Policy Outcomes of Social Movements in Taiwan: Issue Orientation, Party System and Strategic Interaction from Two Cases1

Huang-ting Yan2

Abstract

Some social movements have reformed public policies or established the mode of participatory democracy while others had limited success in terms of intended results. Although resource mobilization theory has been offered to explain impacts of social movements, the application in Taiwan is restricted. Therefore, how to find out key factors, which can differentiate policy outcomes of social movements, is the problematic in the article. Political context, which interacts with social environment, is vital to develop precise casual mechanisms underlying the theoretical framework. First of all, issue orientation that movement actors adopt can be divided into concurrent issues, consisting of supra-partisan, cross-sectors and generalized expectation, and polarized issues, which are defined as linkage to parties, centered on particular sectors and conflicting values. Secondly, due to votes-maximization strategy, governing parties must be alerted to concurrent issues, which represent far-reaching resentments from populations while they take indifferent attitude toward polarized issues, which symbolize angers only from oppositions. Therefore, issue orientation results in different impacts on social movements. Finally, the strategic interaction between government and opposition in policy making, which is affected by party systems, determines policy outcomes of social movements. Polarized issues should be successfully articulated under coalition government, divided government or consensus democracy because more “veto players” participates in the policy-negotiating and formulation phase. In order to test some hypotheses derived from the theoretical framework, the article compares two social movements, the “Whiteshirts Movement” and the

1 This is a draft, which mainly compares two social movements in Taiwan. The author will extend the theoretical framework into large-N studies. Please don’t cite without the author’s permission. 2 Department of Political Science, National Taiwan University E-mail: [email protected]. “Sunflower Student Movement”, were lunched under the same political environment in Taiwan between 2013 and 2014. From the viewpoint of resource mobilization theory, the “Sunflower Student Movement” is superior to the “Whiteshirts Movement” in resource availability. However, the “Whiteshirts Movement” has successfully mandated the government to abolish martial court during peacetime but the “Sunflower Student Movement” failed to prevent the government from adopting the framework of Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement. After collecting data from four major newspapers in Taiwan, propaganda materials, speeches in demonstrations and official documents from SMOs, constructing some indicators for operationalizaiton, questionnaire surveys and deep interviews, the article finds polarized issues constructed by the “Sunflower Student Movement” split the whole population while concurrent issues appealed to cross-social groups in the “Whiteshirts Movement”. In addition, President Ma's government and KMT must respond to concurrent issues in contrast with only consolidating core supporters under polarized issues under single cabinet, unified government and majoritarian democracy. To sum up, issue orientation, party system and strategic interaction determines the success or failure of social movements in Taiwan. Future researches will focus on cross-national comparison to check theoretical “adaptability” and “restrictions” or extend the analytical framework into more distinct political environment.

Keywords: social movements, policy outcomes, issue orientation, party system, strategic interaction

I. Introduction

There are some significant questions for researches on social movements. Some questions are why the movement broke out, as opposed to the other. Others have been centered on varying level of mobilization, the availability of resource and organizational structure. But then there are still other questions, for example, what account for the success or failure between different social movements. In fact, successful social movements have challenged the authority, reformed public policies, enhanced equal representation between genders and races, and established the mode of participatory democracy in the contemporary world. However, some social movements had limited success in terms of intended results. Therefore, how to find out key factors, which can differentiate successful and failed social movements, is the main goal in this article. Some promising theories have offered us to consider outcomes of social movements. One of these is resource mobilization theory (RM), the dominant paradigm shifting from social psychological approaches after 1960s. Despite regarding structured grievance as a constant factor, scholars have taken divergent viewpoints, arguing a long-term change in resource extraction, organizing facilities or the network of recruitment can instigate movements (Jenkins and Perrow, 1977; Oberschall, 1978; McCarthy and Zald, 1977; Tilly, 1978). Therefore, when some resources increase, such as discretionary time, financial supports, prominent leaders, endorsement by external organizations and the size of middle class, a high possibility of the movement appears (Cress and Snow, 1996; Jenkins, 1983; Khawaja, 1994； McCarthy and Zald, 1977). The other is political process model or political opportunity structure (POS), in which scholars have analyzed how political context, such as institutional design, power configuration and informal procedure, escalate or alleviate social conflicts (Eisinger, 1976; Kitschelt, 1986; Koopmans, 1990; Kriesi et. al., 1992；Tarrow, 1989). Therefore, social movements have cumbersome impacts on policy changes or play central role in decision-making by opening a window of political opportunity, with supporting evidences from variable outcomes of anti-nuclear movements (Kitschelt, 1986), new social movements in Western Europe (Kriesi et. al., 1992), counter-movements (Meyer and Staggenborg, 1996) or U.S. women’s suffrage movements between 1866 and 1919 (McCammon et. al., 2001).3

3 Both theories have confronted some problems. On the one hand, some studies have demonstrated the grievances, rather than a constant factor, which can be generated by sudden and major threats to the interests of cohesive and moderately resourceful groups (Jenkins, 1983: 531). Buecher (1993) also lists ten issues, which pose some significant challenges to RM, arguing importance of grievances through interactive dynamics, diffusion of ideology, more egalitarian form of organization, collective identity and culture. On the other hand, some explosively successful movements emerge like labor movements in the U.S. without open political opportunity structure (McCammon, 2001). Furthermore, causal However, both theories cannot explain the discrepancy between two major social movements based on civil disobedience, the “Whiteshirts Movement” (the death of Chung-chiu Hung) and the “Sunflower Student Movement” in Taiwan during 2013-2014. When it comes to resource derivation, organizational structure, the network of recruitment and leaderships, the “Sunflower Student Movement” is superior to the “Whiteshirts Movement”. The former also activated more mobilization to protest on Ketagalan Boulevard. However, the “Whiteshirts Movement” has successfully mandated the government to abolish martial court during peacetime but the “Sunflower Student Movement” failed to prevent the government from adopting the framework of Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement. Likewise, both movements occurred in the same political environment, and hence, some variables in POS cannot be applied. Therefore, the article analyzes why the discrepancy exists between two social movements. The article is divided into four parts. Firstly, I will review some relevant literatures and propose the theoretical framework. Secondly, the article reviews two major movements in Taiwan and makes three hypotheses. Thirdly, after interpreting research methods, that is, questionnaire survey, deep interviews and comparative approaches, the article tests three hypotheses derived from RM, POS and my theory. Different from weak hypotheses from RM, the article finds that polarized issues, which were constructed by the “Sunflower Student Movement”, split the whole population while concurrent issues appealed to cross-social groups in the “Whiteshirts Movement”. In addition, President Ma's government and KMT must respond to concurrent issues in contrast with only consolidating core supporters under polarized issues in two-party system. Therefore, issue orientation coupled with party system determines the success or failure of social movements in Taiwan. Finally, the interplay of political party based on votes-maximization strategy and social movement rooted in issue orientation offers future researchers to enlarge the underdeveloped field of this theory and focus on quantitative analysis to check theoretical “adaptability” and “restrictions”. II. Relevant Literatures and Theoretical Framework Resource mobilization theory (RM)

RM theory examines mobilizations of a variety of resources, the linkage of social movements to external organizations and strategic interaction between the authority, competing camps and protestors themselves (Gamson, 1990; Jenkins and Perrow,

mechanisms of POS, for example, what impedes, assist or irrelevant to some social movements is not identified. Therefore, those challenges gradually undermine explanatory power for both theories. 1977; Oberschall, 1978), objecting the social psychological analysis of social movements (Gurr, 1970; Smelser, 1963; Turner and Killian; 1972). Jenkins (1983: 528) thinks RM theory constructs some new perspective on rational movement actions, the basic goals of movements based on the conflicts of interest built into institutionalized power relationship, pre-constructed grievances, and roles of resource, centralized organization, strategy and tactics for social movements. For example, McCarthy and Zald (1977: 1224-1236) explore deeply how alterations in resources affect the growth of social movement industries, how the structure of a social movement organizations (SMOs) influence the task of resource mobilization, and what are implications of larger or smaller resource flows for the fate of SMOs. What account for successful or failed social movements with the viewpoint of RM theories? Some scholars have offered some powerful evidences to interpret increasing resources lead to a high probability of successful social movements.4Others specifically focus on which kinds of organizational structures or the recruitment network create more mobilization potentials. When it comes to the recruitment network, preexisting solitary groups provides solidarity and moral commitments, which separate identity of “us” with “them”, and hence, bloc recruitment is more efficient form of mobilization than others (Snow, et.al., 1980). On the contrary, Klandermans and Oegema (1987) find the informal recruitment network, that is, ties with friends or acquaintances, is more necessary condition for the arousal of motivation to participate in Hague Peace Demonstration than formal network, like seeing posters or reading local newspaper. Gould (1993) describes the network density and size coupled with structural position of unconditioned contribution influence mobilization contexts. Recently, scholars start to attribute mobilization potentials to spatial environment (Sewell, 2001; Tilly, 2000; Zhao, 1998) or internet (Brunsting, et.al., 2002; Clark and Themudo, 2006). RM theory has confronted some challenges. Firstly, Walsh (1981) puts emphasis on imposed major grievances, which generated suddenly organized protests in community around Three Mile Island, contrasting with RM theory. Buecher (1993) also argues successful women’s movements in U.S. are attributed to grievances through interactive dynamics, diffusion of ideology and more egalitarian form of organization rather than preexisting and centralized structures identified by RM theory. Undoubtedly, past successful movements, like Iranian Revolution, are less dependent on abundant resources.

4 Khawaja (1994) testifies hypotheses that an increase in the levels of economic resources, the size of middle class and the greater strength of organization can foster the rate of collective actions in the West Bank by event history methodology. Cress and Snow (1996) identify four categories of resources and finds that increasing moral resources, supplies, meeting and office space in material resources, informational resources and leaders contribute to the viable homeless SMOs by qualitative comparative analysis. Political Opportunity Structure Theory (POS)

Political opportunity structure (POS) analyzes how political context, such as institutional design, power configuration and informal procedure, creates an open window of opportunity to facilitate some social movements but restrict others. Meyer and Minkoff (2004: 1458) think the premise underlying POS is protest outside mainstream political institutions correlated with more conventional political activity within. Meyer (2004: 126) also regards political institutions as an exogenous factor, which can affect the prospect for social movements in mobilization, advancing particular claims, cultivating some alliances, resorting to particular strategy and reforming public policy. Scholars conceptualize POS and distinguish different board sets of prosperities of political system to determine key factors, which explain successful social movements. Eisinger (1973) firstly encodes POS as openness of political input, arguing the most and the least open urban governments, the least extensive riots in American cities, and hence, proving a curvilinear relationships between frequencies of riots posses and openness of political input. Kitschelt (1986: 62-64) divides open or close POS into input processes of political decision-making cycles and the output phase of the policy cycle that can affect assimilative or confrontational strategy, and facilitate or impede impacts of anti-nuclear movements in Sweden, France, West Germany and the U.S.. Kriesi, Koopmans, Duyvendak and Giugni (1992) distinguish formal institutional structure, informal procedures and prevailing strategies with respect to challengers, explaining general forms of protest events. In addition, they differentiate party system configurations into two parts, namely, whether the Left divided in major Communist/Social Democratic Parties and whether Social Democrats in government, analyzing the relative level of new social movement mobilizations in Netherlands, Germany, France and Switzerland. Marks and McAdams (1996) define EU level POS as the relative structural access to EU institutions, the general policy receptivity of EU to issues salient to movements and internal organizational constraints, assessing impacts on the labor, regional, environmental and anti-nuclear movements. POS theory also has confronted many challenges. One of the most understandable challenges is causal mechanisms, which link POS to movement dynamics. For instance, Suh (2000) emphasizes framing attributes either (1) attainment of goals to collective action (“success framing”) or (2) the failure to obtain them to external political situation (“failure framing”), thus, mediates contraction or expansion of political opportunity imposed by governments in the growth of labor political protest and solidarity in Korea. Additionally, what impedes some social movements, assist others but irrelevant to still others is not identified by POS. Osa and Corduneanu-Huci (2003) check five variables in POS: state repression, elite divisions, influential allies, media access and social network, concluding the last two factors are sufficient conditions for mobilization in non-democracies, yet it’s hard for them to depict which kinds of movement propagate more successfully. Finally, a border understanding of POS is needed. Despite the fact that third party challengers, resistance from the liquor or brewing industries and procedure on granting vote rights offer different POS, McCammon, Campbell, Granberg and Mowery (2001) concludes changing gender relations (gender opportunity structure) is vital to foster movement success by altering beliefs among decision-makers about the proper role of women in society and then granting suffrages. Although some variables in POS cannot be applied into all cases and casual mechanisms cannot be identified clearly, the core concept, namely, political context interacting with social environments, is vital to develop precise casual mechanisms underlying my theoretical framework.

Theoretical framework: issue orientation and party system

How to define “success” of social movements is the first step to develop my theory. Traditionally, Schumaker's (1975: 494-495) five typology of government responsiveness help us understand what “success” means.5 Followed this, Burstein, Einwohner and Hollander (1995) consider it is also important for successful movement to provoke alterations in the institutional arrangements of society. Put simply, Gamson (1990) defines “success” as two variables: (1) if the acceptance of a challenging group for legitimacy on decision-making power by the authority; (2) and if the gain of new advantage on policy changes when or after the group challenges the authority. In spite of that, Rochon and Mazmanian (1993) define “success” by adding a new dimension: changes in social values. Diani (1997) also regards the emergence of new social network after protest as a guide to cultural change. For this article, I will consider governmental policy change or new legislation passed as “success” of movements. In the field of comparative politics, Easton (1953) proposes political system

5 Five typology of government responsiveness are (1) "access responsiveness" indicates the extent to which authorities are willing to hear the concerns of such a group; (2) "agenda responsiveness" indicates the demand is made into an issue and placed on the agenda of the political system; (3) "policy responsiveness" indicates the degree to which those in the political system adopt legislation or policy congruent with the manifest demands; (4) "output responsiveness" indicates the degree to which those in the political system implement policy-responsive actions; (5) "impact responsiveness" indicates the degree to which the actions of the political system succeed in alleviating the grievances of protest groups. theory, that is to say, changes in social environment can lead to new demand, and then instigate political competition based on conflict of interests. If a specific policy is carried out, it will interact with environment and produce positive or negative feedback, and hence, open a new cycle of demand inputs and decision outputs. Similarly, Almond and Powell (1966) adopt the structural-functional approach with the view point that a political system is composed of several key components, including interest groups, political parties and branches of government (structural dimension), and play dual role in process function: interest articulation and aggregation, policy making and implementation, and systematic function: political socialization, recruitment and communication. Therefore, which kinds of issue orientation specific social movements articulate, whether political parties aggregate their demands and the interplay of government and opposition in policy making affected by party system are cores of the theoretical framework. Which kinds of issue orientation can be worth addressed often results in different impacts on social movements. Einwohner (1999) observes who advocate animal rights tend to mobilize broadest supports by paying concern for issues on ending meat-eating and animal tests. However, it is dangerous for shifting narrowed goal to boarder one. For example, McCarthy and Wolfson (1992) argue movements, which fight against drinking and driving, have shifted the issue from drunken drivers to regulations on drinking age and some alcohol industries, so the conflicting issue rather than consensual one has threaten many industries interest and generated counter-movements. In my opinion, if movements attract a variety of social basis by "concurrent issues" as possibly as they can will have a higher possibility to win the tug war against the government than others focusing on particular or single origin of social groups but incite resentments for the rest by "polarized issues". Concurrent issues, as I define, consist of three elements: (1) "supra-partisan" shows issues will not be manipulated by the opposition, which alleviate confrontation between supporters and antagonists; (2) "cross-sectors" shows issues will not be articulated for the benefit of specific social groups, which reduce the number of victims under conflict of interests; (3) issues based on a universal value, generalized expectation or long-term grievances within most people arouse resonance for mobilization. On the contrary, polarized issues are defined as linkage to parties, centered on particular sectors, conflicting values and short-term grievances. Why movements win a victory smile by resorting to concurrent issues rather than polarized issues? It goes without saying that political parties spare no effort to aggregate some demands but ignore others due to votes-maximization strategy. Katz (1987) elaborates the concept of party government involving public officials recruited and accountable through political parties, which play an important role in governmental decision making and implantation of policies. Based on party government, Strøm and Müller (1999: 5-9) distinguish office, policy or vote-seeking models of party behaviors, and emphasize party leaders often face trade-off or compromise between three modes of behaviors in coalition governments. However, it is relatively less complex to refer to party behaviors under competitions between two major parties, that is, try to maximize votes for the office-seeking goal and respond to popular demand by enacting their preferred policies. In other words, governing parties must be alerted to concurrent issues, which represent far-reaching resentments from core supporters, intermediate voters and oppositions, and cope with it as quickly as possible in case that core supporters or intermediate voters change sides in war. Therefore, movements appealing to concurrent issues are channeled into success easily. On the contrary, governing parties can take indifferent attitude toward polarized issues, which symbolize angers only from oppositions, and ignore them. As a result, movements based on polarized issues gradually sink into the swamp. In fact, the above argument is constructed on some specific situations, that is, the interplay of government and opposition in policy making, which can be affected by party systems. One of the most understandable situations is party system. Under multiparty competitive system, party behaviors are very complex because major parties must consider stances from their minor partners, which can be collaborated or isolated with social movements. In addition, Lijphart (1999) divides patterns of democracy into majoritarian and consensus democracy. Under consensus democracy coupled with two competitive party system, like Austria, polarized issues should be paid close attentions by the government due to comprehensive networks of negotiations. Finally, polarized issues should be successfully articulated under divided government because the government and opposition will seek for compromise in case of legislative deadlocks. I will bring these divergent types into discussions. To summarize, with two competitive party systems, majoritarian democracy and united government, movements based on concurrent issues will be more successful than others emphasizing polarized issues due to rational calculations from parties. III. Two Major Social Movements and Some Hypotheses The “Whiteshirts Movement” in 2013

Chung-chiu Hung, who was a Republic of China Army compulsory corporal in 542nd Armour Brigade, died of suspected bullying or military abuses. On the eve of becoming a veteran, the Army has accused him of violating the confidentiality of information security because of carrying mobile phones equipped with camera functions and MP3 flash drive into the camp. Judged by Sergeant Disciplinary Board of Regent, he has been sentenced of repent punishment into the brig in Mechanized Infantry Brigade High Peak 2691 Camp. On July 3, with the red flags showing alert to perform drills due to high temperature at the outdoor, The Confinement Authority still determined to do it, finally resulting in heatstroke, heat exhaustion and disseminated intravascular coagulation for Chung-chiu Hung. After the death of Chung-chiu Hung, his families, Army colleagues and the mass media all suspected that he was deliberately abused by forcing him to do excessive exercises. On the one hand, Chin-sheng Tsao, who is an attorney in Supreme Military Prosecutor's Office, investigated screen of monitors in the brig to check whether or not senior noncommissioned officers putted pressure on The Confinement Authority, and hence, abused him to death, but estimating that there was no images without proposing reasonable reasons. On the other hand, according to the report from forensic anatomy, except for rhabdomyolysis, Da-cheng Kao as a forensic didn’t exclude the possibility of irrigation into his body to death purposely. Finally, Chin-sheng Tsao indicted 18 senior officers and noncommissioned officers over the death of Chung-chiu Hung on July 31. Surprisingly, only Yi-xun Chen, the brig manager, accused of the crime in abuse of subordinates to death, the other seventeen people were involved in administration negligence due to jointly prosecuting crimes against freedom. Due to the process of investigation far behind the schedule and the possibility of black-box operation, unknown compulsory lieutenant with other interesting people set up 1985 Civil Action Coalition to support Chung-chiu Hung’s families. Via Facebook and PTT (the biggest BBS in Taiwan), the coalition without centralized structures or strict organizational trainings but has mobilized over 30,000 people, who gathered on Ketagalan Boulevard to express dissatisfaction to the military on July 20. Wearing a white shirt showing we want the truth, the coalition has claimed three appeals.6 In consequence, Deputy Secretary of Defense on behalf of the Department of Defense accepted three petitions raised by 1985 Civil Action Coalition. In spite of the concrete response, furious about the final indictment, 1985 Civil Action Coalition made up their mind to mobilize over 200,000 again on Ketagalan Boulevard on August 3. The coalition has proposed three appeals: (1) President Ma must instruct the Department of Defense to organize the Military Judicial Co-Investigating Panel and investigate the case thoroughly; (2) the Department of Defense must establish a Military Injustice Investigation Committee to detect the military injustice over the years; and (3) the government must abolish martial court during peacetime and the general court must

6 Three appeals were: (1) Department of Defense must allow the third-party intervention to assist investigation; and (2) must protect all witnesses and send all evidences to the prosecutor's office; and (3) Reforms on human rights in the military must be started from the most basic 1985 Service Line to the whole appealing mechanism. take over trials in conformity with military laws. Additionally, the President must found inter-ministerial group to comprehensively review the existing military judicial system and issues related to human rights in the military, amending laws in the next legislative session. At 21:00 on August 3, prime minister Yi-hua Jiang responded to those demands and the Procedure Code of Court Martial was amended On August 6. Therefore, based on the definition in this article, the movement is successful.

The “Sunflower Student Movement” in 2014

On June 29th in 2010, President Ma's government signed a historic Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with the China government to normalize cross-strait trade. In accordance with the provisions of Article 4 in ECFA, “Service Trade”, both governments agreed to negotiate agreements on “Service Trade”. To further institutionalize norms, protect interests of service providers, expand market sizes, promote cooperation between industries and reduce restrictive measures, both sides signed Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement on June 21 in 2013. Citizen groups and many scholars in the following 16 public hearings put emphasis on negative impacts on Taiwan's small and medium enterprises and undoubtedly more economical dependence on China. However, the government didn’t change its inclination and took alternatives. On March 17th in 2014, the KMT legislator Ching-chung Chang announced that the review on Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement by Internal Affairs Committee has been completed in 30 seconds, triggering a group of university students, who held the banner entitled with "the guardian of democracy", at outside of the Legislative Yuan (Parliament) to protest rash legislative review on March 18th. As a result, 400 students from Black Island Nation Youth Front took advantage of polices’ negligence and entered into the legislature for sit-in protest, and then broke through polices’ blockade to occupy the Floor at 21:20. The National Police Administration mobilized the police to the Legislative Yuan emergently after the Floor was occupied. For student protesters, they have blocked the doorway with the Floor with seats against the police, who repeatedly tried to cut off crucial parliamentary network and electrical power, preventing news from releasing and expulsing students but failed. After confrontations, at 19:00 on March 23th, another group of protesters rushed into the nearby Executive Yuan (government) but forcibly expelled by the police at 0:00 on the March 24th. There were four core appeals for protesters: (1) the Legislative Yuan must reject Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement and send it back to the Executive Yuan; and (2) establish the framework of cross-strait monitoring mechanism and then review the agreement by it; (3) The monitoring mechanisms should be consistent with five principles: participatory citizens, protection of human rights, public information, the government's obligations and the oversight from the parliament; (4) Citizen Constitutional Conference must be convened, with discussions about constitutional systems, electoral systems and party systems, the rule basis of cross-strait relations, social justice, protection of human rights, economic policy and generational justice. Yet President Ma accepted partial demands but insisted the agreement, which was beneficial to Taiwan, can’t be rejected. On March 27th, one of student leaders, Wei-ting Chen, announced we would call on large scale of demonstrations on March 30th, continue until 19:00, and return into the Legislative Yuan to fight. On March 30th, wearing black shirts and holding sunflowers, over 500,000 people gathered on Ketagalan Boulevard, with the clear slogan "Defend Democracy, Withdraw Service Trade, the People Stand Up!", which was proposed by Fei-fan Lin, the other student leader. On April 5th, in addition to calling that students must respect multiple choices and evacuate outside of the Legislative Yuan as soon as possible, Jin-ping Wang, the leader of the Legislative Yuan, promised to protesters that he wouldn’t convene caucus negotiations on Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement unless the framework of cross-strait monitoring mechanism has been passed. Wei-ting Chen announced that we have completed short-term missions and made significant progress. On April 10th, all protesters evacuated from it, with the banner "the People Assembly" hanging on the Floor remained. However, reviewing drafts are still in the gridlock between the government and the oppositions. Therefore, based on the definition in this article, the movement is failed.

Three Competing Hypotheses

After reviewing relevant literatures and two major movements in Taiwan, I will make three competing hypotheses derived from them and my theoretical framework. In terms of RM theory, increasing resources often contribute to a high probability of successful social movements. Therefore, I propose the “Whiteshirts Movement”, which has mandated the government to abolish martial court, as opposed to the “Sunflower Student Movement”, which was unable to prevent the government from adopting the framework of Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement, has more resources to mobilize, that is,

H1: the “Whiteshirts Movement” has more resources than the “Sunflower Student Movement”.

According to POS theory, political context, such as institutional design, power configuration and informal procedure, creates an open window of opportunity to facilitate some social movements but restrict others. Therefore, I propose that the successful “Whiteshirts Movement” should have more access to policy-making or more parliamentary members representing with them in parliament than the “Sunflower Student Movement” based on different constitutional designs or party system configurations, that is,

H2: Both movements were lunched under different constitutional designs or party system configuration.

When it comes to my theoretical framework, movements that attract a variety of social basis by concurrent issues will have a high possibility to win the tug war against the government than others focusing on particular or single origin of social bases but incite resentments for the rest by polarized issues under two polarized party system. Therefore, I propose that the successful “Whiteshirts Movement” must resort to concurrent issues, as opposed to the failed “Sunflower Student Movement” appealing to polarized issues. Furthermore, with two competitive party system, majoritarian democracy and united government, due to votes-maximization strategy for parties that seek for everlasting powers, movements based on concurrent issues will be more successful than others emphasizing polarized issues. Therefore, I propose that more KMT voters support the “Whiteshirts Movement” than the “Sunflower Student Movement”, that is,

H3-1: the “Whiteshirts Movement” resorts to concurrent issues while the “Sunflower Student Movement” appeals to polarized issues. H3-2: with two competitive party system, majoritarian democracy and united government, parties are willing to respond to the “Whiteshirts Movement” rather than the “Sunflower Student Movement” because more KMT voters support the former.

In the following section, I will interpret data sources and research methods and test three competing hypotheses derived from RM, POS and my theory.

IV. Data Sources, Research Methods and Results Data and Methods

At first, I have collected data from four major newspapers in Taiwan, propaganda materials, speeches in demonstrations, information on Facebook and PTT and official documents from SMOs. In addition, deep interviews are necessary for qualitative analysis. Extending from my social networks, I have chosen someone relevant to my relatives, friends or neighbors, considering different demographics as possibly as I can. The list of respondents is posted in Appendix A. Finally, I have conducted questionnaire survey. The questionnaire is divided into four parts, including personal information at first, attitudes and opinions toward the “Whiteshirts Movement” in the next, followed by same questions toward the “Sunflower Student Movement” and voting behaviors in the final part. Most notably, instead of telephone survey resulting in time-consuming process or mailed questionnaire with lower response rate and lack of precision, I determined to adopt face-to-face survey. First of all, I have gathered the latest phonebook, adopted stratified sampling according to the proportion of population in Taiwan and selected telephone numbers by systematic sampling.7 Secondly, by assistances from my friends, we phoned and asked whether respondents are willing to answer our questionnaires by face-to-face.8 Finally, we met and they wrote questionnaires. In summarize, 164 people were not willing to answer questionnaire while 947 questionnaires were gotten successfully.9 How to define and distinguish resources is a key to test Hypothesis 1. Cress and Snow (1996: 1094-1096) have grouped resources into four categories: moral resources indicating endorsements by external organizations, material resources showing tangible goods and services mobilized, informational resources depicting knowledge capital pertinent to the organization's maintenance and mobilization and human resources illustrating people who donate resources, time, and energy to the SMOs. In my opinions, I construct some operating indicators for moral resources as “the number of external organizations which participate in the movements”, material resources as “the number of money and living supplies” and “do you approve the organization leading the movement is well-organized with clear division of labors?” in questionnaire, informational resources as “do you approve the movement appeals to people concretely and obviously?” and “do you receive continuously any information from the movement to recruit and mobilize people?” in questionnaire, and human resources as “do you approve whether or not charismatic leaders exist in the

7 In order to avoid defects in the phonebook, Professor Huang has suggested that I could take last two yards of phone numbers instead of random mess to select actual phone numbers due to higher coverage rate and lower the rate of empty numbers. 8 By face-to-face questionnaires, we can explain more precise information about questions if they didn’t realize what it means. The method is superior to mailed questionnaires. 9 We took two weeks to determine the list of respondents and met them to complete questionnaires in the following ten weeks. The research was conducted between 1rd July and 30th September. movement?” in questionnaire. Hypothesis 1 will be checked by comparing above indicators. Hypothesis 2 is relatively simple to test by identifying whether or not constitutional amendment, party system change in electoral and parliamentary level and alternation of the president and the composition of the government during 2013-2014. At first, constitutional amendment is defined by “any modified articles”. Secondly, I explore vote and seat distributions between political parties, that is to say, “effective number of parties” defined by Laakso and Taagepera (1979). Last but not the least, the president and the prime minister are more powerful than other executive body under the semi-presidential framework, so distinct presidents and prime ministers offer a new opportunity for social movements to affect policies. As a consequence, I check “whether replacements for presidents or prime ministers will happen”. Similarly, Hypothesis 2 will be checked by comparing above indicators. Hypothesis 3-1 will be tested based on three discrepancies between concurrent and polarized issues. One of discrepancies is that supra-partisan, which will be encoded as “do you approve the movement beyond partisan and seek just for social justice?” in questionnaire. Another one is cross-sector, indicated by “do you approve the movement just articulate for the benefit of specific social groups?” in questionnaire. Yet another one is issues based on a universal value, generalized expectation or long-term grievances within most people, presented by “do you approve the movement centered on generalized expectations enough to arouse resonance for mobilization?” in questionnaire. Additionally, I include a supplementary indicator “is there any competitive countermovement from divergent viewpoints?” to point out impacts of concurrent and polarized issues. Hypothesis 3-2 will be tested by firstly conceptualizing two competitive party system, majoritarian democracy and united government, then “comparing the relationship between voting behaviors and approval or disapproval toward two social movements”. First of all, Rae (1971) defines two competitive party system that if the two major parties in the parliament occupy over 90% seats but not any party possess seats more than 70%. Secondly, Lijphart (1999) has proposed 10 characteristics for majoritarian democracy. I adopt dichotomy to distinguish majoritarian from consensus democracy, that is, over 6 characteristics matched will be majoritarian democracy. United government is defined as the executive and legislative power controlled by same parties or party coalitions. Finally, I will ask respondents questions about voting behaviors and approval or disapproval toward two social movements in questionnaire. Likewise, Hypothesis 3-1 and 3-2 will be checked by comparing above indicators.

Results: Test Three Competing Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 is tested by the comparison of resource mobilization between two social movements. First of all, the “Sunflower Student Movement” ,which was supported by some organizations such as 1985 Civil Action Coalition, Green Citizens’ Action Alliance, and Democratic Front against Cross-Strait Trade in Service Agreement, and hence, has attracted more number of external organizations that participate in the movements than the “Whiteshirts Movement”, which dominantly responsible for the whole movement. In addition, the “Sunflower Student Movement” from 18th March to 6th April has recruited 5,147,623 New Taiwan Dollar (Democratic Front against Cross-Strait Trade in Service Agreement, 2014), contrast with the “Whiteshirts Movement” from 15th July to 3rd August recruiting only 2,763,754 New Taiwan Dollar (1985 Civil Action Coalition, 2014). Moreover, based on the statistic from 1985 Civil Action Coalition, totally 240 boxes of mineral water was offered on August 3. Unfortunately, I haven’t collected precise information about the number of livings in the “Sunflower Student Movement”. Nevertheless, according to the statistic of the rest number of livings from Democratic Front against Cross-Strait Trade in Service Agreement after the movement has finished, 1000 boxes of mineral water was still offered. Finally, as shown in figure 1, 61% people approve or strongly approve the organization leading the “Sunflower Student Movement” is well-organized with clear division of labors, as opposed to only 32% people respond for the “Whiteshirts Movement”. Figure 1: Resource Moblizarion in Both Movements

Do you approve the organization leading Do you approve the movement appeals the movement is well-organized with clear concretely and obviously? division of labors? Whiteshirts Movement Sunflower Student Movement Whiteshirts Movement Sunflower Student Movement 57% 52% 49% 31% 28% 31% 24% 22% 18% 15% 12% 15% 13% 9% 6% 5% 6% 1% 2% 4%

Strongly Approve No Disapprove Strongly Strongly Approve No Disapprove Strongly Approve Opinions Disapprove Approve Opinions Disapprove

Do you receive continuously any Do you approve whether or not information from the movement to recruit charismatic leaders exist in the and mobilize people? movement? Whiteshirts Movement Sunflower Student Movement Whiteshirts Movement Sunflower Student Movement 66% 62% 51% 40% 29% 21% 10% 12% 15% 9% 12% 16% 14% 18% 4% 0% 6% 4% 7% 4% Strongly Approve No Disapprove Strongly Very Often Often Not Often Rare Very Rare Approve Opinions Disapprove

Source: questionnaire, sample size: 947.

With the view point of informational and human resources, similar results can be presented in figure 1. 78% people have said they often or very often receive continuously any information from the “Sunflower Student Movement” to recruit and mobilize people, but only 35% people have said that for the “Whiteshirts Movement”. Additionally, only 16% people approve or strongly approve charismatic leaders exist in the “Whiteshirts Movement”, as opposed to 76% people answer for the “Sunflower Student Movement”. However, 59% people in the “Whiteshirts Movement” and 57% people in the “Sunflower Student Movement” respectively approve the movement appeals to people concretely and obviously. Based on most indicators, the “Whiteshirts Movement” has fewer resources than the “Sunflower Student Movement”, so RM theories are not applied. Hypothesis 2 is tested by whether “any modified articles” of the Constitution, different “effective number of parties” in electoral and parliamentary level, and replacements for presidents and prime ministers under both movements. Although the Constitution has been amended during 1991-2008, it has never been changed after 2008. Similarly, the legislative election will be held in 2016 without early elections before 2014. On the one hand, during the “Whiteshirts Movement”, two legislators, Cheng-er Lin because of depriving him of civil rights resulting from bribery in elections and Shih-chia Lin due to violating party discipline in the amendment of Accounting Law, were expelled. On the other hand, during the “Sunflower Student Movement”, two legislators, Chun-shin Hsu and Wen-ling Huang resigned for matching with the electoral promise of Taiwan Solidarity Union (political party) that legislators were alternated every two years. However, above episodes cannot transform effective number of parties or party system configuration in the parliament due to recruitments of new legislators from the same party. Moreover, the president, Yin-jeou Ma, is not substituted, with the same prime minister confronted with two social movements during 2013-2014. To sum up, both movements were lunched under the same constitutional designs or party system configuration, so POS theories are not applied. Hypothesis 3-1 is tested by comparing issue orientation between two social movements based on three discrepancies between concurrent and polarized issues. As shown in figure 2, 77% people approve or strongly approve the “Whiteshirts Movement” beyond partisan and seek just for social justice. On the contrary, only 37% people believed for the “Sunflower Student Movement”. The result can be supported by deep interviews as follows,

“It was a conspiracy from DPP. Most students in the “Sunflower Student Movement” were linked to DPP. They wanted to request the resignation of the president. Social Justice? (Laughed very loudly), you were too stupid. They all helped DPP win the presidential election in 2016.” (Interviewer C)

“Although I had no time to attend the demonstration, I supported the “Whiteshirts Movement”. They were seeking for the truth and……aggrieved people in the military. I thought no relationship between the movement and political parties. If DPP in the government, they still protested.” (Interviewer F)

Likewise, 81% people in the “Whiteshirts Movement” approve or strongly approve it centered on generalized expectations enough to arouse resonance for mobilization, contrast with 51% people in the “Sunflower Student Movement” think. The result can be supported by deep interviews as follows,

“……Didn’t see the number of people mobilized! (Interrupted my questions) They were not any legitimacy in the student movement. All my friends opposed them. But the “Whiteshirts Movement” was different. Many people were bullied in the military when they were compulsory soldiers….. It was reasonable to reform military systems for most people.” (Interviewer B)

“I talked to you that it was impossible! Their appeals (Indicated the “Sunflower Student Movement”) could result in the split of populations in Taiwan. You could think a lot of public oppositions from scholars, some enterprises and citizens’ organizations.” (Interviewer A)

However, nearly the same number of people in both movements approve or strongly approve they just articulate for the benefit of specific social groups. The result has been contradicted with deep interviews as follows,

“ I didn’t think those people help specific groups, after all……Ok! You talked to me which specific group will be beneficial due to the demonstration. Maybe the military were victims, but they deserved it” (Interviewer B)

“Yes, I approved it. They were too young to realize the truth. Signing the agreement could bring some profits for Taiwan……However, they just articulated those demand from scarified industries. If we were more competitive than industries from China, should we be afraid of them?” (Interviewer G)

Figure 2: Issue Orientations in Both Movements

Do you approve the movement beyond Do you approve the movement just partisan and seek just for social justice? articulate for the benefit of specific social groups? Whiteshirts Movement Sunflower Student Movement 47% Whiteshirts Movement Sunflower Student Movement 36% 30% 31% 23% 22% 19% 22% 20% 21% 15% 15% 16% 17% 17% 18% 11% 12% 5% 3%

Strongly Approve No Opinions Disapprove Strongly Strongly Approve No Disapprove Strongly Approve Disapprove Approve Opinions Disapprove

Do you approve the movement centered on generalized expectations enough to arouse resonance of mobilization? Whiteshirts Movement Sunflower Student Movement

62%

35% 37% 19%16% 12% 7% 5% 2% 5% Strongly Approve No Opinions Disapprove Strongly Approve Disapprove

Source: questionnaire, sample size: 947.

Finally, some competitive countermovements like the White Justice Social Alliance and the Citizens’ Justice Alliance against the “Sunflower Student Movement”, sought for abiding by rule of law and restoring the function of the parliament, and hence, mobilized thousands of people to gather around Taipei main station. However, powerful organizations didn’t emerge during the “Whiteshirts Movement”. Based on most indicators, the “Whiteshirts Movement” resorts to concurrent issues while the “Sunflower Student Movement” appeals to polarized issues. Hypothesis 3-2 is tested by conceptualizing two competitive party system, majoritarian democracy and united government. As shown in table 1, after 2008, two competitive party system have emerged in Taiwan. In addition, both President Ma and prime minister Yi-hua Jiang are from KMT, which has dominated the Legislative Yuan from 2008 (table 2). Finally, in terms of 10 characteristics for majoritarian democracy, single party majority cabinet (table 2), unicameralism, two competitive party system, one-dimensional party system, interest group pluralism, unitary state, inclination to Plurality with Single Member District System (Plurality-SMD) in legislative elections and exclusively representative democracy, and hence, matched 8 characteristics.10 Therefore, Taiwan should be classified into majoritarian democracy.

Table 1: Distribution of Seats between Parties during 1992-2014

KMT DPP PFP TSU Others Two competitive party systems 1992 95 51 15 Yes 1995 85 54 25 No 1998 123 70 32 No 2001 68 87 46 13 11 No 2004 79 89 34 12 11 No 2008 81 27 5 Yes 2012 64 40 9 Yes Source: Central Election Commission (2014), website: http://www.cec.gov.tw/bin/home.php Note: abbreviation of parties: Kuomintang (KMT), Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), People First Party (PFP) and Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU).

Table 2: List of of Presidents,PM and Cabinet Types during 1993-2014

Presidents Prime ministers Terms of PM Cabinet types Cabinet types Teng-hui Lee Chan Lien (KMT) 1993.2.27-1997.9.1 Single party Unified (KMT) majority government Vincent Siew 1997.9.1-2000.5.20 Single party Unified (KMT) majority government Shui-bian Tang Fei (KMT) 2000.5.20-2000.10.5 Coalition cabinets Unified Chen (DPP) government Chun-hsiung 2000.10.5-2002.2.1 Single party Divided Chang (DPP) minority government Shyi-kun Yu 2002.2.1-2005.2.1 Single party Divided (DPP) minority government Frank Hsieh 2005.2.1-2006.1.25 Single party Divided (DPP) minority government Tseng-chang Su 2006.1.25-2007.5.21 Single party Divided (DPP) minority government

10 The electoral system in Taiwan is Mixed-Member Majoritarian systems, including 72 seats for Plurality-SMD in total 113 seats. Chun-hsiung 2007.5.21-2008.5.20 Single party Divided Chang (DPP) minority government Ying-jeou Ma Chao-shiuan Liu 2008.5.20-2008.9.10 Single party Unified (KMT) (KMT) majority government Den-yih Wu 2009.9.10-2012.2.6 Single party Unified (KMT) majority government Sean Chen (KMT) 2012.2.6-2013.2.17 Single party Unified majority government Yi-hua Jiang 2013.2.17- Single party Unified (KMT) majority government Source: summarized by the author Note: abbreviation of parties: Kuomintang (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

Most noticeably, if we compare the relationship between voting behaviors and approval or disapproval toward two social movements, 58% KMT voters and 71% DPP voters respectively approve or strongly approve the “Whiteshirts Movement”, divergent from the fact that 8% KMT voters but 65% DPP voters approve or strongly approve the “Sunflower Student Movement”. Therefore, with two competitive party system, majoritarian democracy and united government, parties are willing to respond to the “Whiteshirts Movement” rather than the “Sunflower Student Movement” because more KMT voters support the former. In fact, the conclusion can be supported by deep interviews as follows,

“ I preferred KMT to DPP (Omitted resentments for DPP)…… KMT should pay attention to public opinions. I thought KMT must reform military system. Sunflower Student Movement…… the government should take his firm stance and wasn’t led by the group of students.” (Interviewer K)

“ KMT made a lot of mistakes…… those movements tough him a lesson. I hoped KMT could listen to popular demands, either the “Whiteshirts Movement” or the “Sunflower Student Movement”……Yes! I supported DPP.” (Interviewer H)

Figure 3: Voting Behaviors and Favor Rates of Both Movements

Comparing the relationship between voting behaviors and approval or disapproval toward two social movements

Whiteshirts Movement Sunflower Student Movement

55% 54% 47% 45%

28%

20% 18% 19% 16% 17% 16% 13% 11% 10% 8% 7% 6% 5% 2% 3%

Strongly Strongly Approve Approve No No Disapprove Disapprove Strongly Strongly Approve Approve (KMT (DPP Opinions Opinions (KMT (DPP Disapprove Disapprove (KMT (DPP voters) voters) (KMT (DPP voters) voters) (KMT (DPP voters) voters) voters) voters) voters) voters)

Source: questionnaire, sample size: 947.

V. Conclusions and Discussions

Which theory accounts for the discrepancy between two social movements? On the one hand, RM theories are not supported because the “Whiteshirts Movement” has fewer resources than the “Sunflower Student Movement”. On the other hand, POS theories are not totally applied because both movements were lunched under the same constitutional designs, party system configuration, presidents and prime ministers. In terms of my theoretical framework, the “Whiteshirts Movement” resorts to concurrent issues while the “Sunflower Student Movement” appeals to polarized issues. Coupled with two competitive party system, majoritarian democracy and united government, parties are willing to respond to the “Whiteshirts Movement” rather than the “Sunflower Student Movement” because more KMT voters support the former, which propels the government to make decisions in case of votes outflow. Therefore, issue orientation coupled with party system determines the success or failure of social movements in Taiwan. Divergent party system, majoritarian or consensus democracy and cabinet types can enhance or restrict the impacts from polarized issues. For example, in multiparty system, if social movements articulating polarized issues are only linked to some parties with very few seats in the parliament, the government will ignore them. However, if they are supported by powerful parties in oppositions, the government will pay concern to them, given the governing party with only the advantage of relative majority instead of absolute majority in the parliament. Most obviously, in consensus democracy, many parties on the basis of divergent polarized issues form grand or oversized coalitions. Therefore, the complex mechanism for bargain that they have constructed can determine successful or failed movements. It can be suggested that the party on the median position in competitive dimensions can be regarded as strong party, to which social movements centered on polarized issues relevant will win a higher possibility for preferred policy. Last but not the least, polarized issues should be successfully articulated under divided governments because the government and opposition will seek for compromise in case of legislative deadlocks. Likewise, presidents often face with polarized issues seriously, which are successfully articulated by some social movements and aggregated by parties controlling the cabinet and the parliament under cohabitation. Undoubtedly, those arguments will be worthy of future researches. To sum up, issue orientation coupled with party system determines the success or failure of social movements in Taiwan. Future researches will be focused on either extending the analytical framework into distinct environment, such as multiparty system, consensus democracy and divided government or cohabitation or performing quantitative analysis to check theoretical “adaptability” and “restrictions”.

Appendix A

Numbers Identity Region Gender Attending social movements A Retired Taipei Male 1 B Bank Manager Kaohsiung Male 1 C Farmer Pintung Male - D Housewife Taichung Female 2 E University Student Taipei Male 1 and 2 F Police Officer Kaohsiung Female - G High School Hualien Female 1 Teacher H University Student Taoyuan Female 1 and 2 I Lawyer Kaohsiung Male 1 and 2 J Compute engineers Taoyuan Male 2 K Post Officer Nantou Male 1 L Doctor Taichung Female - Note: 1: the “Whiteshirts Movement”, 2: the “Sunflower Student Movement”.

References

1985 Civil Action Coalition. 2014. Official Websites: http://pttcitizen1985.blogspot.tw/ Almond, G. A. and B. Powell. 1966. Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Boston: Little Brown. Burstein, P., Einwohner, R.L., and J. A. Hollander. 1995. “The Success of Political Movements: a Bargaining Perspective.” in The Politics of Social Protest, ed. Jenkins, J. C., and B. Klandermans, pp. 275-295. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Brunsting, S. and T. Postmes. 2002. “Social Movement Participation in the Digital Age.” Small Group Research 33, 5:525-554. Buechler, S. M., 1993. “Beyond Resource Mobilization? Emerging Trends in Social Movement Theory.” The Sociological Quarterly 34, 2: 217-235. Clark, J. D. and N. S. Themudo. 2006. “Linking the Web and the Street: Internet-Based ‘Dotcauses’ and the ‘Anti-Globalization’ Movement.” World Development 34,1:50-74. Cress, D. M., and D. A. Snow. 1996. “Mobilization at the Margins: Resources, Benefactors, and the Viability of Homeless Social Movement Organizations.” American Sociological Review 61, 6:1089-1109. Democratic Front against Cross-Strait Trade in Service Agreement. 2014. Official Websites: http://dfactsa.wordpress.com Diani, M. 1997. “Social movements and social capital: a network perspective on movement outcomes.” Mobilization 2:129-147. Easton, D. 1953. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Knopf. Einwohner, R. 1999. “Practices, Opportunity, and Protest Effectiveness: Illustrations From Four Animal Rights Campaigns.”Social. Problem. 46, 2:169-186. Eisinger, P. 1973. “The Conditions of Protest Behavior in American Cities.” American Political Science Review 81:11-28. Gamson, W. 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Gould, R. V. 1993. “Collective Action and Network Structure.” American Sociological Review 58, 2: 182-196. Gurr, T. R. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jenkins, J. C., and C. Perrow. 1977. “Insurgency of the Powerless.” American Sociological Reviews 42:249-268. Jenkins, J.C. 1983. “Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 9: 527-553. Katz, R.S. 1987. Party Governments: European and American experiences. New York: Walter de Gruyter. Khawaja, M. 1994. “Resource Mobilization, Hardship, and Popular Collective Action in the West Bank.” Social Forces 73, 1:191-220. Kitschelt, H. 1986. “Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-nuclear Movements in Four Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 16: 57-85. Klandermans, B. and D. Oegema. 1987. “Potentials, Networks, Motivations, and Barriers: Steps Towards Participation in Social Movements.”American Sociological Review 52,4: 519-531. Koopmans, R. 1990. “Bridging the Gap: The Missing Link between Political Opportunity Structure and Movement Action.” Paper presented at the ISA Congress, Madrid, July. Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak, J. W., and M. G. Giugni. 1992. “New Social Movements and Political Opportunities in Western Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 22:219-244. Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera. 1979. “‘Effective’ Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.”Comparative Political Studies 12, 1: 3-27. Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale: Yale University Press. Marks, G. and D. McAdams. 1996. “Social Movements and the Changing Structure of Political Opportunity in the European Union.” West European Politics 19,2:249-278. McCammon, H. J. 2001. “Labor’s Legal Mobilization: Why and When Do Workers Litigate Unfair Labor Practices? ” Work Occupation 28:143-175. McCammon, H. J, Campbell K., Granberg, E. and C. Mowery. 2001. “How Movements Win: Gendered Opportunity Structures and U.S. Women’s Suffrage Movements, 1866 to 1919.” American Sociological Review 66:47-70. McCarthy, J. D., and M. N. Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements.” American Journal of Sociology 82:1212-1241. McCarthy, J. D., and M. Wolfson. 1992. “Consensus Movements, Conflict Movements, and the Cooptation of Civic and State Infrastructures.” in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, ed., Morris, A. and C. M. Mueller, pp. 273-297. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Meyer, D. S. and S. Staggenborg. 1996. “Movements, Countermovements, and the Structure of Political Opportunity.” American Journal of Sociology 101, 6:1628-1660. Meyer, D. S. and D. C. Minkoff. 2004. “Conceptualizing Political Opportunity.” Social Force 82, 4:1457-1492. Meyer, D. S. 2004. “Protest and Political Opportunity.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 125-145. Oberschall, A. 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Osa, M. and C. Corduneanu-Huci. 2003. “Running Uphill: Political Opportunity in Non-democracies.” Comparative Sociology 2, 4: 605-629. Rae, D. W. 1971. The political consequences of electoral laws. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rochon T., D. A. Mazmanian. 1993. “Social Movements and the Policy Process.” Annual American Academic Political Social Science 528:75-87. Schumaker, P. D. 1975. “Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands.” Journal of Politics 37: 488-521. Sewell, W. H. 2001. “Space in Contentious Politics.” in Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics, ed. R. R. Aminzade, pp. 51-88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smelser, N. J. 1962. Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press. Snow, D. A., Louis, A., Zurcher, Jr. and S. Ekland-Olson. 1980. “Social Networks and Social Movements: A Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment.” American Sociological Review 45, 5: 787-801. Strøm, K. and W. C. Müller. 1999. Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Suh, D. 2001. “How Do Political Opportunities Matter For Social Movements? Political Opportunity, Misframing, Pseudosuccess, and Pseudofailure.” The Sociological Quarterly 42, 3: 437-460. Tarrow, S. 1989. Struggle, Politics, and Reform: Collective Action, Social Movements, and Cycles of Protest. Cornell: Cornell University Press. Tilly, C. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Tilly, C. 2000. “Space of Contention.” Mobilization 5:135-159. Turner, R. N., and L. Killian. 1972. Collective Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Walsh, E. J. 1981. “Resource Mobilization and Citizen Protest in Communities around Three Mile Island.” Social Problems 29, 1:1-21. Zhao, D. 1998. “Ecologies of Social Movements: Student Mobilization during the 1989 Prodemocracy Movement in Beijing.” American Journal of Sociology 103, 6: 1493-1529.