sim- ilar properties of the civic sector. Movements as characterized by a distinctive pattern of social relations were actually the preserve of a minority of civic organizations: although civic actors generally claimed that they felt part of social movements, most of them were in fact not involved in a social movement mode of coordination. In other words, we witnessed the disentangling of the specifi c social movement mode of coordination from the traditional traits of social movements. The latter were evenly distributed across different sectors of civil society. This suggested a pluralistic polity in which, pace civic actors’ claims about their movement identities, civic collective action was mainly con- ducted through interest groups and ad hoc alliances; and in which the social movement model of collective action was quite indistinctive. Once again, this evidence points at the risks associated with deriving collective properties from processes of aggregation. An approach to the movement society in terms of presence or absence of certain traits among civic organizations would have led us to conclude that Bristol be a full-fl edged movement society; a relational per- spective suggested quite different conclusions.

Accounting for Variation in Civic Networks: The Role of Local Cultures How can we account for the fact that similar structural positions, located within fi elds hosting similar organizational populations, ended up being occupied by such different actors? Although the main goal of this book was not to provide explanations but to describe political processes using different, possibly new, analytic categories, it might still be useful to offer some preliminary speculation as to why we obtained such a peculiar combination of civic actors’ traits and relational patterns. An obvious candidate for what we found might be the differ- ences in political opportunity structures in the two cities. Over the last decades, political process analysts have identifi ed contextual and institutional variables as key factors accounting for the intensity and forms of political participation at both the individual and the group level. However, the relationship between political opportunities and the structure of interorganizational networks has received only scant attention (e.g., Diani 2003 ; Eggert 2011 ; Osa 2003 ; Phillips 1991 ; Rucht 1989 ). Aspects of the political context may indeed affect network structures in several ways. Let us look fi rst at institutional opportunities for access to the polity. In that regard, as shown in Chapter 2 , the two cities were in

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 119494 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM “Networking” Contentious Politics 195

fact similar on many important grounds: their local administrations had been mostly under Labour control, even though Labour’s tenure had been longer in Glasgow (since the post–World War II period) than in Bristol (since the 1980s); moreover, they had been both affected by New Labour’s policies, aimed at increasing opportunities for access available to citizens’ organizations in order to involve them more in policy planning and implementation. This was par- ticularly crucial in the area of urban regeneration. The strategy seems to have worked quite well if we think of the data on the relation between civic groups and associations, local authorities, and local politicians. Even actors involved in social movement modes of coordination, and more likely to identify explicit political opponents as targets of their action, tended to have an overall cooper- ative relationship with local institutions. Most importantly, they did not differ on this ground from groups embedded in other modes of coordination, such as the organizational or the coalitional ones. If evaluated in terms of institutional access, political opportunities were therefore quite open for the civic sector in both cities; it seems diffi cult to account for the differences in the profi le of the incumbents of social movement roles on that basis. The other major trait of the opportunity structure in its most classical ver- sion consists in the salience of ideological cleavages and the solidity of the cor- responding alignments (Kriesi et al. 1995 ; Tarrow 1989 ). Even on this ground, and again despite the stereotypical representations of the two cities, it seems diffi cult to identify greater polarization in attitudes and beliefs in one city than in the other. Among the groups and associations explored in this study, the pro- portion of actors that we might consider “radical” in light of their inclination to adopt protest repertoires, or to hold critical opinions on the institutional- ization of the voluntary and community sector, was indeed very similar. We would reach, however, analogous conclusions if we looked at the distribution of political beliefs and levels of political participation using pooled data from surveys such as the British Social Attitudes: data for the 2000–3 years, the period corresponding to our project, show Glaswegian citizens to hold similar views and to be as much engaged in civic life as their Bristolian counterparts. In particular, there are few signs of the greater ideological polarization that we should expect to fi nd in Glasgow. Therefore, it seems diffi cult to account for the differences in network dynam- ics between the two cities in the light of political culture, or at least, of political culture measured as sets of individual (in our case, also organizational) orienta- tions, beliefs, and styles of political participation (Dalton 2008 ; Inglehart and Welzel 2005 ). However, this does not mean that the plausibility of a cultural explanation of intercity differences should be ruled out; rather, we need to think of culture in different terms. Instead of sets of values and beliefs, it may be valuable to view political culture in cognitive terms, that is, as a set of tools (in particular, interpretative frames) that actors draw upon in order to attrib- ute meaning to their life situations (Snow et al. 1986 ; Swidler 1986 ). From this perspective, culture shapes how traits and relations combine in specifi c settings .

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 119595 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM 196 Mario Diani

In her study of working-class activism in Liverpool in the 1990s and early 2000s, Monica Clua Losada relates, albeit perhaps not explicitly, to that line of thinking when she stresses the tension between the objective changes experi- enced in the city, and local actors’ interpretation of such changes. Although she writes about Liverpool, her remarks fully apply to Glasgow and Bristol too. They suggest that the greater divide in Glasgow than in Bristol between actors occupying social movement positions and the others might be due to the dif- ferent preconceptions as to the role of collective action that have guided civic actors in the two cities. Many observers have in fact noted the weakness of class culture in Bristol as compared not just to Glasgow but to several other British cities (Chapter 2 ). Moreover, the weakness of collective identities did not seem restricted to the class dimension proper but also characterized black and other minority identi- ties. Such a weakness was regarded as one of the main reasons for the Bristol organizations’ failure (or refusal) to converge on broad contentious campaigns. The environmental justice alternative was not quite strong enough to provide a coherent framework for different initiatives to converge in, as an alternative to the class one. Even the pronounced multicultural profi le of Bristol did not trans- late into confrontational action, but rather led to cultural styles of participation. Coupled with a style of policy making that appeared strongly oriented to the composition of confl icting interests through negotiated compromises, this facilitated the consolidation of a “laid-back” political culture, lacking a con- frontational edge. In Bristol, collective action seemed to be framed as primarily oriented toward the solution of specifi c problems, that could be addressed on an ad hoc basis, rather than toward the expression of contentious identities; in Glasgow, in contrast, it was framed in the fi rst place as the expression of dis- tinctive interests and orientations, that explicitly clashed with those carried by other social groups ( Chapter 2 ). This was also refl ected in a different type of relation between civic groups and associations and more established interest groups and political parties: in Glasgow, campaigning traditionally included, or even relied upon, old social movement actors such as trade unions and the Labour Party. This was not the case in Bristol (Cento Bull and Jones, 2006 , 773); a difference that our data suggest may persist, if in a milder form (see in particular Chapters 5 – 7 ). These different backgrounds showed neatly in the analysis of the mecha- nisms behind alliance building in the two cities. As Chapter 3 illustrated, despite some similarities, the two cities differed deeply: in Bristol, alliance building was driven primarily by similarity in agendas; in Glasgow, by levels of involve- ment in public life (both civil society events and public/private partnerships) and differences in opinion toward New Labour’s civic renewal agenda (again linked to the nature of civic organizations’ public presence). In Bristol, this was consistent with the prevalence of pragmatic, instrumental considerations in alliance building. In Glasgow, by contrast, the discriminating factors were

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 119696 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM “Networking” Contentious Politics 197

different conceptions of the civic sector’s public role: organizations that were publicly active, and skeptical of the (real or supposed) attempt by New Labour to depotentiate the civic sector’s autonomy and capacity for mobilization, were more likely to work together as partners – so were organizations that shared an opposite profi le. There seemed to be, in other words, some correspondence between cul- tural understandings of the link between class and other collective identities and politics, and the confi guration of local civic networks. Both cities had been going through a process of socioeconomic change from an industrial to a service-driven economy, with a subsequent weakening of the social bases of class politics, and through similar processes of institutional innovation. However, when it came to alliance building, people acted according to their perceptions of reality, and the way a certain political tradition was elaborated actually shaped actors’ behavior. This overall dynamic was further reinforced by the patterns of involvement of civic organizations in public events over the years. As Chapter 6 showed, in Bristol, the civic, noncontentious events were the most central, and the over- all integration of civic and protest events was relatively high only for a short spell in the late 1990s. In Glasgow, in contrast, protest events were central in the local scene, and the dense network of interconnected events that emerged in the late 1990s was still very much there in the early 2000s. This might have reinforced the framing of local civil society as characterized by public pro- test and by a more polarized political culture. In turn, this might have also affected the civic organizations’ choices of their most important partners. The data point, in other words, to a path dependency process whereby actors that were closely linked together persisted in elaborating a certain representation of reality, which then led them to select certain alliance partners to the detri- ment of others. This reproduced the networks that in turn sustained specifi c representations of reality. The limitations of this interpretation should be pointed out explicitly. On the one hand, the focus on two main narratives, one emphasizing the con- frontational element of civic life, the other pointing to the primacy of medi- ation and compromise, and their prevalence in different cities, is very broad and should not be read as anything more than a working hypothesis. On the other hand, it is certainly possible that different phases in local politics may prove more conducive to the infl uence of different styles of framing, and that different rhetorical devices may play a role in facilitating or preventing the emergence of coalitions on specifi c issues (see, e.g., Armstrong 2005 ). Still, the views proposed here draw our attention to the importance of taking cultural mechanisms into account when exploring the conditions that facilitate the con- struction of ties, the building of alliances, and the persistence of networks over time (see, for more sophisticated contributions, Mohr and Duquenne 1997 ; Mische 2008 ; 2011 ; Weare and Lichterman 2011 ).

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 119797 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM 198 Mario Diani

The “Modes of Coordination” Approach, Contentious Politics, and the Social Movement Classic Agenda In the preceding sections – and in the book in general – we have repeatedly referred to central concepts in the social movement classic agenda, such as frames, opportunities, and networks. It is worth summarizing how the “modes of coordination” approach introduced in this book connects to some classic themes in the analysis of collective action and social movements. On this point there are both convergences and differences. We focus on two issues: the role of social networks within accounts of collective action and the relation between social movements, movement industries, and other forms of collective action.

Turning Networks on Their Head? As noted since the very beginning (Chapter 1 ), the modes of coordination approach differs not only from the contentious politics, but indeed from the “classic agenda” of social movement research, in the role assigned to the con- cept of network, and in its different treatment of the distinction between inter- actions and relations. For the classic agenda, social networks are the relational structure that supports collective action and creates the preconditions for the development of movements. They are, in other words, part of “social move- ment bases” (Tilly and Tarrow 2007a , 114). It is thanks to their embedded- ness in extended systems of social relations that collective actors may engage in sustained interactions with their opponents. In other words, networks and social relations are primarily conceived as the relationships between current and prospective activists that facilitate individual engagement and sustain it over time. They are among the most important facilitators of collective action (Kitts 2000 ; Passy 2003 ). According to the modes of coordination perspective, it is primarily interac- tions leading to social networks, rather than the other way around. Networks are an outcome, not just a precondition for action (see also Diani 1997 ). Sustained interactions between groups and associations within civic fi elds ulti- mately generate particular network confi gurations, characterized by different combinations of resource allocation and boundary defi nition mechanisms. Social movements emerge when such exchanges generate network patterns that are relatively stable over time, if still informal; rather than a mere precondi- tion of action, networks are also seen as constitutive of movements, regardless of the levels of contentious interaction that movement actors may have with external opponents. Levels of public contention may be high at certain phases and low at others, without this necessarily meaning the end of the sustained collaborations between groups that differentiate a social movement from a radical subculture. Having said that, these are, arguably, differences in emphasis rather than theoretical incompatibilities. As a matter of fact, although Tilly at times treated relations and interactions as synonymous, his work on the role of repeated

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 119898 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM “Networking” Contentious Politics 199

interactions in defi ning group boundaries was clearly consistent with the argu- ments advanced in this book (see especially Tilly 2005a ). The compatibility of the classic view of movements as sustained interactions and the one as a spe- cifi c mode of coordination also emerges from the data, and in particular from the analysis of the ties that originate from groups’ involvement over time in a multiplicity of protest as well as noncontentious civic events. Chapter 6 shows how in both cities involvement in protest events – and thus in public conten- tious interactions with opponents – was signifi cantly higher among incumbents of the social movement position. Actors connected through a social movement mode of coordination were also involved in a higher number of joint protest events than actors in other structural positions. This was not the case when it came to participation in noncontentious, consensual events. At the same time, groups involved in coalitional modes of coordination were no more involved in public events than those acting mainly on their own, and differed remark- ably from groups in a social movement position (Chapter 6 ). Coupled with the differences in the profi le of the incumbents of social movement and coalitional positions, illustrated in Chapter 5 , this fi nding casts serious doubts on the per- sistent practice of assimilating social movements and coalitions.3

Movements, Movement Families, Movement Industries The modes of coordination perspective also shares with the contentious poli- tics approach the refusal to separate specifi c movements from their relational setting. In both cities, the distribution of alliances and boundary-defi ning ties actually suggests the presence of a social movement position, comprising of groups that collaborate densely despite often identifying with different spe- cifi c movements. The relations between groups with quite heterogeneous agen- das and priorities point to the existence of “movement industries” (Zald and McCarthy 1980 ) or “movement families” (della Porta, Rucht, and Kriesi 1998 ) much more than of specifi c movements, focused on specifi c issues or causes. Referring to movement families or sectors rather than specifi c movements preempts an obvious objection to the line of reasoning followed in this study, namely, that civic groups should not be rigidly – and implausibly – associ- ated with one single “mode of coordination.” One group might well identify strongly with one specifi c movement while being loosely connected, or indiffer- ent to, others; it might act at times on its own, promoting its own activities in isolation, while engaging at other times in ad hoc alliances on specifi c issues. At one level, this is simply a technical problem, as the consolidation of clustering techniques that allow for fuzzy boundaries between clusters (see, e.g., Ragin 2000 ; Verkuilen and Smithson 2006 ) will enable analysts to take into account the possibility of organizations actually playing multiple roles. But there is more than that behind the “modes of coordination” perspective. The approach rests on the fact that social structures are actually the product of compounded

3 For an illustration, see most of the chapters in van Dyke and McCammon ( 2010 ).

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 119999 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM 200 Mario Diani

sets of interactions, and that it is the overall profi le of those interactions that ultimately defi nes the structural position of an organization, not the specifi c actions taken by an actor at specifi c points in time. As a matter of fact, most groups promote important activities on their own, and many become occa- sionally involved in collaborative efforts on specifi c issues; still, while some groups only work on their own or through instrumental coalitions, others are also involved in deeper and more dense patterns of exchanges. The structural equivalence method on which the “modes of coordination” perspective rests captures precisely the combination of specifi c interactions in distinctive struc- tural patterns. It is certainly true that the “social movement blocks” we have identifi ed do not correspond to a specifi c, clearly identifi able social movement, but are instead quite heterogeneous (Saunders 2007 ). And it is certainly possible that, by further differentiating ties within the social movement position, one might come up with more closely bounded sets of actors, closer to a specifi c set of identities and concerns. It did not particularly work in our case (see also Diani and Pilati 2011 ), but one certainly cannot rule out this eventuality in general. It is even more likely that, had we looked at ideologically more diverse actors, including for example right-wing, sectarian, or xenophobic organizations in the analysis, we would have identifi ed more than one single social movement structural position. Including right-wing organizations in his study of Italian environmentalism in the 1980s, Antimo Farro identifi ed precisely this pat- tern: a network fragmented in two components, one including all the main environmental groups, the other consisting of a small cluster of right-wing environmental groups, densely connected to each other, but totally discon- nected from the rest of the fi eld. All in all, however, this study suggests that a certain amount of caution might be in order before talking about specifi c “movements,” focused on spe- cifi c issues and/or causes, as if they were self-contained processes. For exam- ple, major campaigns around environmental, global justice, or antiwar issues certainly imply sustained interactions between challengers and power holders, and dense interorganizational networks. However, before jumping to conclu- sions about the existence of distinctive environmental, global justice, or anti- war movements, it would seem helpful to look more closely at the overall pattern of ties in which their protagonists are embedded. Barring some actors totally focused on a single cause, most actors involved in such campaigns are actually committed to multiple causes, and this refl ects in their alliance pat- terns. Despite existing conventions suggesting the opposite, in analytic terms one should consider restricting the use of the term movement to instances of collective action that actually display distinctive boundaries and relational pat- terns, and locating other campaigns within broader movement families. For example, taking into account the volatile nature of peace campaigns, and their participants’ overall levels of identifi cation with the global justice movements (about 80 percent: Walgrave and Rucht 2010 ), one should think twice before

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 220000 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM “Networking” Contentious Politics 201

characterizing the 2003 anti-Iraqi war demonstrations as a distinct social movement. A distinct coalition, certainly, and a very important one: but a fully fl edged movement?

Conclusions In the preface to his classic Constructing Social Theories , Arthur Stinchcombe recalls a graduate school conversation with Reinhard Bendix, who urged him to try and capture the essence of social phenomena in one sentence. This sec- tion is drafted in the same spirit – albeit, alas, without Stinchcombe’s or his teacher’s gift for synthesis and theoretical fi nesse. After what has proved quite a complex journey through theoretical arguments, methodological experiments, and rich empirical material, an attempt to lay out the thrust of our argument may indeed be in order. A much more prolix summary than the one advocated by Stinchcombe, yet still a sketchy one, might read as follows: • Civil society may be conveniently analyzed as a distinct fi eld. Within such a fi eld, groups and associations with highly heterogeneous profi les and agendas and the committed individuals linked to them interact in various forms in order to generate collective goods. Looking at civil society as a fi eld enables us to go beyond the limitations of normative accounts that treat it either as the preserve of nonconfrontational voluntary associations oriented to the (re)production of civicness, or as an exclusive space of resistance occupied by political challengers. • Modes of coordination represent basic organizing principles of civil society fi elds. Within civic fi elds, some relations are primarily driven by mecha- nisms of resource allocation , that is, the criteria through which decisions are taken about the allocation of scarce resources. Others refl ect mechanisms of boundary defi nition , namely, the processes through which statements are (implicitly) made about what binds together certain actors rather than oth- ers. Variable combinations of such mechanisms defi ne different structural positions within fi elds, refl ecting different logics of network multiplexity . Each position can be related to a distinct mode of coordination , that is, to a particular way of promoting collective action. • Each episode of collective action combines different modes of coordination . All too often, when looking at episodes of collective action, we fi nd our- selves stuck with questions such as “are we witnessing a ‘real’ social move- ment? Or what else?” Of course, as King Louis XVI of France found out to his displeasure, failing to grasp the difference between phenomena (in his case, between a riot and a revolution) may have serious consequences, so classifying a phenomenon correctly may be crucial. Most of the times, how- ever, rather than asking whether specifi c episodes fall squarely under one or the other category, it makes more sense to explore how different modes of coordination combine in specifi c settings, and how their interdependence

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 220101 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM 202 Mario Diani

evolves over time. Although here we have illustrated this approach in refer- ence to a certain phase of civic collective action taken as a whole, the same principle may apply to more specifi c campaigns or sets of events. • Social movements are just one mode of coordinating collective action in civil society. Despite its commonsensical association with social move- ments, as Alberto Melucci ( 1996 , ch. 1) pointed out long ago, collective action is actually promoted through different modes of coordination that may coexist differently in different settings While a social movement mode of coordination is defi ned by the coupling of relatively dense networks of resource allocation and boundary defi nition, many civic associations, including some of the radical type, act primarily on their own, following an organizational mode of coordination. One can also identify a subcultural/ communitarian mode of coordination, characterized by limited exchanges of group resources and dense networks of boundary defi nition, 4 and a coali- tional mode, corresponding to dense networks of resource allocation and limited boundary defi nition. • Social movements and coalitions may look the same, but they are not . The argument that social movements and coalitions are analytically different found robust empirical support in our data. While groups and associations involved in a social movement mode of coordination also subjectively iden- tifi ed themselves as part of social movements, this did not apply to actors involved in coalitional modes. Likewise, actors in a social movement mode of coordination were signifi cantly more likely to get involved in sustained protest activities over time than actors in a coalitional mode. Recognizing the neat conceptual difference between social movements and coalitions also has important practical implications. All too often, ad hoc instrumen- tal alliances are taken as indicators of burgeoning social movements when there are no deeper ties between the actors, beyond the temporary conver- gence on a limited set of specifi c goals. This fosters unfounded predictions and expectations that could be easily avoided. • Social movements are distinct, but “social movement organizations” are not. The fact that a social movement represents a distinctive mode of coor- dination does not imply that the organizations embedded in such relational pattern stand out for their properties. Or, to put it even more bluntly, there is no such thing as a SMO, carrying distinctive traits. Instead, the profi le of the actors involved in a social movement mode of coordination – or for that matter in other modes too – may vary considerably in different con- texts. In Glasgow, actors in the social movement position differed on many grounds from actors in other positions, and displayed many of the traits conventionally associated with social movements. In Bristol, however, dif- ferences were minimal, as the groups and associations involved in a social

4 Regrettably, lack of proper data prevented us from examining this particular mode of coordina- tion in the present study (see, however, Diani 2012b ).

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 220202 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM “Networking” Contentious Politics 203

movement mode of coordination did not seem to differ drastically from those occupying other structural positions. • Social movements are not necessarily anti- or extrainstitutional. Groups and associations, involved in different modes of coordination, enjoyed similar levels of access to local politics and institutions, whether of the collabora- tive or the confrontational type. This points to the role that governmental policies, meant to include civil society organizations in the political process, might play in preventing the marginalization of critical sectors of civil society. Even the most radical groups were somehow linked to other organizations, which provided a short line of communication with local institutions. At the same time, even groups and associations, distant from the stereotypical view of movements as the preserve of radical, grassroots actors, were often involved in social movement modes of coordination. While our fi ndings may not be automatically generalized to other contexts, they illustrate the com- plex relations between social movements and institutional politics that con- tentious politics theorists like Tarrow have long dwelled on. • Even at low ebbs in the levels of public contention and protest, social move- ment structures remain in place. The salience of traditional cleavages was certainly modest when the project was conducted (and it has remained the same in the following years), nor were alternative emerging cleavages capa- ble of establishing themselves. Not only that: overall levels of contention in the two cities were relatively modest, while there was strong pressure from local and national public institutions for civic organizations to act as dis- tinct actors in a competitive fi eld rather than as part of broader collective movements. Still, even under those unfavorable conditions, a basic social movement infrastructure remained in place, connecting through multiple links a sizeable number of formally independent groups and associations. This illustrates, we think, the persistent capacity of self-organization on the part of civil society actors. • Social movement families are often a better focus of analysis than specifi c movements. We are inclined to identify a series of contentious activities on specifi c issues (e.g., peace, nuclear power, or minority rights), and their pro- moters, as distinct movements. Network patterns suggest however that the interdependence among groups active on cognate themes is often very high. In principle, it might be advisable, and analytically sounder, to look primar- ily at movement “families” or “industries” rather than assuming the exis- tence of a distinct movement from a set of activities focused on a theme, no matter how broad. • Relational and aggregative approaches yield complementary rather than alternative insights on civil society fi elds and the movement society the- sis. Civil society is not reducible to the sum of its components; instead, we need to explore their interdependence. Civil society networks in Glasgow and Bristol differed neither from an aggregative point of view (the profi le of groups and associations was very similar) nor from a pure relational

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 220303 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM 204 Mario Diani

perspective (the formal network structures were also similar). They differed, however, in the way actors’ properties combined with relational processes. Accordingly, we should not test the movement society thesis exclusively by looking at how many actors identify with movements or engage in pro- test: we should also ask if they build and combine ties in distinctive rela- tional patterns. • Context matters, but not necessarily as we thought. In order to understand why actors in the social movement mode of coordination were so differ- ent from those in other structural positions in one context, and so simi- lar in another, a focus on cognitive political frames may be more helpful than looking at relatively similar political opportunities. Again, this fi nding should not be generalized, nor should it lead us to a wholesale rejection of the political opportunities argument (after all, key elements of political opportunities, such as the stability of political alignments, have a strong cognitive component). Rather, our evidence calls for more comparative analyses of network structures, inclusive of both political-institutional and cultural elements. Having laid out our main points, it is time to discuss some obvious expansions of the approach presented in this book: how to turn a largely static approach into an analytic tool, capable of capturing some important aspects of the evo- lution of civic fi elds? To what extent may the modes of coordination approach guide investigations of collective action in non-Western settings? How does this approach relate to current debates on the impact of information technol- ogy over collective action patterns? This will be the focus of the next, and fi nal, chapter.

99781107100008c09_p187-204.indd781107100008c09_p187-204.indd 220404 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:44:50:44:50 PPMM Postfaction: Bringing Time and Space(s) into the Picture

Since the start of this project in 2000, major changes have occurred in both forms of contention and their broader environment. We will close by briefl y hinting at three of them, namely, the growing attention to dynamics among analysts of collective action, the insurgence (sometimes, resurgence) of move- ments advocating radical changes in the south of the world (with a special focus on the Middle East and North African countries), and the rising role of the Internet in all spheres of social life.

Time Dynamics In recent years, analysts of social networks and contentious politics have paid a great deal of attention to issues of dynamics. On the network side, statistical tools to incorporate the time dimension into network models have fl ourished (e.g., Lusher, Koskinen, and Robins 2013 ). On the collective action side, atten- tion to the dynamic elements of contention has similarly grown. Although the most prominent advocates of the contentious politics perspective have closely linked their interest in dynamics to explanatory strategies based on social mechanisms (Tilly 2004a ; Tilly and Tarrow 2007a ), other analytic strat- egies have also been pursued, including evolutionary models (e.g., Koopmans 2005 ). Instead, barring the 2-mode data on the interplay of organizations and events, introduced in Chapter 6, this book is fi rmly static in its approach, given its focus on single time shots. It is, however, unapologetically static: a proper study of dynamics and change needs the proper parameters, and we were pre- cisely missing some crucial ones. Even what is by far the most sophisticated attempt to date to bridge the network and contentious politics approaches in a dynamic view, Ann Mische ’s study of Brazilian mobilizations to impeach president Collor in 1992 (Mische 2008 ; Mische and Pattison 2000 ) paid no

205

99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 220505 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:31:51:31 PPMM 206 Postfaction

systematic attention to differences between different modes of coordination of collective action. As Mische actually focused on one single (no matter how complex) process of alliance building, this was not problematic. It might have proved more critical, however, in a study focusing on more complex networks, covering organizations active on multiple issues with multiple agendas, such as the ones in Glasgow and Bristol. Accordingly, this book has focused on the specifi cation of some basic analytic parameters, before adding the complica- tion of the time dimension. Let us consider for example how exploring time dynamics from the per- spective of changes in modes of coordination might affect our reading of two central processes, movement emergence and movement transformation, and accordingly our interpretation of civic fi elds. First of all, the emergence of social movements could also be read as a transformation in relational patterns. There is no denying that the development of movements brings about varying com- binations of new agendas, tactical innovations, new organizations, and new organizational models, following both the emergence of new actors and the transformation of existing ones (e.g., Minkoff 1995 ; Tarrow 1989 ). However, we may also look at the emergence of a social movement as the emergence – or strengthening – of connections between actors that previously operated mainly independently from each other, privileging organizational logics of action or at best engaging in ad hoc instrumental coalitions. Years ago, Hanspeter Kriesi noted how the emergence of a movement entails that “elements that all had been present for some time, but had not earlier fallen into place, suddenly became a coherent movement” (Kriesi 1988 , 367). While he was referring to a broader set of elements than the one we are dealing with at present, and while his emphasis on coherence might be at odds with more recent jargons, none- theless this sentence nicely captures the thrust of our argument: namely, that the emergence of a movement implies the building of new, or the revitalizing of previously dormant, boundaries and the construction of stronger ties between actors who had previously not recognized each other (at least, not so force- fully) as part of the same collective project. Along these lines it is even possible to suggest that the newness of a movement ultimately rests on its ability to build boundaries and sustained collaborations that cut across the established cleavages of a given society (Diani 2000 ). For example, environmentalism grew through the development of sustained collaborations between heterogeneous actors, some of whom held different stances on traditional left-right divides (Diani 1995 ; Rootes 2003 ). In this perspective, and consistently with research on network governance (Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti 1997 , 927), changes in network composition through a relaxation or tightening of the boundaries and criteria for inclusion become a central issue for research; so do the conditions for alliance building (Borland 2008 ; Heaney and Rojas 2008 ; van Dyke and McCammon 2010 ). A second possible expansion of this work refers more directly to the trans- formation of social movements. As inherently dynamic phenomena, social

99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 220606 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:31:51:31 PPMM Postfaction 207

movements are also relatively contingent. Their evolution over time, and in particular their crisis and dissolution, is usually analyzed in the light of the changes of the actors involved in them. Two main paths have been identi- fi ed. The fi rst has to do with the “institutionalization” of movements, nor- mally conceived as the process through which specifi c organizations change their profi le: they may become more bureaucratized and more professional, dropping confrontational tactics in favor of pressure strategies, in parallel with their enjoying greater access to policy making. The extent to which these ele- ments combine in a totally homogeneous model might vary (e.g., Greenpeace combines confrontational strategies with highly bureaucratic, professional structures), yet the overall pattern is quite clear. Conversely, social movements may dissolve because of their radicalization, with their different organizations proving unwilling to compromise and to engage in sustained collaborations and shared boundary defi nition (della Porta 1995 ; Tarrow 1989 , chs. 9 and 12). Either way, the main focus of the analysis is squarely on the properties of specifi c organizations. 1 If we take a relational perspective, the focus shifts from the properties of the actors to those of the system of interaction. Irrespective of the specifi c routes taken by processes of change, both institutionalization and sectarian radical- ization imply, in relational terms, a reduction in the weight of social move- ment modes of coordination. The density of resource exchanges decreases, and identities and boundaries are defi ned primarily in relation to specifi c organiza- tions rather than to broader collectivities such as movements or subcultures. In this respect it matters less, we insist, whether we are facing organizational fi elds consisting mostly of public interest organizations or, conversely, radical sects, or whether we are looking instead at fi elds accommodating organizations with different profi les and strategies. The key aspect of the process is that the dominant relational pattern be focused on the specifi c groups and associa- tions rather than the fi eld as a whole. This applies regardless of the substantive properties of the actors involved. In some extreme cases, such as Nazism in Germany, we may even witness the transformation of an organizational fi eld characterized by social movement dynamics (multiplicity of actors, linked through boundary spanning ties and through shared identities) into a single organization, the Nazi party, which partially eliminated potential competitors (such as the paramilitary Sturm Abteilung [SA]) and partially coordinated the interaction between formerly independent organizations, now subsumed under the party heading (Anheier 2003 , 49–54). In most cases, however, we would see the emergence of a fi eld in which organizations are only loosely connected to each other. For example, in the case of environmentalism, we would normally face a situation in which each organization becomes – or at least competes with

1 Even the latest edition of Tarrow’s classic Power in Movement ( 2011 ) treats movements’ organi- zational transformation as changes in the profi le of organizations, not in the patterns of exchange between organizations.

99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 220707 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:31:51:31 PPMM 208 Postfaction

others to become – the sole “owner” of a specifi c subissue and focuses on secur- ing its specifi c niche, from energy to animal rights to traffi c, with low levels of systematic overlap. On a broader scale, another interesting illustration of how a focus on modes of coordination may contribute to our understanding of the evolution of con- tention over time comes from Federico Schuster and his associates’ ( 2006 ) mapping of social protest in Argentina from 1989–2003. Drawing upon pro- test event methods and a data set of more than fi ve thousand events, they trace major changes in actors and patterns of contention over fi fteen years. What Schuster and colleagues are describing seems to be a process in which the ability of a restricted group of trade or party organizations to promote and coordinate collective action is at least partially replaced by a number of alliances focusing on issues that are at the same time more differentiated and more specifi c, if still broad. Translated into the language of “modes of coor- dination,” in Argentina over the 1990s we might have been witnessing a shift in the relative weight of organizational versus coalitional modes, in parallel with the emergence of new civil society actors. We can also wonder to what extent the emergence of spontaneous forms of popular protest as those repre- sented by piqueteros and neighborhood action groups refl ect communitarian modes of coordination, or modes closer to a social movement model (Auyero 2007 ; Delamata 2004 ). In the former case, the cohesion and coordination of collective action would be secured through the solidarities and the social ties provided by embeddedness in local communities, rather than by interorgani- zational exchanges; in the latter, we would be seeing the capacity of grassroots groups to set up broader alliance patterns.

Territorial and Political Spaces The fi rst decade of the twenty-fi rst century has seen the return of massive protests worldwide, starting with the global justice movement that peaked in 1999–2001, continuing with the peace protests of 2003, and culminating in 2011 with the Indignados campaigns in Spain, the Middle East revolts, and many other instances of collective action across the globe (Castells 2012 ; della Porta 2007 ; Walgrave and Rucht 2010 ). It is then worth asking how the modes of coordination approach outlined here might contribute to our understanding of collective action processes across heterogeneous settings, and particularly in contexts where democratic practices are either absent or less consolidated. One general benefi t of looking at the multiple combinations of mechanisms of resource allocation and boundary defi nition is the greater ability to capture the complexity of the relations between actors with varying levels of formaliza- tion and institutionalization. While analysts of contemporary Western social movements have only recently acknowledged the vagueness of the boundaries between institutional and noninstitutional politics , often under the infl uence of the contentious politics agenda (e.g., Goldstone 2003 ), analysts of politics in

99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 220808 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:31:51:31 PPMM Postfaction 209

other parts of the world have always recognized that the divide was not very neat. Certainly, Latin American political parties have repeatedly been at the forefront of social mobilization (Marti i Puig 2014 ). This does not only apply to “revolutionary” parties leading large-scale movements of the dispossessed; it also applies to political system where revolutionary actors have long lost their capacity for leadership, yet party cadres fi nd themselves involved in even the most disruptive forms of protest. One example comes from the 2001 “food riots” in Argentina, following the fi nancial crisis of 2000, that saw a nonneg- ligible role of local party activists (Auyero 2007 ). Similar indications emerge from the complex relations between community activists and the ruling African National Congress in democratic South Africa (see, e.g., Ballard, Habib, and Valodia 2006 ). This reinforces the insight from our analysis that social move- ment organizations are not characterized by distinctive features. Rather, it is the embeddedness of one organization – including a political party – in specifi c modes of coordination that makes of it a “social movement organization.” Given this premise, it is then important to explore some of the conditions that may affect the relative weight of modes of coordination in different set- tings, and possibly the specifi c contents of the collective action they produce. To begin with, the fact that democracy is often authoritarian, if not entirely absent, in many non-Western countries may affect not only participation in organizational life, but also alliance building. The construction of alliances, and even more so the forging of shared boundaries through sustained interaction and multiple involvements, are easier when public action and public commu- nication are not restrained. While history shows that the development of sus- tained, long-term challenges to state authorities in the form of national social movements (Tilly 1984 ; 1994 ) is far from impossible in repressive regimes, this requires peculiar and rare combinations of resources, opportunities, and external favorable conditions. In authoritarian settings, in order to survive, associations operating in the public domain tend to moderate their approach and challenge authorities mostly on the legal ground, as civic group Kifaya did in Egypt in the 2000s (Vairel 2011 ), or limit themselves to “bread and but- ter” demands, like Egyptian working-class organizations in the same period (Beinin 2011 ). Radicalization is certainly possible, but once again with a weak- ening of the social movement mode of coordination and a growing focus on organizational logics in the form of violent militias. When extended networks survive, they are often transnational in orientation rather than including mul- tiple domestic organizations, as the experience of Ogoni resistance in Nigeria suggests (Pilati forthcoming). In repressive contexts, community-based resis- tance has often proved more feasible and effective than open challenges con- ducted through coalitions and movements. Moreover, forms of resistance do not necessarily overlap with the political, and a great deal of attention must thus be given to “infrapolitical practices” ( conduites infrapolitiques : Fillieule and Bennani-Chra ï bi 2003 , 31). For example, in Cairo, informal networks sur- vived repression during the Mubarak regime because they were by defi nition

99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 220909 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:31:51:31 PPMM 210 Postfaction

invisible and also because they were very much embedded in family ties; they also operated as sources of social capital in providing access to essential mate- rial resources, further increasing their effi cacy as channels of covert opposition (Singerman 2003 , 226–7). Likewise, informal policephalous networks helped the salafi s to resist repression from the Jordan (Wiktorowicz 2000 ). Although Muslim activists have been particularly effective at furthering com- munity ties through largely nonpolitical activities, it would be misleading to equate communitarian modes of coordination in the Middle East with Muslim communities. It is instead worth underlining the broader role of the city as the locus where forms of resistance take place and forms of nonpolitical socia- bility, yet amenable to political goals, develop (Fillieule and Bennani-Chraï bi 2003 , 26). Urban streets often provide the setting for collective action for the most deprived social groups, where collective action is not embedded in spe- cifi c organizations but in everyday life. 2 It would be important to explore the mechanisms of boundary defi nition for these collectivities, defi ned by their life in the urban streets, rather than assuming radical Islamism to be necessarily a major source of identifi cation (Bayat 2012 ): informal networks have also been shown to support various forms of resistance by secular intellectual milieus (e.g., Duboc 2011 ). The diffi culty for social movement or even coalitional modes of coordina- tion to emerge in authoritarian or only partially democratic regimes may be amplifi ed by the role of elites . While the extent to which Western elites actually act in pursuit of broad collective interests could be questioned (an issue we cannot address here), elites in developing countries are conventionally por- trayed as focusing on restricted interests defi ned along multiple cleavage lines, thus contributing to the fragmentation of political systems. In turn, this is not conducive to the growth of broad-based social movements that should either revitalize existing cleavages or create, through new systems of relations, the foundations for new cleavages (for a general discussion of this point: Diani 2000 ). For example, political systems in the Middle East have been described as grounds for struggle between competing elites, each trying to consolidate and entrench their power while ensuring that avenues to access power are either monopolized by an inner circle of loyal allies or completely eliminated. In what are sometimes referred to as “sultanistic regimes” (Goldstone 2011a ), even the ties between elites and oppositional actors seem to be based on the solidarities originating from family and clan rather than associational ties (Fillieule and Bennani-Chra ï bi 2003 , 104). The implications of a sultanistic regime for the growth of modes of coor- dination are substantial. Such a regime undermines the emergence of coun- terelites and movement entrepreneurs with the necessary leadership skills. The dependence of broad alliances, which aim to link different currents and factions

2 Bayat ( 2012 , 119–21) speaks of “nonmovements” in reference to these forms of action, to mark their peculiarity.

99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 221010 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:32:51:32 PPMM Postfaction 211

into a common project, on personal factors undermines their sustainability. As a result, alliances between political actors, focusing on the opposition to local regimes, struggle to defi ne forms of collaboration beyond short-term, opportu- nistic goals, and to express a stronger shared identity and a common long-term political vision. In particular, alliances involving left-wing, secular and Islamic actors in the Middle East have usually refl ected, in their limited nature and scope, the diffi culty of keeping together such an ideologically diverse set of allies, as partners refrain from taking up any issue that might prove contro- versial and on which there are well-known differences (Clark 2006 ; Schwedler and Clark 2006 ). The success of the 2011 Arab revolts seemed to depend much more on military elites’ decisions to abandon discredited and weakened dicta- tors to their fate, than to civic elites’ capacity to build solid, broad alliances, capable of lasting past the overthrowing of the local rulers (Goldstone 2011b ; Nepstad 2011 ). At the same time, when they manage to fi nd the conditions to develop, mass organizations play a more important mobilizing role than in the West in last decades of the twentieth century. Such a role is not restricted to the political arena, as the scarcity of resources available to aggrieved social groups ren- ders organizations an important source of life opportunities in multiple areas. In addition to attempting to affect the policy process, collective action gives access to material goods and life chances that would otherwise be denied. For example, one strength of organizations in the Middle East, including radical ones like Hezbollah , has been their capacity to provide answers to prepolitical and nonpolitical needs, particularly dramatic in urban areas. Muslim groups have managed to respond to a number of basic questions regarding every- day life, the managing of family relations, morality, the running of the urban economy, and so forth. In doing so, they have provided aggrieved communi- ties – both of the lower and of the middle classes – with life options and with opportunities for covert resistance (Singerman 2003 ). The fi ght against crime has proved a powerful source of infl uence and support for Islamic activists in local neighborhoods (Fillieule and Bennani-Chraï bi 2003 , 112); so has the pro- motion of Islamic clinics and charitable associations (Clark 2004 ). However, the emphasis on organizations in contexts in which group iden- tities maintain their high salience means diffi culties not only for social move- ment activity but even for alliance work. For example, looking at the alliance developed in Palestine since 1991 between the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in oppo- sition to the peace process, Robinson showed that both organizations entered the Alliance of Palestinian Forces, which also comprised a number of minor players, with the obvious goal of advancing their own specifi c interests. A for- malization of the collaboration (e.g., through mergers) was never really on the agenda (Robinson 2005 , 21–2). In other words, organizational modes of coordination were operating, rather than social movement ones. Likewise, there were few signs of the crosscutting memberships and interactions through

99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 221111 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:32:51:32 PPMM 212 Postfaction

associations, which according to some analysts ensure the cohesion of organi- zational fi elds in Western societies and provide the basis for social movement modes of coordination (Carroll and Ratner 1996 ; Diani 2009 ). Deep ideo- logical differences and PFLP activists’ rejection of fundamentalism not only hindered the alliance, but rendered overlapping memberships unlikely. Nor did Hamas’s view of an Islamic Palestine facilitate dense interorganizational exchanges (Robinson 2005 ). All in all, little in the guise of social movement logics may be found in the Middle East. Even in the case of Islamist collec- tive action, for which the term social movement is often used, it seems more appropriate to speak either of organizational or communitarian modes of coordination. It is instead more diffi cult to identify instances of the sustained collaborations between multiple organizations, at the same time independent and mutually committed in pursuit of shared long-term goals.

Cyberspaces and Communication Technology While the Internet already existed when this project started, its pervasiveness in both people’s lives and academic discourse has grown exponentially since 2000. Given the widespread agreement about the impossibility of neatly separating offl ine and online relational spheres (Bennett and Segerberg 2013 ; Castells 2012 ; Earl and Kimport 2011 ; Pavan 2012 ), there is no reason to think that the specifi c fi ndings of a study of local collective action should be drastically altered by the emergence of computer-mediated communication (henceforth, CMC). At the same time, it is worth looking at some of the broader implica- tions of CMC for our understanding of modes of coordination of collective action. Some very bold claims have indeed been made, suggesting the emer- gence of a new form of social movement, the “networked social movement,” consisting basically of like-minded individuals connected through informa- tion technology (Castells 2012 ). New forms of “connective action” have also been identifi ed, in which individuals appear to link in different projects and in different combinations, according to their distinctive agendas, thanks to the infrastructures made available not only by existing organizations but, most interestingly, directly by new electronic media (Bennett and Segerberg 2013 ). Admittedly, Bennett and Segerberg (e.g., 2013 , 13) are not claiming that the spread of connective action necessarily displaces collective action as we knew it, that is based on collective identities brokered by organizations. However, by linking the former to the growing individualism that is seen as the dominant trait of contemporary society, they are inevitably implying that social media acting as “organizational hubs” constitute the distinctive form of coordinating people’s joint action in this phase of modernity. Castells is similarly careful not to dismiss entirely the role of organizations, but yet again the main thrust of his argument is clear, as “digital communication networks are an indispensable component in the practice and organization of these movements as they exist. The networked social movements of our time are largely based on the Internet,

99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 221212 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:32:51:32 PPMM Postfaction 213

a necessary though not suffi cient component of their collective action” ( 2012 , 229). Both accounts offer a number of important empirical and theoretical insights, and it would be outside the focus and scope of this book to discuss them in their entirety. Here, we shall merely question their tendency to confl ate under the category “social movement” phenomena and processes that might be more aptly recognized as analytically different. The view of social move- ments advocated in this book is relatively “narrow,” in the positive sense of the term. It rests on the interplay of interorganizational networks and the web of connections created by individual activists through their multiple links to organizations and their members. Such a view is rooted, on the one hand, in the historical experience that goes back at least as far as the “communities of print and association” of the modern revolutions (Tarrow 2011 ), on the other hand, in the development of the concept of social movement as a distinct ana- lytic category (Diani 1992 ). Castells breaks in many ways with this tradition by pointing out that changes in communication practices and patterns drastically alter the conditions in which traditional social movements, heavily reliant on organizations, operated. At the same time, however, he still refers to the phe- nomena analyzed as “social movements.” The analysis of this book suggests that referring to other modes of coordination might be more appropriate. It is important to note that this is not a purely terminological dispute, as words carry meanings, which in turn infl uence interpretations and shape expectations (Sartori 1984 ). Different modes of coordination are indeed likely to result in different levels of effectiveness and impact in the medium term, issues that are central to both Castells’ (e.g., 2012 , 234–7) and Bennet and Segerberg’s ( 2013 , chs. 4–5) contributions. Ultimately, the role assigned to the “networked social movement” is still that of the carrier of a global challenge, even though, of course, with very different expectations regarding outcomes, as no revolution is in sight (Castells 2012 , 244–6). However, it is diffi cult to think of such a role being taken up by what are ultimately little more than aggregates of like-minded individuals. Dismissing the role of organizations implies in par- ticular underplaying the role of the time dimension in the analysis of collec- tive action. Organizations have been historically a most important source of continuity, trust, and mutual recognition for their members. And it is through their systematic networks that modern social movements have emerged and consolidated, generating sustained challenges to power holders and creating the conditions for signifi cant power shifts (Tilly 2004b ). From the point of view of modes of coordination, phenomena such as Occupy or Indignados , or even the Arab revolts (as argued in the previous sec- tion) seem best conceived as instances of communitarian (in a broad version of community) types of collective action rather than fully fl edged social move- ments. This does not diminish their substantive relevance, nor does it imply a dismissal of the role of the Internet in enabling these forms of action and often making them successful. It implies, however, a recognition that while modern

99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 221313 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:32:51:32 PPMM 214 Postfaction

social movements have displayed an ability to fi nd a balance between the rec- ognition of their heterogeneity and the need for coordination over the mid-term if not the long term, such ability has been largely missing from the events of 2011. It is certainly possible that the historical model of the social movement be heading for an irreversible decline, and Castells might be absolutely correct as regards that. But if so, then alternative terms may more appropriately con- note what we have witnessed over the last few years, while recognizing that now and for the foreseeable future organizations are still important sources of continuity, for which aggregates of individuals connected through CMC are not a substitute. It thus appears advisable to make use of alternative terms to denote their basic properties and functions. Several of the processes identifi ed by Bennett and Segerberg (see, e.g., 2013, 13) also seem to be closer to organizational or communitarian modes, than to social movements ones. On the one hand, they identify a form of connective action in which groups and associations (either in their own capacity as dis- tinct organizations or as consortia) offer people opportunities for participation that are highly fl exible and tailored to individual needs. However, this model is not very distant from a classic model of pluralist politics in which boundary defi nition based on shared identities is limited, and individual citizens shift between different activities and commitments driven by their own personal options and priorities. Action here does not imply a redefi nition of boundaries, but rather rhetorical adaptations by organizations to meet the needs of a com- posite clientele, in the best resource mobilization tradition. On the other hand, the model of individuals connecting directly through CMC – which is also the closest to the patterns identifi ed by Castells – presents the same features and diffi culties as the “networked social movement” model: it is easy to imagine the presence of mechanisms of mutual trust for sets of activists who are very dis- tinctive and also involved in specifi c offl ine networks that involve a great deal of face-to-face interaction, like the global justice movement “affi nity groups” (Juris 2008 ); it is far more diffi cult to imagine the same mechanisms operat- ing for aggregates of people who may share similar values and orientations, but little more than that. Information circulated through CMC may certainly generate participation, even massive participation, in short-lived events, but is more disputable that they may provide the foundation for sustained collective action. Nevertheless, the recent studies devoted to the impact of CMC on collective action patterns raise important questions. Our contention is simply that a more diversifi ed set of concepts such as those offered by the typology of modes of coordination presented here would reduce some of the ambiguities of the cur- rent formulations, keep us away from potentially misleading uses of categories such as “social movement,” with all the implicit assumptions and expectations that the term carries, and enable us to focus on the important challenges that those studies identify. Among them is certainly the issue of the autonomy of individuals in promoting and engaging in collective action. While treating sets

99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 221414 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:32:51:32 PPMM Postfaction 215

of tweeting individuals as a social movement risks bringing us back to crowd behavior analysis of old, it is important to recognize the specifi city of the role of individuals as both linked to, but also independent from, groups and asso- ciations. For various reasons, including diffi culties in data collection, the study presented here has looked at individuals mainly as links between organiza- tions. It is time now to take a richer, multidimensional approach, build on earlier leads (Mische 2008 ; but also, in other fi elds, Lazega et al. 2008 ), and develop a genuine multimodal analysis of collective action networks that may fully incorporate the autonomy of individual action (Christopoulos, Diani, and Knoke forthcoming).

99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 221515 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:32:51:32 PPMM 99781107100008pos_p205-216.indd781107100008pos_p205-216.indd 221616 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:51:32:51:32 PPMM Appendix

Qualitative Interviews Conducted during the Project

Bristol Interviews Steve Fenton – social scientist – September 6, 2000 BREC – Bristol Race Equality Council – September 6, 2000 VOSCUR – Voluntary Organisations Standing Council on Urban Regeneration – September 6, 2000 COGB – Congregations Organised for a Greater Bristol – September 7, 2000 Paul Burton – social scientist – September 7, 2000 Ian Coates – local activist – September 7, 2000 Rohit Barot – social scientist – September 9, 2000 Margaret Jones – local activist – February 14, 2001 Green Party – November 21, 2002 Oxfam – November 21, 2002 Malcolm X Center – November 22, 2002 Greenleaf Bookshop – November 22, 2002 Greenpeace – November 22, 2002 Bristol Defend the Asylum Seekers – November 26, 2002 GILL – November 26, 2002 SARI – Support Against Racist Incidents – November 27, 2002 The Law Centre – November 27, 2002 BACEN – Bristol Area Community Enterprise Network – November 27, 2002 CND – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament – November 28, 2002 VOSCUR – February 17, 2003 Bristol Cycling Campaign – February 17, 2003 COGB – Congregations Organised for a Greater Bristol – February 18, 2003 Bristol Muslim Cultural Society – February 18, 2003 Easton Community Association – February 18, 2003 HHEAG – Hartcliffe Health and Environment Action Group – February 18, 2003

217

99781107100008app_p217-218.indd781107100008app_p217-218.indd 221717 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:22:57:22:57 PPMM 218 Appendix

Cycle West – February 19, 2003 Dhek Bhal – February 19, 2003 BREC – Bristol Race Equality Council – February 19, 2003 SUSTRANS – February 20, 2003

Glasgow Interviews GCVS – Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector – January 15, 2001 Poverty Alliance – January 18, 2001 GCVS – Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector – February 6, 2001 Wallace McNeish – social scientist – February 8, 2001 GCVS – Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector – February 12, 2001 Rosie Kane – local activist, MSP – March 20, 2001 CND – August 13, 2002 Poverty Alliance – August 16, 2002 Oxfam – August 16, 2002 Meridian – August 21, 2002 Amnesty International – August 21, 2002 Friends of the Earth – August 22, 2002 STUC – Scottish Trade Unions Council – August 22, 2002 Scottish Socialist Party – August 23, 2002 Ploughshare – August 23, 2002 BTCV – British Trust for Conservation Volunteers – August 26, 2002 SHRC – Scottish Human Rights Commission – August 27, 2002 Positive Action in Housing – August 27, 2002 Green Party – August 28, 2002 Taleem Trust – August 28, 2002

99781107100008app_p217-218.indd781107100008app_p217-218.indd 221818 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:22:57:22:57 PPMM Bibliography

Abbott , Andrew . 1995 . “ Things of Boundaries .” Social Research 62 : 857–82 . Adam , Silke , Margit Jochum , and Hanspeter Kriesi . 2008 . “Coalition Structure in National Policy Networks .” In Civil Society and Governance in Europe , edited by William Maloney and Jan van Deth, 193–217 . Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar . Ahrne , G ö ran . 1996 . “ Civil Society and Civil Organizations .” Organization 3 : 109–20 . Ahrne , G ö ran , and Nils Brunsson . 2011 . “Organization outside Organizations: The Signifi cance of Partial .” Organization 18 : 83–104 . Amin , Ash . 2003 . “ Unruly Strangers? The 2001 Urban Riots in Britain.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27 : 460–3 . Andrews , Kenneth T. , and Bob Edwards . 2005 . “The Organizational Structure of Local Environmentalism .” Mobilization 10 : 213–34 . Anheier , Helmut . 2003 . “ Movement Development and Organizational Networks.” In Social Movements and Networks , edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, 49– 74 . Oxford : Oxford University Press . 2004 . Civil Society. Measurement, Evaluation, Policy . London : Earthscan . Anheier , Helmut , and Hagai Katz . 2004 . “Network Approaches to Global Civil Society.” In Global Civil Society 2004/2005 , edited by Helmut Anheier, Marlies Glasius, and Mary Kaldor, 206–21 . London : Sage . Anheier , Helmut , and Nuno Themudo . 2002 . “Organizational Forms of Global Civil Society: Implications of Going Global .” In Global Civil Society 2002 , edited by Marlies Glasius, Mary Kaldor, and Helmut Ahheier, 191–216 . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Anheier , Helmut , Marlies Glasius , and Mary Kaldor . 2001 . “Introducing Global Civil Society .” In Global Civil Society 2001 , edited by Helmut Anheier, Marlies Glasius, and Mary Kaldor, 3–22 . Oxford and New York : Oxford University Press . Ansell , Christopher . 2003 . “ Community Embeddedness and Collaborative Governance in the San Francisco Bay Area Environmental Movement .” In Social Movements and Networks , edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, 123–44 . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

219

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 221919 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:35:49:35 PPMM 220 Bibliography

Arato , Andrew , and Jean Cohen . 1992 . Civil Society and Political Theory . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press . Armstrong , Elizabeth A. 2005 . “ From Struggle to Settlement: The Crystallization of a Field of Lesbian/Gay Organizations in San Francisco, 1969–1973.” In Social Movements and Organizations , edited by Gerald F. Davis, Doug McAdam, Richard W. Scott, and Mayer N. Zald, 161–87 . New York : Cambridge University Press. Aunio , Anna-Lisa , and Suzanne Staggenborg . 2011 . “Transnational Linkages and Movement Communities.” Sociology Compass 5 : 364–75 . Auyero , Javier . 2007 . Routine Politics and Violence in Argentina . New York and Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Baldassarri , Delia , and Peter Bearman . 2007 . “Dynamics of Political Polarization.” American Sociological Review 72 : 784–811 . Baldassarri , Delia , and Mario Diani . 2007 . “ The Integrative Power of Civic Networks.” American Journal of Sociology 113 : 735–80 . Ballard , Richard , Adam Habib , and Imraan Valodia , eds. 2006 . Voices of Protest. Social Movements in Post-Apartheid South Africa . Durban : University of KwaZulu-Natal Press . Barker , Colin , Alan Johnson , and Michael Lavalette , eds. 2001 . Leadership in Social Movements . Manchester, UK : Manchester University Press . Barringer , Bruce R. , and Jeffrey S. Harrison . 2000 . “Walking a Tightrope: Creating Value through Interorganizational Relationships .” Journal of Management 26 : 367–403 . Bayat, Asef . 2012 . “ Politics in the City-Inside-Out.” City and Society 24 : 110–28 . Beamish , Thomas , and Amy Luebbers . 2009 . “ Alliance Building across Social Movements: Bridging Difference in a Peace and Justice Coalition.” Social Problems 56 : 647–76 . Beinin , Joel . 2011 . “ A Workers’ Social Movement on the Margin of the Global Neo-Liberal Order, Egypt 2004–2009 .” In Social Movements, Mobilization and Contestation in the Middle East and North Africa , edited by Joel Beinin and Frederic Vairel, 181–201 . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bennani-Chra ï bi , Mounia , and Olivier Fillieule . 2003 . R é sistances et Protestations Dans Les Soci é t é s Musulmanes . Paris : Presses de Sciences Po . Bennett , W. Lance , and Alexandra Segerberg . 2013 . The Logic of Connective Action . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Berry, Jeffrrey . 1993 . “ Citizen Groups and the Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics in America .” Annals of the AAPSS 528 : 30–41 . Boissevain , Jeremy . 1974 . Friends of Friends . Oxford : Blackwell . Boltanski , Luc , and Eva Chiappello . 2005 . The New Spirit of Capitalism . London : Verso . Borgatti , Stephen P. , and Martin Everett . 1992 . “ Notions of Position in Social Network Analysis .” Sociological Methodology 22 : 1–35 . 1997 . “ Network Analysis of 2-Mode Data.” Social Networks 19 : 243–69 . Borgatti , Stephen P. , and Daniel Halgin . 2011 . “On Network Theory.” Organization Science 22 : 1157–67 . Borgatti , Stephen P. , Martin Everett , and Linton Freeman . 2002 . “Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis.” Boston: Analytic Technologies. Borgatti , Stephen P. , Martin Everett , and Jeffrey C. Johnson . 2013 . Analyzing Social Networks . London : Sage . Borland , Elizabeth . 2008 . “Social Movement Organizations and Coalitions: Comparisons from the Women’s Movement in Buenos Aires, Argentina .” Research in Social Movements, Confl icts and Change 28 : 83–112 .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 222020 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM Bibliography 221

Bourdieu , Pierre . 1992 . An Invitation to Refl exive Sociology . Edited by Loic J. D. Wacquant. Cambridge : Polity Press. Brass, Daniel J. , and Marlene Burkhardt . 1992 . “Centrality and Power in Oganizations .” In Networks and Organizations , edited by Nitin Nohria and Robert Eccles, 191– 215 . Boston : Harvard Business School Press . Breiger , Ronald L. 1974 . “The Duality of Persons and Groups .” Social Forces 53 : 181–90 . Breiger , Ronald L. , and David Melamed . 2014 . “ The Duality of Organizations and Their Attributes: Turning Regression Modeling ‘Inside Out .’ ” Research in the Sociology of Organizations 40 : 261–74 . Breiger , Ronald L. , Scott Boorman , and Philip Arabie . 1975 . “ An Algorithm For Clustering Relational Data with Application to Social Network Analysis and Comparison with Multidimensional Scaling.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 12 : 328–83. Bruszt , L á szl ó . 2008 . “ Multi-Level Governance – The Eastern Versions: Emerging Patterns of Regional Developmental Governance in the New Member States.” Regional and Federal Studies 18 : 607 . Brym , Robert , Melissa Godbout , Andreas Hoffbauer , Gabe Menard , and Tony Huiquan Zhang . 2012 . “Social Media in the 2011 Egyptian Uprising.” British Journal of Sociology 65: 266–92. Buechler , Steven . 2000 . Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism . New York : Oxford University Press . Burstein , Paul . 1998 . “ Interest Organizations, Political Parties, and the Study of Democratic Politics .” In Social Movements and American Political Institutions , edited by Anne Costain and Andrew McFarland, 39–56 . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld . Burt , Ronald S. 2005 . Brokerage and Closure . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Byrne , Paul . 1997 . Social Movements in Britain . London : Routledge . Camerer , Colin , and Marc Knez . 1996 . “ Coordination, Organizational Boundaries and Fads in Business Practices .” Industrial and Corporate Change 5 : 89–112 . Campbell , John L. 2005 . “Where Do We Stand? Common Mechanisms in Organizations and Social Movement Research .” In Social Movements and Organizations , edited by Gerald F. Davis, Doug McAdam, Richard W. Scott, and Mayer N. Zald, 41–68 . New York : Cambridge University Press. Caramani , Daniele . 2009 . Introduction to the Comparative Method with Boolean Algebra . London : Sage . Carroll , William K. , and Robert S. Ratner . 1996 . “ Master Framing and Cross-Movement Networking in Contemporary Social Movements .” Sociological Quarterly 37 : 601–25 . Casciaro , Tiziana . 1998 . “ Seeing Things Clearly: Social Structure, Personality, and Accuracy in Social Network Perception .” Social 20 : 331–51 . Castells , Manuel . 2012 . Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age . Cambridge : Polity. Cento Bull, Anna , and Bryn Jones . 2006 . “Governance and Social Capital in Urban Regeneration: A Comparison between Bristol and Naples .” Urban Studies 43 : 767–86 . Christopoulos , Dimitris C. , Mario Diani , and David Knoke . In progress. Power, Politics, and Networks . Cinalli , Manlio . 2003 . “ Socio-Politically Polarized Contexts, Urban Mobilization and the Environmental Movement: A Comparative Study of Two Campaigns of Protest

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 222121 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM 222 Bibliography

in Northern Ireland .” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27 : 158–77 . Clark , Janine . 2004 . “ Islamist Women in Yemen: Informal Nodes of Activism.” In Islamic Activism: A Social Movement Theory Approach , edited by Quintan Wiktorowicz, 164–84. Bloomington : Indiana University Press . 2006 . “The Conditions of Islamist Moderation: Unpacking Cross-Ideological Cooperation in Jordan.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 38 : 539–60 . Clarke , Nick , Clive Barnett , Paul Cloke , and Alice Malpass . 2007 . “ The Political Rationalities of Fair-Trade Consumption in the United Kingdom .” Politics and Society 35 : 583–607 . Clua Losada, Monica . 2010 . “Solidarity, Global Restructuring and Deregulation: The Liverpool Dockers’ Dispute 1995–98.” PhD diss. York, UK : University of York . Collins , Randall . 2004 . Interaction Ritual Chains . Princeton, NJ, and Oxford: Princeton University Press . Corrigall-Brown , Catherine , and David S. Meyer . 2010 . “The Prehistory of a Coalition: The Role of Social Ties in Win without War.” In Strategic Alliances: New Studies of Social Movement Coalitions , edited by Nella van Dyke and Holly McCammon, 3–21 . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. Craig , Gary , and Marylin Taylor . 2002 . “Dangerous Liaisons: Local Government and the Voluntary and Community Sectors .” In Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare , edited by Caroline Glendinnig, Martin Powell, and Kirstein Rummery. Bristol, UK : Policy Press . Crossley , Nick . 2002 . Making Sense of Social Movements . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press . 2011 . Towards Relational Sociology . London : Routledge . Dalton , Russell . 1994 . The Green Rainbow: Environmental Groups in Western Europe . New Haven, CT : Yale University Press . 2008 . Citizen Politics . Washington, DC : CQ Press . Daly , Siobhan , and Jude Howell . 2006 . “For the Common Good? The Changing Role of Civil Society in the UK and Ireland.” London: Carnegie UK Trust. Davis , Gerald F. , Calvin Morrill , Hayagreeva Rao , and Sarah Soule . 2008 . “ Introduction: Social Movements in Organizations and Markets.” Administrative Science Quarterly 53 : 389–94 . Deakin , Nicholas . 2001 . In Search of Civil Society . New York : Palgrave . 2005 . “ Civil Society and Civil Renewal.” In Voluntary Action: Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century , edited by Campbell Robb, 14–45 . London : NCVO . De Federico de la Rú a , Ainhoa . 2007 . “Networks and Identifi cations.” International Sociology 22 : 683–99 . Degenne , Alain , and Michel Fors é . 1999 . Introducing Social Networks . London : Sage . Delamata , Gabriela . 2004 . Los Barrios Desbordados: Las Organizaciones de Desocupados Del Gran Buenos Aires . Buenos Aires : Eudeba . della Porta, Donatella . 1995 . Social Movements, Political Violence and the State . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . ., ed. 2007 . The Global Justice Movement . Boulder, CO : Paradigm . della Porta, Donatella , and Mario Diani . 2011 . “Social Movements and Civil Society.” In The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society , edited by Michael Edwards, 68–80. Oxford : Oxford University Press .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 222222 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM Bibliography 223

della Porta , Donatella , Dieter Rucht , and Kriesi , eds. 1998 . Social Movements in a Globalizing World . Basingstoke, UK : Macmillan . Den Hond, Frank , Frank G. A. De Bakker , and Nikolai Smith . Forthcoming . “Social Movements and Organizational Analysis.” In Oxford Handbook of Social Movements , edited by Donatella della Porta and Mario Diani. Oxford and New York : Oxford University Press . Diani , Mario . 1992 . “The Concept of Social Movement .” Sociological Review 40 : 1–25 . 1995 . Green Networks: A Structural Analysis of the Italian Environmental Movement . Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press . 1997 . “ Social Movements and Social Capital .” Mobilization 2 : 129–47 . 2000 . “Simmel to Rokkan and Beyond: Elements for a Network Theory of (New) Social Movements .” European Journal of Social Theory 3 : 387–406 . 2003 . “Leaders or Brokers? ” In Social Movements and Networks , edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, 105–22 . Oxford and New York : Oxford University Press . 2005 . “Cities in the World: Local Civil Society and Global Issues in Britain .” In Transnational Protest and Global Activism , edited by Donatella della Porta and Sidney Tarrow, 45–67 . Lanham, MD : Rowman and Littlefi eld . 2007 . “ The Relational Element in Charles Tilly’s Recent (and Not So Recent) Work .” Social Networks 29 : 316–23 . 2009 . “The Structural Bases of Protest Events. Multiple Memberships and Networks in the February 15th 2003 Anti-War Demonstrations .” Acta Sociologica 52 : 63–83 . 2011a . “The ‘Unusual Suspects’: Radical Repertoires in Consensual Settings.” In Violent Protest, Contentious Politics, and the Neoliberal State , edited by Seraphim Seferiades and Hank Johnston, 71–86. Farnham, UK, and Burlington, VT : Ashgate . 2011b. “Social Movements and Collective Action .” In The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis , edited by Peter Carrington and John Scott, 223–35 . London : Sage . 2012a . “Interest Organizations in Social Movements: An Empirical Exploration .” Interest Groups and Advocacy 1 : 26–47 . 2012b. “ Modes of Coordination of Collective Action: What Actors in Policy Making? ” In Networks in Social Policy Problems , edited by Marco Scotti and Balazs Vedres, 101–23 . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 2013 . “ Organizational Fields and Social Movement Dynamics.” In The Future of Social Movement Research: Dynamics, Mechanisms, and Processes , edited by Jacquelien van Stekelenburg, Conny Roggeband, and Bert Klandermans, 145–68 . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press . Diani , Mario , and Ivano Bison . 2004 . “ Organizations, Coalitions, and Movements .” Theory and Society 33 : 281–309 . Diani , Mario , and Paolo R. Donati . 1984 . “L’oscuro Oggetto Del Desiderio: Leadership E Potere Nelle Aree Di Movimento .” In Altri Codici. Aree Di Movimento Nella Metropoli , edited by Alberto Melucci, 315–44 . Bologna: Il Mulino . Diani , Mario , and Caelum Moffatt . Forthcoming . “Modes of Coordination of Collective Action in the Middle-East: Has the Arab Spring Made a Difference? ” In Contention, Regimes, and Transition , edited by Eitan Alimi, Avraham Sela, and Mario Sznajder. Diani , Mario , and Katia Pilati . 2011 . “Interests, Identities, and Relations: Drawing Boundaries in Civic Organizational Fields.” Mobilization 16 : 265–82 .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 222323 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM 224 Bibliography

Diani , Mario , and Elisa Rambaldo . 2007 . “ Still the Time of Environmental Movements? A Local Perspective .” Environmental Politics 16 : 765–84 . Diani , Mario , Isobel Lindsay , and Derrick Purdue . 2010 . “ Sustained Interactions? Social Movements and Coalitions in Local Settings .” In Strategic Alliances: New Studies of Social Movement Coalitions , edited by Nella Van Dyke and Holly McCammon, 219–38. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. DiGaetano , Alan , and Elizabeth Strom . 2003 . “ Comparative Urban Governance .” Urban Affairs Review 38 : 356–95 . DiMaggio , Paul . 1986 . “ Structural Analysis of Interorganizational Fields .” Research in Organizational Behavior 8 : 335–70 . DiMaggio , Paul , and Walter W. Powell . 1983 . “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48 : 147–60 . Doerfel , Marya , and Maureen Taylor . 2004 . “Network Dynamics of Interorganizational Cooperation: The Croatian Civil Society Movement .” Communication Monographs 71 : 373–94 . Doherty , Brian , Matthew Paterson , and Benjamin Seel . 2000 . “ Direct Action in British Environmentalism .” In Direct Action in British Environmentalism , edited by Benjamin Seel, Matthew Paterson, and Brian Doherty, 1–24 . London : Routledge . Doherty , Brian , Alexandra Plows , and Derek Wall . 2007 . “Environmental Direct Action in Manchester, Oxford and North Wales: A Protest Event Analysis.” Environmental Politics 16 : 805–25 . Doherty , Brian , Matthew Paterson , Alexandra Plows , and Derek Wall . 2003 . “ Explaining the Fuel Protests.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5 : 1–23 . Doreian , Patrick . 1999 . “ An Intuitive Introduction to Blockmodeling with Examples .” Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique 61 : 5–34 . Doreian , Patrick , Batagelj , and Anuš ka Ferligoj . 2004 . Generalized Blockmodeling . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Doreian , Patrick , and Katherine L. Woodard . 1992 . “Fixed List versus Snowball Selection of Social Networks .” Social Science Research 21 : 216–33 . Drury , John , Steve Reicher , and Clifford Stott . 2003 . “Transforming the Boundaries of Collective Identity: From the ‘Local’ Anti-Road Campaign to ‘Global’ Resistance?” Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest 2: 191–212 . Duboc , Marie . 2011 . “Egyptian Leftist Intellectuals’ Activism from the Margins: Overcoming the Mobilization/Demobilization Dichotomy .” In Social Movements, Mobilization and Contestation in the Middle East and North Africa , edited by Joel Beinin and Frederic Vairel, 61–80 . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press . Dumoulin Kervran , David . 2007 . “ Usage Compar é de La Notion de Reseau: Propositions D’analyse Pour L’action Collective.” Cahiers Des Amé riques Latines 51–2 : 125–44 . Earl, Jennifer , and Kathrin Kimport . 2011 . Digitally Enabled Social Change Activism in the Internet Age . Boston : MIT Press . Edwards , Bob , and John D. McCarthy . 2004 . “Resources and Social Movement Mobilization .” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements , edited by David Snow, Sarah Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, 116–52 . Oxford : Blackwell .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 222424 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM Bibliography 225

Edwards , Bob , Michael Foley , and Mario Diani , eds. 2001 . Beyond Tocqueville: Social Capital, Civil Society, and Political Process in Comparative Perspective . Hannover, NH : University Press of New England . Edwards , Michael . 2004 . Civil Society . Cambridge : Polity . Eggert , Nina . 2011 . “The Impact of Political Opportunity Structures on Networks of Immigrant Associations: A Comparison of Two European Cities.” PhD diss. University of Geneva and University of Trento. Entwisle, Barbara , Katherine Faust , Ronald R. Rindfuss , and Toshiko Kaneda . 2007 . “ Networks and Contexts: Variation in the Structure of Social Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 112 : 1495–1533 . Erickson , Bonnie . 1988 . “The Relational Basis of Attitudes.” In Social Structures , edited by Barry Wellman and S. D. Berkowitz, 99–121. New York and Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Ernstson , Henrik . 2011 . “Transformative Collective Action: A Network Approach to Transformative Change in Ecosystem-Based Management .” In Social Network Analysis and Natural Resource Management , edited by Ö rjan Bodin and Christina Prell, 255–87. Cambridge : Cambridge Unversity Press . Eyerman , Ron , and Andrew Jamison . 1989 . “Environmental Knowledge as an Organizational Weapon: The Case of Greenpeace.” Social Science Information 28 : 99–119 . 1991 . Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach . Cambridge : Polity Press . 1998 . Music and Social Movements . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press . Farrar , Max . 2003 . “Community, Social Capital and Identifi cation in the Multi-Ethnic Inner City: Refl ections on the Violent Urban Protest in the North of the UK in 2001.” Unpublished paper. Leeds: University of Leeds. Farro , Antimo . 1991 . La Lente Verde . Milano: Angeli . Fennema , Meindert . 2004 . “ The Concept and Measurement of Ethnic Community .” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 30 : 429. Ferligoj , Anu š ka , Patrick Doreian , and Batagelj . 2011 . “ Positions and Roles .” In Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis , edited by Peter Carrington and John Scott, 434–46 . London : Sage . Fillieule , Olivier , and Mounia Bennani-Chra ï bi . 2003 . “ Exit, Voice, Loyalty et Bien D’autres Choses Encore. . . . ” In R é sistances et Protestations Dans Les Soci é t é s Musulmanes , edited by Mounia Bennani-Chraï bi and Olivier Fillieule, 43–126 . Paris : Presses de Sciences Po. Flesher Fominaya, Cristina . 2010 . “Creating Cohesion from Diversity: The Challenge of Collective Identity Formation in the Global Justice Movement .” Sociological Inquiry 80 : 377–404 . Fligstein , Neil . 1996 . “Markets as Politics: A Political-Cultural Approach to Market Institutions .” American Sociological Review 61 : 656–73 . Freeman , Linton C. 1979 . “Centrality in Social Networks. Conceptual Clarifi cations .” Social Networks 1 : 215–39 . Galaskiewicz , Joseph . 1985 . “Interorganizational Relations.” Annual Review of Sociology 11 : 281–304 . Gamson , William . 1961 . “ A Theory of Coalition Formation.” American Sociological Review 26 : 373–82 .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 222525 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM 226 Bibliography

1992 . “The Social Psychology of Collective Action.” In Frontiers of Social Movement Theory , edited by Aldon Morris and Carol Mueller, 29–50 . New Haven, CT : Yale University Press . Gamson , William , and David S. Meyer . 1996 . “ Framing Political Opportunity .” In Comparative Perspective on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing , edited by Doug McAdam, John McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, 275–90 . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Gerhards , Jurgen , and Dieter Rucht . 1992 . “ Mesomobilization: Organizing and Framing in Two Protest Campaigns in West Germany .” American Journal of Sociology 98 : 555–95 . Gerlach , Luther . 1971 . “ Movements of Revolutionary Change: Some Structural Characteristics .” American Behavioral Scientist 43 : 813–36 . 2001 . “ The Structure of Social Movements: Environmental Activism and Its Opponents .” In Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy , edited by John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, 289–310 . Santa Monica, CA: Rand . Giuffre , Katherine . 2013 . Communities and Networks . Cambridge and Malden, MA : Polity . Glenn , John K. 1999 . “ Competing Challengers and Contested Outcomes to State Breakdown: The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia .” Social Forces 78 : 187–211 . Goldstone , Jack . 2003 . “ Introduction: Bridging Institutionalized and Noninstitutionalized Politics.” In States, Parties and Social Movements , edited by Jack Goldstone, 1–25 . New York : Cambridge University Press. 2004 . “More Social Movements or Fewer? Beyond Political Opportunity Structures to Relational Fields .” Theory and Society 33 : 333–65 . 2011a . “Understanding the Revolutions of 2011.” Foreign Affairs . May/June. http:// www.foreignaffairs.com.ezp.biblio.unitn.it/articles/67694/jack-a-goldstone/ understandingthe-revolutions-of-2011 . 2011b. “Cross-Class Coalitions and the Making of the Arab Revolts of 2011.” Swiss Political Science Review 17 : 457–62 . Gould , Roger V. 1995 . Insurgent Identities . Chicago : Chicago University Press . Granovetter, Mark . 1973 . “ The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78 : 1360–80 . Graziano , Paolo , and Francesca Forno . 2012 . “Political Consumerism and New Forms of Political Participation: The ‘Gruppi Di Acquisto Solidale’ in Italy .” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 644 : 121–33 . Griggs , Steven , and David Howarth . 2002 . “An Alliance of Interest and Identity? Explaining the Campaign against Manchester Airport’s Second Runway.” Mobilization 7: 43–58. Gulati, Ranjay , and Martin Gargiulo . 1999 . “ Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From? ” American Journal of Sociology 104 : 1439–93 . Gurza Lavalle, Adrian , Graziela Castello , and Renata M. Bichir . 2007 . “Protagonistas Na Sociedade Civil: Redes E Centralidades de Organiza çõ es Civis Em Sã o Paulo.” Dados-Revista De Ciencias Sociais 50 : 465–98 . Gurza Lavalle , Adrian , Graziela Castello , and Renata Mirandola Bichir . 2008 . “ Atores Perif é ricos na Sociedade Civil. Redes e centralidades de organizaçõ es em S ã o Paulo .” Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Sociais 23 : 73–96 . Haas , Peter . 1992 . “ Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization 2 : 1–35 .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 222626 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM Bibliography 227

Hampton , Keith , and Barry Wellman . 2003 . “Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb.” City and Community 2 : 277–311 . Hanneman , Robert A. , and Mark Riddle . 2005 . Introduction to Social Network Methods . Riverside : University of California, Riverside. Available at http://faculty. ucr.edu/~hanneman/ . Hargreaves Heap , Shaun , Martin Hollis , Bruce Lyons , Robert Sugden , and Albert Weale . 1992 . The Theory of Choice: A Critical Guide . Oxford and Cambridge, MA : Blackwell . Hasan , Rumy . 2000 . “Riots and Urban Unrest in Britain in the 1980s and 1990s: A Critique of Dominant Explanations .” In Class Struggle and Social Welfare , edited by Michael Lavalette and Gerry Mooney, 173–98 . London : Routledge . Haunss , Sebastian, and Darcy Leach . 2009 . “ Scenes and Social Movements .” In Culture, Social Movements, and Protest , edited by Hank Johnston, 255–76 . Burlington, VT, and Aldershot, UK : Ashgate Publishers . Heaney , Michael , and Fabio Rojas . 2008 . “Coalition Dissolution, Mobilization, and Network Dynamics in the U.S. Antiwar Movement.” Research in Social Movements, Confl icts and Change 28 : 39–82 . Inglehart , Ronald , and Christian Welzel . 2005 . Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Jessop , Bob . 1999 . “ The Changing Governance of Welfare: Recent Trends in Its Primary Functions, Scale, and Modes of Coordination .” Social Policy and Administration 33 : 348–59 . John , Peter . 2001 . Local Governance in Western Europe . London : Sage . 2009 . “Can Citizen Governance Redress the Representative Bias of Political Participation? ” Public Administration Review 69 : 494–503 . Johnston , Hank , and David Snow . 1998 . “ Subcultures and the Emergence of the Estonian Nationalist Opposition 1945–1990.” Sociological Perspectives 41 : 473–97 . Jones , Candace , Williams S. Hesterly , and Stephen P. Borgatti . 1997 . “A General Theory of Network Governance: Exchange Conditions and Social Mechanisms.” Academy of Management Review 22 : 911–45 . Jordan , Grant , and William Maloney . 1997 . The Protest Business? Manchester, UK : Manchester University Press. Juris , Jeffrey S. 2008 . Networking Futures: The Movements against Corporate Globalization . Durham, NC: Duke University Press . Kadushin , Charles . 2012 . Understanding Social Networks . Oxford and New York : Oxford University Press. Kadushin , Charles , Matthew Lindholm , Dan Ryan , Archie Brodsky , and Leonard Saxe . 2005 . “Why It Is So Diffi cult to Form Effective Community Coalitions .” City and Community 4 : 255–75 . Kahler , Miles . 2009a . “Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance .” In Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance , edited by Miles Kahler, 1–20 . Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press . 2009b. “Collective Action and Clandestine Networks: The Case of Al-Qaeda .” In Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance , edited by Miles Kahler, 103– 24 . Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press . Karafi llidis , Athanasios . 2008 . “Networks and Boundaries.” Paper presented at International Symposium “Relational Sociology: Transatlantic Impulses for the Social Sciences,” Berlin.

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 222727 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM 228 Bibliography

Katz , Hagai , and Helmut Anheier . 2007 . “Global Connectedness: The Structure of Transnational NGO Networks .” In Global Civil Society 2005/2006 , edited by Marlies Glasius, Mary Kaldor, and Helmut Anheier, 240–65 . London : Sage . Keating , Michael . 1988 . The City That Refused to Die: Glasgow: The Politics of Urban Regeneration . Aberdeen, UK : Aberdeen University Press . Kenis , Patrick , and David Knoke . 2002 . “ How Organizational Field Networks Shape Interorganizational Tie-Formation Rates.” Academy of Management Review 27 : 275–93 . Khagram , Sanjeev , James Riker , and Kathryn Sikkink , eds. 2002 . Restructuring World Politics . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. Kilduff , Martin , and Daniel J. Brass . 2010 . “Organizational Social Network Research: Core Ideas and Key Debates .” The Academy of Management Annals 4 : 317–57 . Kitts , James A. 2000 . “Mobilizing in Black Boxes: Social Networks and SMO Participation .” Mobilization 5 : 241–57 . Knoke , David . 1990a . Political Networks . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 1990b. Organizing for Change . Hawthorne, NY : Aldine de Gruyter. Knoke , David , and James Wood . 1981 . Organized for Action: Commitment in Voluntary Associations . New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press . Knoke , David , and Song Yang . 2008 . Social Network Analysis . London : Sage . Knoke , David , Franz Urban Pappi , Jeffrey Broadbent , and Yutaka Tsujinaka . 1996 . Comparing Policy Networks. Labor Politics in the U.S., Germany, and Japan . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Kontopoulos , Kyriakos . 1993 . The Logics of Social Structure . Cambridge and New York : Cambridge University Press. Koopmans , Ruud . 2004 . “ Protest in Time and Space: The Evolution of Waves of Contention .” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements , edited by David Snow, Sarah Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, 19–46 . Oxford : Blackwell . 2005 . “ The Missing Link between Structure and Agency: Outline of an Evolutionary Approach to Social Movements .” Mobilization 10 : 19–35 . Koopmans , Ruud , and Statham . 1999 . “Political Claims Analysis: Integrating Protest Event and Political Discourse Approaches .” Mobilization 4 : 203–21 . Koopmans , Ruud , Paul Statham , Marco Giugni , and Florence Passy . 2005 . Contested Citizenship? Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press . Krackhardt , David . 1992 . “ The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations .” In Networks and Organizations , edited by Nitin Nohria and Robert Eccles, 216–39 . Boston: Harvard Business School Press . 1994 . “ Graph Theoretical Dimensions of Informal Organizations.” In Computational Organization Theory , edited by Kathleen M. Carley and Michael J. Prietula, 89– 111 . Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum . 1999 . “The Ties That Torture: Simmelian Tie Analysis in Organizations .” Research in the Sociology of Organizations 16 : 183–210 . Kriesi , Hanspeter . 1988 . “The Interdependence of Structure and Action.” International Social Movement Research 1 : 349–68 . 1996 . “ The Organizational Structure of New Social Movements in a Political Context. ” In Comparative Perspective on Social Movements. Political Opportunities,

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 222828 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM Bibliography 229

Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing , edited by Doug McAdam, John McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, 152–84 . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press . Kriesi , Hanspeter , Ruud Koopmans , Jan Willem Duyvendak , and Marco Giugni . 1995 . New Social Movements in Western Europe . Minneapolis and London : University of Minnesota Press . Lake , David , and Wendy Wong . 2009 . “ The Politics of Networks: Interests, Power, and Human Rights Norms.” In Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance , edited by Miles Kahler, 127–50 . Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press . Lamont , Michele , and Virag Molnar . 2002 . “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences .” Annual Review of Sociology 28 : 167–95 . Laumann , Edward O. , and David Knoke . 1987 . The Organizational State . Madison : Wisconsin University Press. Laumann , Edward O. , and Franz Urban Pappi . 1976 . Networks of Collective Action . New York : Academic Press . Lavalette , Michael , and Gerry Mooney . 2000 . “ ‘No Poll Tax Here!’: The Tories, Social Policy and the Poll Tax Rebellion, 1987–1991.” In Class Struggle and Social Welfare , edited by Michael Lavalette and Gerry Mooney, 199–227 . London : Routledge . Lawrence , Paul , and Jay Lorsch . 1967 . Organizations and Environment . Boston : Harvard Business School Press. Lazega , Emmanuel . 2007 . Reseaux Sociaux et Structures Relationnelles . 2nd ed. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France . Lazega , Emmanuel , Marie-Th é r è se Jourda , Lise Mounier , and Rafa ë l Stofer . 2008 . “ Catching Up with Big Fish in the Big Pond? Multi-Level Network Analysis through Linked Design .” Social Networks 30 : 159–76 . Leal , Hugo . Forthcoming. “A Complexity Approach to the Emergence of Social Movements in the Middle East and North Africa Region: The Case of Egypt.” PhD diss. Fiesole: European University Institute. LeBas , Adrienne . 2011 . From Protest to Parties: Party-Building and Democratization in Africa . Oxford and New York : Oxford University Press . Le Gal è s , Patrick . 2002 . European Cities: Social Confl icts and Governance . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Lemieux , Vincent . 1998 . Les Coalitions. Liens, Transactions et Controles . Paris : Puf . Lewis , Kevin , Kurt Gray , and Jens Meierhenrich . 2014 . “The Structure of Online Activism .” Sociological Science 1 : 1–9 . Lincoln , James R. , and Michael L. Gerlach . 2004 . Japan’s Network Economy: Structure, Persistence, and Change . Cambridge and New York : Cambridge University Press. Livesay , Jeff . 2002 . “ The Duality of Systems: Networks as Media and Outcomes of Movement Mobilization .” Current Perspectives on Social Theory 22 : 185–221 . Lofl and, John . 1989 . “Consensus Movements: City Twinnings and Derailed Dissent in the American Eighties .” Research in Social Movements, Confl ict and Change 11 : 163–89 . 1996 . Social Movement Organizations . New York : Aldine de Gruyter. Lopez , Jos é J. , and John Scott . 2000 . Social Structure . Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press . Lorrain , Francois , and Harrison White . 1971 . “Structural Equivalence of Individuals in Social Networks .” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1 : 49–80 .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 222929 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM 230 Bibliography

Lotan , Gilad , Erhardt Graeff , Mike Ananny , Devin Gaffney , Ian Pearce , and Danah Boyd . 2011 . “The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions.” International Journal of Communication 5 : 1375–1405 . Lowe , Philip , and Jane Goyder . 1983 . Environmental Groups in Politics . London : Allen and Unwin . Lowndes , Vivien , Lawrence Pratchett , and Gerry Stoker . 2001 . “Trends in Public Participation: Part II – Citizens’ Perspectives.” Public Administration 79 : 445–55 . Lubbers , Miranda J. , Jos é Luis Molina , and Christopher McCarty . 2007 . “ Personal Networks and Ethnic Identifi cations .” International Sociology 22 : 721–41 . Lumley , Robert . 1990 . States of Emergency: Cultures of Revolt in Italy from 1968 to 1978 . London : Verso . Lusher , Dean , Johan Koskinen , and Garry Robins , eds. 2013 . Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks . Cambridge and New York : Cambridge University Press . MacLeavy , Julie . 2009 . “(Re)Analysing Community Empowerment: Rationalities and Technologies of Government in Bristol’s New Deal for Communities .” Urban Studies 46 : 849–75 . Maloney , William , and Sigried Ro ß teutscher , eds. 2006 . Social Capital and Associations in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis . London : Routledge . Maloney , William , and Jan van Deth , eds. 2008 . Civil Society and Governance in Europe . Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar . Maloney , William , Graham Smith , and Gerry Stoker . 1999 . “Social Capital and Urban Governance: Adding a More Contextualized ‘Top-Down’ Perspective.” Political Studies 48 : 802–20 . Malpass , Alice , Paul Cloke , Clive Barnett , and Nick Clarke . 2007 . “ Fairtrade Urbanism? The Politics of Place Beyond Place in the Bristol Fairtrade City Campaign .” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31 : 633–45 . Maples , Wendy . 2000 . “ ‘It’s Just Not Natural?’: Queer Insights on Eco-Action .” In Direct Action in British Environmentalism , edited by Benjamin Seel, Matthew Paterson, and Brian Doherty, 1–24 . London : Routledge . March , James , and Herbert Simon . 1958 . Organizations . New York : Wiley . Marsden , Peter V. 1983 . “ Restricted Access in Networks and Models of Power.” American Journal of Sociology 88 : 686–717 . Marsden , Peter V. . 1990 . “ Network Data and Measurement.” Annual Review of Sociology 16 : 435–63 . 2005 . “Recent Developments in Network Measurement.” In Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis , edited by Peter Carrington, John Scott, and Stanley Wasserman, 8–30 . New York and Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Marti i Puig , Salvador . 2014 . “Mobilizations in Latin America: Mobilized Parties or Partisan Movements? ” In Polarizaci ó n Y Confl ictos En Am é rica Latina , edited by Rafael Grasa and Salvador Marti i Puig. Barcelona : Editorial Bellaterra . Martin , John Levi . 2009 . Social Structures . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Mayntz , Renate . 1999 . “ La Teoria Della ‘Governance’: Sfi de E Prospettive.” Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica 19: 3–21 . 2003 . “ New Challenges to Governance Theory.” In Governance as Social and Political Communication , edited by Henrik P. Bang, 27–40 . Manchester, UK : Manchester University Press .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 223030 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM Bibliography 231

McCarthy , John D. , and Wolfson . 1992 . “Consensus Movements, Confl ict Movements, and the Cooptation of Civic and State Infrastructures .” In Frontiers of Social Movement Theory , edited by Aldon Morris and Carol Mueller, 273–98 . New Haven, CT : Yale University Press . McCarthy , John D. , and Mayer N. Zald . 1977 . “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory .” American Journal of Sociology 82 : 1212–41 . McCarthy , John D. , Patrick Rafail , and Ashley Gromis . 2013 . “ Recent Trends in Public Protest in the U.S.A.: The Social Movement Society Thesis Revisited .” In The Future of Social Movement Research: Dynamics, Mechanisms, and Processes , edited by Jacqueline van Stekelenburg, Conny Roggeband, and Bert Klandermans, 369–96 . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press . McDonald , Kevin . 2002 . “From Solidarity to Fluidarity: Social Movements Beyond ‘Collective Identity,’ The Case of Globalization Confl icts .” Social Movement Studies 1 : 109–28 . McKay , George . 1996 . Senseless Acts of Beauty: Cultures of Resistance since the Sixties . London : Verso . McNeish , Wallace . 2000 . “ The Vitality of Local Protest: Alarm UK and the British Anti-Road Protest Movement.” In Direct Action in British Environmentalism , edited by Benjamin Seel, Matthew Paterson, and Brian Doherty, 183–98 . London : Routledge . McPherson , Miller , Lynn Smith-Lovin , and James M. Cook . 2001 . “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks .” Annual Review of Sociology 27 : 415–44 . Melucci, Alberto . 1982 . L’invenzione Del Presente . Bologna : Il Mulino . 1996 . Challenging Codes . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Meyer , David S. , and Catherine Corrigall-Brown . 2005 . “ Coalitions and Political Context: U.S. Movements Against War in Iraq.” Mobilization 10 : 327–44 . Meyer , David S. , and Sidney Tarrow , eds. 1998 . The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century . Lanham, MD : Rowman and Littlefi eld . Micheletti, Michele . 2003 . Political Virtue and Shopping . New York : Palgrave . Minkoff , Debra . 1995 . Organizing for Equality . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press . 1999 . “Bending with the Wind: Organizational Change in American Women’s and Minority Organizations.” American Journal of Sociology 104 : 1666–1703 . Minkoff , Debra , and John D. McCarthy . 2005 . “Reinvigorating the Study of Organizational Processes in Social Movements.” Mobilization 10 : 289–308 . Mische , Ann . 2008 . Partisan Publics . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . 2011 . “Relational Sociology, Culture, and Agency.” In The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis , edited by Peter Carrington and John Scott, 80–97 . London : Sage . Mische , Ann , and Philippa Pattison . 2000 . “ Composing a Civic Arena: Publics, Projects, and Social Settings .” Poetics 27 : 163–94 . Mizruchi , Mark S . 1993 . “Cohesion, Equivalence, and Similarity of Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment.” Social Networks 15 : 275–307 . 1996 . “ What Do Interlocks Do? An Analysis, Critique and Assessment of Research on Interlocking Directorates .” Annual Review of Sociology 22 : 271–98 . Mizruchi , Mark S. , and Joseph Galaskiewicz . 1993 . “Networks of Interorganizational Relations .” Sociological Methods and Research 22 : 46–70 . Mohr, John W. , and Vincent Duquenne . 1997 . “The Duality of Culture and Practice: Poverty Relief in New York City, 1888–1917 .” Theory and Society 26 : 305–56 .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 223131 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM 232 Bibliography

Monge , Peter R. , and Noshir S. Contractor . 2003 . Theories of Communication Networks . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Mossberger, Karen , and Gerry Stoker . 2001 . “ The Evolution of Urban Regime Theory: The Challenge of Conceptualization.” Urban Affairs Review 36 : 810–35 . Mouffe , Chantal . 2005 . On the Political . London : Routledge . Neal , Zachary . 2013 . The Connected City: How Networks Are Shaping the Modern Metropolis. London and New York: Routledge . Nepstad , Sharon E. 2011 . “ Nonviolent Resistance in the Arab Spring: The Critical Role of Military-Opposition Alliances .” Swiss Political Science Review 17 : 485–91 . Nepstad , Sharon E. , and Clifford Bob . 2006 . “ When Do Leaders Matter? Hypotheses on Leadership Dynamics in Social Movements.” Mobilization 11 : 1–22 . Nicholls , Walter . 2008 . “ The Urban Question Revisited: The Importance of Cities for Social Movements.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 : 841–59 . 2009 . “Place, Networks, Space: Theorising the Geographies of Social Movements .” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 34 : 78–93 . Nicholls , Walter , Byron Miller , and Justin Beaumont , eds. 2013 . Spaces of Contention: Spatialities and Social Movements . Farnham, UK, and Burlington, VT : Ashgate . Norris , Pippa . 2002 . Democratic Phoenix . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press . Offe , Claus . 1985 . “ New Social Movements: Changing Boundaries of the Political .” Social Research 52 : 817–68 . Oliver , Pamela , and David Snow . 1995 . “ Social Movements and Collective Behavior .” In Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology , edited by Karen Cook, Gary A. Fine, and James House, 571–99 . Boston, MA : Allyn and Bacon . Osa , Maryjane . 2003 . Solidarity and Contention. Networks of Polish Opposition . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press . Ouchi , William G. 1980 . “Markets, Bureaucracies and Clans.” Administrative Science Quarterly 25 : 129–41 . Padgett , John , and Christopher Ansell . 1993 . “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434 .” American Journal of Sociology 98 : 1259–1319 . Padgett , John , and Walter W. Powell , eds. 2013 . The Emergence of Markets and Organizations . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Padovani , Claudia , and Elena Pavan . 2007 . “Diversity Reconsidered in a Global Multi-Stakeholder Environment: Insights from the Online World .” In The Power of Ideas , edited by Wolfgang Kleinw ä chter, 99–109 . Berlin : Germany Land of Ideas . Passy , Florence . 2003 . “Social Networks Matter: But How?” In Social Movements and Networks , edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, 21–48 . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Pattie , Charles , Patrick Seyd , and Paul Whiteley . 2003 . “Civic Attitudes and Engagement in Modern Britain .” Parliamentary Affairs 56 : 613–33 . Pavan , Elena . 2012 . Frames and Connections in the Governance of Global Communications: A Network Study of the Internet Governance Forum . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld . Phillips , Susan D. 1991 . “ Meaning and Structure in Social Movements: Mapping the Network of National Canadian Women’s Organizations .” Canadian Journal of Political Science-Revue Canadienne De Science Politique 24 : 755–82 .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 223232 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM Bibliography 233

Piattoni , Simona . 2010 . The Theory of Multi-Level Governance . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Pilati , Katia . Forthcoming . “Do Organizational Structures Matter for Protests in Non-Democratic African Countries? ” In Contention, Regimes, and Transition , edited by Eitan Alimi, Avraham Sela, and Mario Sznajder. Piven , Frances Fox , and Richard Cloward . 1977 . Poor People’s Movements . New York : Pantheon . Pizarro , Narciso . 2007 . “ Structural Identity and Equivalence of Individuals in Social Networks .” International Sociology 22 : 767–792 . Pizzorno , Alessandro . 1978 . “Political Exchange and Collective Identity in Industrial Confl ict .” In The Resurgence of Class Confl ict in Western Europe , edited by Colin Crouch and Alessandro Pizzorno, 277–98 . New York : Holmes and Meier . 2008 . “ Rationality and Recognition.” In Approaches in the Social Sciences , edited by Donatella della Porta and Michael Keating, 162–74 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Plowden , William . 2003 . “The Compact: Attempts to Regulate Relationships between Government and the Voluntary Sector in England .” Nonprofi t and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 32 : 415–32 . Podolny , Joel M. , and Karen L. Page . 1998 . “Network Forms of Organization.” Annual Review of Sociology 24 : 57–76 . Polanyi , Karl . 1944 . The Great Transformation . Boston : Beacon Hill . Powell , Walter W. 1990 . “ Neither Markets nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization .” Research in Organizational Behavior 12 : 295–336 . Powell , Walter W. , Jason Owen-Smith , Kenneth W. Koput , and Douglas R. White . 2005 . “Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences.” American Journal of Sociology 110 : 1132–1205 . Purdue , Derrick , J ö rg D ü rrschmidt , Peter Jowers , and Richard O’Doherty . 1997 . “ DIY Culture and Extended Milieux: LETS, Veggie Boxes and Festivals .” Sociogical Review 45 : 645–67 . Ragin , Charles . 2000 . Fuzzy-Set Social Science . Chicago : University of Chicago Press . Rex , John . 1982 . “ 1981 Urban Riots in Britain.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 6 : 99–114 . Robinson , Glenn . 2005 . “Organizational Imperative and the Limits to Alliance: The PFLP-Hamas Relationship since 1991.” Paper presented at the Workshop “Cooperation Across Ideological Divides in the Middle East,” Rockefeller Foundation, Bellagio. Rochon , Thomas R. 1998 . Culture Moves . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Rokkan , Stein . 1970 . Citizens, Elections, Parties. Oslo, Norway : Universitetforlaget . Rootes , Christopher , ed. 2003 . Environmental Protest in Western Europe . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Rootes , Christopher , and Clare Saunders . 2007 . “ The Global Justice Movement in Britain .” In The Global Justice Movement , edited by Donatella della Porta, 128–56 . Boulder, CO : Paradigm . Rosenthal , Naomi , Meryl Fingrutd , Michele Ethier , Roberta Karant , and David McDonald . 1985 . “Social Movements and Network Analysis: A Case Study of Nineteenth-Century Women’s Reform in New York State.” American Journal of Sociology 90 : 1022–54 .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 223333 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM 234 Bibliography

Ro ß teutscher , Sigried , and Jan van Deth . 2002 . “Asssociations between Associations: The Structure of the Voluntary Association Sector.” Working Paper 56. Mannheim: MZES. Roth , Benita . 2010 . “ ‘ Organizing One’s Own’ as Good Politics: Second Wave Feminists and the Meaning of Coalition .” In Strategic Alliances: New Studies of Social Movement Coalitions , edited by Nella van Dyke and Holly McCammon, 99–118 . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. Routledge , Paul . 1997 . “ The Imagineering of Resistance: Pollok Free State and the Practice of Postmodern Politics.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22 : 359–76 . Rucht , Dieter . 1989 . “ Environmental Movement Organizations in West Germany and France: Structure and Interorganizational Relations .” International Social Movement Research 2 : 61–94 . 1998 . “ The Structure and Culture of Collective Protest in Germany since 1950.” In The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century , edited by David S. Meyer and Sidney Tarrow, 29–58 . Lanham, MD : Rowman and Littlefi eld . Ruzza , Carlo . 2004 . Europe and Civil Society: Movement Coalitions and European Institutions . Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press . Sabatier , Paul , and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith . 1999 . “ The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment.” In Theories of the Policy Process , edited by Paul Sabatier, 117–66 . Boulder, CO : Westview Press . Sampson , Robert J. 2012 . Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect . Chicago and London : University of Chicago Press . Sampson , Robert J. , Doug McAdam , Heather MacIndoe , and Sim ó n Weffer-Elizondo . 2005 . “ Civil Society Reconsidered: The Durable Nature and Community Structure of Collective Civic Action .” American Journal of Sociology 111 : 673–714 . Sanders , David , Harold Clarke , Marianne Stewart , and Paul Whiteley . 2003 . “The Dynamics of Protest in Britain, 2000–2002 .” Parliamentary Affairs 56 : 687–99 . Sartori , Giovanni . 1970 . “ Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics .” American Political Science Review 64 : 1033–52 . ., ed. 1984 . Social Science Concepts . London : Sage . Saunders , Clare . 2007 . “Using Social Network Analysis to Explore Social Movements: A Relational Approach .” Social Movement Studies 6: 227–43 . 2008 . “Double-Edged Swords? Collective Identity and Solidarity in the Environment Movement .” British Journal of Sociology 59 : 227–53 . Scharpf, Fritz W. 1993 . “ Coordination in Hierarchies and Networks .” In Games in Hierarchies and Networks: Analytical and Empirical Approaches to the Study of Governance Institutions , edited by Fritz W. Scharpf, 125–65. Frankfurt : Campus . Schneiberg , Marc , and Sarah Soule . 2005 . “Institutionalization as a Contested, Multi-Level Process: Politics, Social Movements and Rate Regulation in American Fire Insurance .” In Social Movements and Organizations , edited by Gerald F. Davis, Doug McAdam, Richard W. Scott, and Mayer N. Zald, 122–60 . New York : Cambridge University Press. Schou , Arild . 1997 . “Elite Identifi cation in Collective Protest Movements: A Reconsideration of the Reputational Method with Application to the Palestinian Intifada .” Mobilization 2 : 71–86 .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 223434 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM Bibliography 235

Schuster , Federico L. , German P é rez , Sebastian Pereyra , Melchor Armesto , Martin Armelino , Analia Garcia , Ana Natalucci , Melina Vazquez , and Patricia Zipcioglu . 2006 . “Transformaciones de La Protesta Social En Argentina 1989–2003.” Working Paper. Buenos Aires: Instituto Gino Germani-UBA. Schwedler, Jillian , and Janine Clark . 2006 . “Islamist-Leftist Cooperation in the Arab World .” IMIS Review 18 : 10–11 . Scott , John . 1991 . Social Network Analysis . London : Sage . Seel , Benjamin , and Alex Plows . 2000 . “ Coming Live and Direct: Strategies of Earth First! ” In Direct Action in British Environmentalism , edited by Benjamin Seel , Matthew Paterson , and Brian Doherty , 112–32 . London : Routledge . Seligman , Adam . 1995 . The Idea of Civil Society . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Shaw , Mae . 2008 . “Community Development and the Politics of Community.” Community Development Journal 43 : 24–36 . Shumate , Michelle , Janet Fulk , and Peter Monge . 2005 . “Predictors of the International HIV-AIDS INGO Network over Time .” Human Communication Research 31 : 482–510 . Sikkink , Kathryn . 2009 . “ The Power of Networks in International Politics .” In Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance , edited by Miles Kahler, 228– 47 . Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press . Simmel , Georg . 1955 . “The Web of Group Affi liations .” In Confl ict and the Web of Group Affi liations . New York : Free Press . Singerman , Diane . 2003 . “R é seaux, Cadres Culturels et Structures Des Opportunité s Politiques. Le Mouvement Islamiste En É gypte .” In R é sistances et Protestations Dans Les Soci é t é s Musulmanes , edited by Mounia Bennani-Chraï bi and Olivier Fillieule, 219–42 . Paris : Presses de Sciences Po. Smith , Graham , William Maloney , and Gerry Stoker . 2004 . “ Building Social Capital in City Politics: Scope and Limitations at the Inter-Organisational Level .” Political Studies 52 : 508–30 . Smith , Jackie . 2002 . “Bridging Global Divides? Strategic Framing and Solidarity in Transnational Social Movement Organizations.” International Sociology 17 : 505–28 . 2004 . “ Exploring Connections between Global Integration and Political Mobilization.” Journal of World System Research 10 : 255–85 . 2005 . “Globalization and Transnational Social Movement Organizations.” In Social Movements and Organizations , edited by Gerald F. Davis, Doug McAdam, Richard W. Scott, and Mayer N. Zald, 226–48 . New York : Cambridge University Press. Snow , David , and Danny Trom . 2002 . “ The Case Study and the Study of Social Movements .” In Methods of Social Movement Research , edited by Bert Klandermans and Suzanne Staggenborg, 146–72 . Minneapolis and London : University of Minnesota Press . Snow , David , Burke E. Rochford , Steven Worden , and Robert Benford . 1986 . “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation .” American Sociological Review 51 : 464–81 . Somers , Margaret . 1994 . “The Narrative Constitution of Identity: A Relational and Network Approach .” Theory and Society 23 : 605–49 .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 223535 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM 236 Bibliography

S ø rensen, Eva , and Jacob Torfi ng . 2007 . Theories of Democratic Network Governance . Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar . Soule , Sarah . 2013 . “Bringing Organizational Studies Back into Social Movement Scholarship .” In The Future of Social Movement Research: Dynamics, Mechanisms, and Processes , edited by Jacquelien van Stekelenburg, Conny Roggeband, and Bert Klandermans, 145–68 . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press . Soule , Sarah , and Jennifer Earl . 2005 . “ A Movement Society Evaluated: Collective Protest in the United States, 1960–1986 .” Mobilization 10: 345–64. Stafford , Edwin R, Michael Jay Polonsky , and Cathy L Hartman . 2000 . “Environmental NGO–Business Collaboration and Strategic Bridging: A Case Analysis of the Greenpeace–Foron Alliance .” Business Strategy and the Environment 9 : 122–35 . Staggenborg , Suzanne . 1988 . “The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Pro-Choice Movement.” American Sociological Review 53 : 585–606 . 1998 . “Social Movement Communities and Cycles of Protest: The Emergence and Maintenance of a Local Women’s Movement .” Social Problems 45 : 180–204 . Staggenborg , Suzanne , and Jos é e Lecomte . 2009 . “Social Movement Campaigns: Mobilization and Outcomes in the Montreal Women’s Movement Community .” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 14 : 163–80 . Stark, David , Balazs Vedres , and Laszlo Bruszt . 2006 . “Rooted Transnational Publics: Integrating Foreign Ties and Civic Activism .” Theory and Society 35 : 323–49 . Stevenson , William B. , Lone J. Pearce , and Lyman W. Porter . 1985 . “ The Concept of ‘Coalition’ in Organization Theory and Research .” Academy of Management Review 10 : 256–68 . Stewart , Murray . 1996 . “Too Little, Too Late: The Politics of Local Complacency .” Journal of Urban Affairs 18: 119–37 . Stinchcombe , Arthur L. 1968 . Constructing Social Theories . Chicago and London : University of Chicago Press . Stoker , Gerry . 1998 . “Governance as Theory: Five Propositions .” International Social Science Journal 50 : 119–31 . 2005 . “New Localism and the Future of Local Governance: Implications for the Voluntary Sector.” In Voluntary Action: Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century , edited by Campbell Robb, 48–67 . London : NCVO . Stokes, Peter , and Barry Knight . 1996 . The Defi cit in Civil Society in the United Kingdom . Birmingham, UK : Foundation for Civil Society . Streeck , Wolfgang , and Philippe C Schmitter . 1985 . “Community, Market, State – and Associations? The Prospective Contribution of Interest Governance to Social Order .” European Sociological Review 1 : 119–38 . Swidler , Ann . 1986 . “ Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies .” American Sociological Review 51 : 273–86 . Tang , Shui Yan , and Daniel A. Mazmanian . 2010 . “ Understanding Collaborative Governance from the Structural Choice – Politics, IAD, and Transaction Cost Perspectives .” SSRN eLibrary . Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=1516851. Tarrow , Sidney . 1989 . Democracy and Disorder . Oxford : Clarendon Press . 1994 . Power in Movement . New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 223636 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM Bibliography 237

2005 . The New Transnational Activism . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 2010 . “The Strategy of Paired Comparison: Toward a Theory of Practice.” Comparative Political Studies 43 : 230–50 . 2011 . Power in Movement . 3rd ed. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . 2012 . Strangers at the Gate: Movements and States in Contentious Politics . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Taylor , Marylin . 2003 . Public Policy in the Community . Basingstoke, UK : Palgrave Macmillan . Taylor , Maureen , and Marya Doerfel . 2005 . “ Another Dimension to Explicating Relationships: Measuring Inter-Organizational Linkages .” Public Relations Review 31 : 121–9 . Taylor , Verta , and Nancy Whittier . 1992 . “Collective Identity in Social Movement Communities: Lesbian Feminist Mobilization .” In Frontiers of Social Movement Theory , edited by Aldon Morris and Carol Mueller, 104–32 . New Haven, CT : Yale University Press . Thevenot , Laurent . 2001 . “ Organized Complexity: Conventions of Coordination and the Composition of Economic Arrangements .” European Journal of Social Theory 4 : 405–25 . Thompson , Grahame , Jennifer Frances , Levacic Rosalind , and Jeremy Mitchell . 1991 . Markets, Hierarchies and Networks . London : Sage . Thompson , James D. 1967 . Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory . New York : McGraw-Hill . Tilly , Charles . 1978 . From Mobilization to Revolution . Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley . 1984 . “Social Movements and National Politics.” In State-Making and Social Movements , edited by Charles Bright and Susan Harding, 297–317 . Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press . 1994 . “ Social Movements as Historically Specifi c Clusters of Political Performances .” Berkeley Journal of Sociology : 1–30 . 2004a . “ Social Boundary Mechanisms.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34 : 211–36 . 2004b. Social Movements 1768–2004 . Boulder, CO : Paradigm . 2005a . Identities, Boundaries, and Social Ties . Boulder, CO : Paradigm. 2005b. Trust and Rule . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Tilly , Charles , and Sidney Tarrow . 2007a . Contentious Politics . Boulder, CO : Paradigm. 2007b. Contentious Politics . Boulder, CO : Paradigm. Touraine, Alain . 1981 . The Voice and the Eye . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Vairel , Frederic . 2011 . “Protesting in Authoritarian Situations: Egypt and Morocco in Comparative Perspective.” In Social Movements, Mobilization and Contestation in the Middle East and North Africa , edited by Joel Beinin and Frederic Vairel, 27–41 . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press . Van de Donk , Wim , Brian D. Loader , Paul G. Nixon , and Dieter Rucht . 2004 . CyberProtest . London : Routledge . Van Deth, Jan , and William Maloney . 2008 . “From Bottom-up and Top-down towards Multi-Level Governance in Europe.” In Civil Society and Governance in Europe , edited by William Maloney and Jan van Deth, 3–18 . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Van Dyke, Nella , and Holly McCammon . 2010 . Social Movement Coalitions . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 223737 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM 238 Bibliography

Van Meter , Karl . 1999 . “ Classifi cation, Cross-Classifi cation Analysis and Generalized Blockmodeling .” Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique 61 : 35–51 . Vasi , Bogdan . 2006 . “ The New Anti-War Protests and Miscible Mobilizations .” Social Movement Studies 5 : 137–53 . Vedres , Bal á zs , L á szl ó Bruszt , and David Stark . 2005 . “Organizing Technologies: Genre Forms of Online Civic Association in Eastern Europe .” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 597 : 171–88 . Ven , Andrew H. Van De , Andre L. Delbecq , and Richard Koenig . 1976 . “ Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations .” American Sociological Review 41 : 322–38 . Verkuilen, Jay , and Michael Smithson . 2006 . Fuzzy Set Theory: Applications in the Social Sciences . London : Sage . Von Bü low, Marisa , and Rebecca Abers . 2011 . “As Transformaç oes Do Estudo Dos Movimentos Sociais: Como Estudar O Ativismo Atravé s Da Fronteira Entre Estado E Sociedade?” Paper presented at the “IPSA-ECPR Joint Conference,” Sao Paulo. Walgrave, Stefaan , and Dieter Rucht , eds. 2010 . The World Says No to War: Demonstrations Against the War in Iraq . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press . Walker , Jack . 1991 . Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements . Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press . Wall , Derek . 1999 . Earth First! And the Anti-Roads Movement . London : Routledge . Wang , Dan , and Sarah Soule . 2012 . “ Social Movement Organizational Collaboration: Networks of Learning and the Diffusion of Protest Tactics, 1960– 1995 .” American Journal of Sociology 117 : 1674–1722 . Wasserman , Stanley , and Katherine Faust . 1994 . Social Network Analysis . New York and Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Watts , Duncan J . 1999 . Small Worlds . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . 2003 . Six Degrees . New York : Norton . Weare , Cristopher , and Paul Lichterman . 2011 . “Combining SNA and Ethnography for Identifying Subgroups and Understanding Subgroup Dynamic.” Paper presented at the 4th Annual Political Networks Conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Wellman , Barry . 1979 . “ The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers .” American Journal of Sociology 84 : 1201–31 . 1988 . “ Structural Analysis: From Method and Metaphor to Theory and Substance.” In Social Structures , edited by Barry Wellman and S. D. Berkowitz, 19–61 . New York and Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Wellman , Barry , and Milena Gulia . 1999 . “ Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Community as Community .” In Networks in the Global Village , edited by Barry Wellman, 331–67 . Boulder, CO : Westview Press . White , Harrison C. 2008 . “ Notes on the Constituents of Social Structure. Soc. Rel. 10 – Spring ‘65.” Sociologica 1 . Available at http://www.sociologica.mulino.it/journal/ article/index/Article/Journal:ARTICLE:200/Item/Journal:ARTICLE:200. White , Harrison C. , Scott A. Boorman , and Ronald Breiger . 1976 . “ Social Structure from Multiple Networks .” American Journal of Sociology 81 : 730–80 . Whiteley , Paul . 2012 . Political Participation in Britain: The Decline and Revival of Civic Culture . Basingstoke, UK : Palgrave . Whittier , Nancy . 1995 . Feminist Generations: The Persistence of the Radical Women’s Movement . Philadelphia : Temple University Press .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 223838 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:36:49:36 PPMM Bibliography 239

Wiktorowicz , Quintan . 2000 . “The Salafi Movement in Jordan.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 32 : 219–40 . Willems , Jurgen , and Marc Jegers . 2012 . “ Social Movement Structures in Relation to Goals and Forms of Action: An Exploratory Model .” ANSERJ Canadian Journal of Nonprofi t and Social Economy Research 3: 67–81. Yanacopoulos , Helen . 2009 . “Cutting the Diamond: Networking Economic Justice.” In Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance , edited by Miles Kahler, 67–78 . Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press . Yinger , Milton J. 1960 . “Contraculture and Subculture.” American Sociological Review 25 : 625–35 . Zald , Mayer N. , and Roberta Ash . 1966 . “Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change .” Social Forces 44 : 327–40 . Zald , Mayer N. , and John D. McCarthy . 1980 . “ Social Movement Industries: Competition and Cooperation among Movement Organizations .” Research in Social Movements, Confl ict and Change 3 : 1–20 . Zimmer , Annette , and William Matthias Freise . 2008 . “Bringing Society Back in: Civil Society, Social Capital and the Third Sector.” In Civil Society and Governance in Europe , edited by William Maloney and Jan van Deth, 19–42 . Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar. Zmerli , Sonja , and Ken Newton . 2006 . “ Networking among Voluntary Associations: Segmented or Integrated?” In Social Capital and Associations in European Democracies , edited by William Maloney and Siegried Roß teutscher, 153–74 . London : Routledge .

99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 223939 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:37:49:37 PPMM 99781107100008ref_p219-240.indd781107100008ref_p219-240.indd 224040 111/20/20141/20/2014 33:49:37:49:37 PPMM Index

2-cliques. See Cliques:2-cliques Castells, Manuel, 212 Alliance building. See Cooperation Catnet, 79 Arab Spring. See Middle East and North Centrality in civic networks Africa explanations of, 160 – 164 Argentina, 208 Centralization, 71n.3 , 142 , 144 , Authoritarian regimes 152 and modes of coordination, Civic events. See Public events 209 Civic organizations. See Organizations Average path length, 142 Civil renewal agenda, 28 , 196 Civil servants Bennett, Lance, 212 and civic organizations, 167 Betweenness, 155 , 155n.6 Civil society Birmingham, 169 , 180 aggregative approaches, 190 Blocks, 76 concept of, 12 differences across cities, 110 – 114 as organizational fi eld, 12 , 187 and group representation, 99 – 101 Class politics, 32 , 194 – 197 and identities, 97 Red Clyde tradition, 97 incumbents’ involvement in public events, Cliques 107 – 110 2-cliques, 80 , 80n.13 , 88 incumbents’ properties, 104 – 106 Clua Losada, Monica, 196 issue priorities, 101 –103 Clustering coeffi cient, 71n.3 , 142 relational properties of, 78 CND-Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, repertoires of action, 106 – 107 56 , 61 , 73 , 74n.7 , 83 , 90 , 91 , 165 and roles, 187 – 189 Coalitions, 22 Boundaries between moderate and radical actors, 27 defi nition, 15 , 20 , 22 defi nitions of, 119 – 120 multiple levels of, 21 and movements , 119 – 120 and multiple memberships, 83 and public events, 120 relational measurement of, 81 Cohesion, 80 and solidarity feelings, 88 Community, 24 Bourdieu, Pierre, 52 festivals , 32 Breiger, Ronald, 118 in social movements, 24 Broker, 154 use of the idea in political debates, 174

241

99781107100008ind_p241-244.indd781107100008ind_p241-244.indd 224141 111/20/20141/20/2014 11:23:41:23:41 PPMM 242 Index

Comparative analysis concept of, 12 most similar vs. most dissimilar design, 47 as networks, 13 paired comparison, 46 political culture and structure of, 194 – 197 Competition Framing, 21 between voluntary organizations, 17 and relation building, 194 – 197 Computer mediated communication.See Information Gerlach, Luther, 18n.8 technology Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector, 31 , Connectedness, 142 159 – 160 Consensus movements, 93 Global justice Contentious politics campaigns, 28 and relational approaches, 4 Governance, 14 , 14n.6 , 17 , 29 , 151 , 159 , 166 , Cooperation 206 between civic organizations and local insti- Government, Local tutions, predictors of, 171 and civic organizations, 167 – 174 facilitators, 56 – 59 compacts, 28 facilitators and obstacles, 64 – 68 council departments and civic organizations, obstacles, 55 – 56 , 59 – 61 170 and organizational environment, 51 Local Strategic Partnerships, 29 between organizations, 19 Scottish Executive, 29 value of, 50 Gromis, Ashley, 192n.2 Council departments. See Government, Local Cultural Hezbollah, 211 innovation in Bristol, 34 Homophily, 63

Data collection, 37 – 38 Identity, 20 , 21 , 51 on public events, 124 adversarial, 93 Deindustrialization, 30 and cooperation , 58 Democracy individual activists, 21 quality of local, 174 – 181 relational view of, 83 Density, 71 , 79 Identity building, 16 across blocks, 79 – 80 In-degree, 154 , 155 , 155n.6 , 163 Duality of persons and groups. See Social Indignados, 208 , 213 circles: intersection of Individual membership in groups and associations, 82 Earl, Jennifer, 192n.2 in multiple groups, 83 Eggert, Nina, 91 Infl uence, 155 Egypt, 209 and network centrality, 153 , 155 Elites Information technology, 54 and modes of coordination, 210 and modes of coordination, 212 – 215 Environmental justice Interactions and public events, 124 and relations, 52 – 53 Ethnic minorities Interest groups in Bristol and Glasgow, 30 vs. social movement organizations, 115 – 117 inter-group confl icts, 28 Isolated network nodes, 78 and protest, 101 Issue agendas, 35 , 40 , 101 – 103 and public events, 124 changes over time , 128 – 140 Events. See Public events Issue ownership, 36

Farro, Antimo, 200 Kriesi, Hanspeter, 206 Fields approaches to, 13n.4 Latin America, 209

99781107100008ind_p241-244.indd781107100008ind_p241-244.indd 224242 111/20/20141/20/2014 11:23:41:23:41 PPMM Index 243

Leadership aggregative approaches, 192 – 194 in civic organizational fi elds, 153 – 160 and modes of coordination, 192 – 194 and network centrality, 158 types of, 192 – 194 distributed forms of, 158 Movement transformation and modes of Local government. See Government, Local coordination, 206 – 208 Local politicians Movements and coalitions , 119 – 120 and civic organizations, 167 Multiculturalism, 34 Multiplexity, 97 , 146 , 149 , 201 McCarthy, John, 192n.2 Mechanisms, 17 – 18 Network analysis Melucci, Alberto, 4 , 202 and organizational fi elds, 13 Meyer, David, 192 Networked social movement, 212 Middle East & North Africa Networks modes of coordination in the, 212 – 215 as alternative to hierarchies, 152 Minkoff, Debra, 93n.3 emergence of, 14 – 15 Mische, Ann, 205 graphic representation of, 71 Mode of coordination, concept of, 13 of organizations over time , 141 – 148 Mode of coordination, defi nition of as preconditions and consequences of coalitional , 21 – 23 , 119 – 120 collective action, 198 organizational, 17 – 18 of public events over time , 128 – 140 social movement, 18 – 21 New Deal for Communities, 174 subcultural/communitarian, 23 – 25 New social movements Modes of coordination, 201 in Bristol, 33 and the contentious politics approach, and public events, 124 198 – 201 Nigeria, 209 and differences across cities, 110 – 114 and group representation, 99 – 101 Occupy, 213 and incumbents’ properties, 189 Opponents and incumbents’ structural properties, public and private, 95 104 – 106 Organizations and information technology, 212 – 215 differences across cities, 44 , 110 – 114 and involvement in public events, 107 – 110 incumbents’ involvement in public events, and issue priorities, 101 – 103 107 – 110 and local institutions, 167 – 174 issue priorities, 101 – 103 and opinions about government policies, as links between events, 128 174 – 181 repertoires of action, 106 – 107 and relations to local government and pub- structural properties, 38 – 40 , 104 – 106 lic agencies, 167 – 174 and their constituencies, 99 – 101 and repertoires of action, 106 – 107 the unit of analysis, 36 – 37 and roles, 187 – 189 Out-degree, 79 Movement emergence and modes of coordina- tion, 206 Palestine, 211 Movement families, 198 – 201 Participation in associations. See Individual Movement identity, 95 – 97 membership as environmental, 95 Party politics as global justice, 95 in Bristol and Glasgow, 31 as poor people’s advocates, 95 and protest politics outside the West, 208 Movement industries, 198 – 201 Political change Movement membership aggregative approaches, 2 – 3 individuals, 20 Political culture organizations, 20 in Bristol, 32 Movement society, 2 and network structure, 194 – 197

99781107100008ind_p241-244.indd781107100008ind_p241-244.indd 224343 111/20/20141/20/2014 11:23:41:23:41 PPMM 244 Index

Political opportunity structure, 194 Social bonds Political participation as boundary defi ners, 84 in Britain since the 1970s, 27 density across blocks, 84 – 86 Positions. See Blocks operationalization of, 54 Preferential attachment, 66 Social circles Protest intersection of, 82 , 118 antiroad, 27 Social movement in Britain, 27 – 28 concept of, 213 against global capitalism, 28 Social movement organizations at the local level, 27 distinctive traits, 110 – 114 Protest events. See Public events vs. interest groups, 98 , 115 – 117 Public events, 107 – 110 Social structure in Bristol and Glasgow, 121 – 127 aggregative approaches, 2 – 3 , 190 civic vs. protest, 121 in Bristol and Glasgow, 29 – 30 and movements, 20 , 120 Soule, Sarah, 192n.2 as links between organizations , 141 – 148 South Africa, 209 networks of, 128 – 140 Stinchcombe, Arthur, 201 as part of broader agendas, 127 Strong ties. See Relations: strength of Public interest groups. See Interest groups Structural equivalence basic principles, 73 – 75 QAP regression , 144 , 147 defi nition of, 73 positions. See Blocks Rafail, Patrick, 192n.2 and roles, 188 Relational embeddedness, 63 Relations Tarrow, Sidney, 52 , 192 , 203 identifi cation of, 54 Ties. See Relations and interactions, 52 – 53 , 198 Tilly, Charles, 52 , 120 , 198 properties of, 53 , 54 Time and network evolution, 205 – 208 strength of, 145 Transactions within and between blocks, 76 – 77 operationalization of, 54 Repertoires of collective action in Bristol, 32 Umbrella organizations, 159 in Bristol and Glasgow, 40 – 44 , 106 – 107 market-oriented, 32 Voluntary and community sector Representation in Bristol, 31 within civic fi elds, 154 civil renewal agenda, 28 Resource allocation, 15 , 18 , 79 compacts, 28 Rioting, 33 , 61 in Glasgow, 31 Robinson, Glenn, 211 government policies for the, 28 – 29 , 174 – 181 key issues in Bristol and Glasgow, 35 Schuster, Federico, 208 opinions about government policies, Scottish Civic Forum, 29 174 – 181 Scottish Executive. See Government, Local: policies in Glasgow, 30 Scottish Executive VOSCUR—Voluntary Organisations Standing Scottish Socialist Party, 32 Council on Urban Regeneration, 31 , Sectarian groups, 18 159 – 160 Segerberg, Alexandra, 212 Simmel, Georg, 82 , 118 Weak ties. See Relations: strength of SMO. See Social movement organizations Working class activism, 28

99781107100008ind_p241-244.indd781107100008ind_p241-244.indd 224444 111/20/20141/20/2014 11:23:41:23:41 PPMM