Uppsala University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Uppsala University Master Thesis Does “Fridays for Future” really matter? A Case Study about the Success of the Social Movement in Germany. Department of Government Author: Marius Scheitle Supervisor: Paula Blomqvist May 22, 2020 Number of Words: 13,823 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Theoretical Background 5 2.1 Definition and Introduction in Theories of Social Movements 5 2.2 Social Movements and their Consequences for Policies 7 2.2.1 Early Research 7 2.2.2 Research on Contextual Factors 8 2.2.3 Causal Mechanisms behind Social Movement Impact 11 2.2.4 The Rise of Case Studies 13 3 Methods and Research Design 13 3.1 Case Selection 14 3.2 Methodological Procedure 14 3.3 Measurement and Operationalization of Social Movement Success 16 3.4 Data Collection 18 4 Fridays for Future in Germany: Has the Movement had Policy Success? 20 4.1 The Movement in Germany 20 4.2 The German Climate Protection Programme 21 4.3 Access Responsiveness 23 4.4 Agenda Responsiveness 24 4.5 Policy Responsiveness 26 5 Discussion: Why only limited Success? 30 6 Conclusion 33 7 References 34 2 List of Tables Table 1: Levels of Movement Success; adapted from Almeida (2019, p. 126) 17 Table 2: Fulfilment of the Demands of FFF in the German Climate Protection Programme 29 3 1 Introduction “We must change almost everything in our current societies. The bigger your carbon footprint is, the bigger your moral duty. The bigger your platform, the bigger your responsibility. Adults keep saying: ‘We owe it to the young people to give them hope.’ But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house was on fire. Because it is.” (Thunberg, 2019) If someone did not know Greta Thunberg before, this changed finally with this speech at the World Economic Forum 2019 in Davos. The climate activist and founder of the social movement Fridays for Future (FFF from now on in this paper) tried to wake up the world with this speech. Originally, the movement began in August 2018 when Greta Thunberg, at this time fifteen years old, refused to go to school and sat in front of the Swedish parliament instead to strike for policies keeping the global warming under two degrees in line with the Paris Agreement (Fridays for Future, 2020a; United Nations Climate Change, 2015). With school strikes every Friday from 8 September 2018 on (Fridays for Future, 2020a), Greta Thunberg set off an avalanche. Many students all around the world followed her in order to put pressure on politicians to act against global warming. The statistics at the homepage of the movement are impressive: According to the movement, there have been 121,000 strike events with 13 million strikers in 228 countries and 7,500 cities (Fridays for Future, 2020e). In this sense, FFF can be called successful. But is the movement really successful in influencing politicians? Does FFF really matter? Studying this is the focus of this paper, since FFF’s goal is not only to get media attention with impressive statistics, but to change behaviours of politicians in order to change policies to fight the climate crisis. Therefore, this analysis aims to shed light on the success of FFF in Germany where it emerged in early 2019 and evolved soon into one of the biggest branches of the movement with high presence in the media (Rucht, 2019, p. 7). Especially the big cities of Germany, like Berlin, Hamburg, or Munich, registered a high number of protesters, but there are also a lot of local groups (Fridays for Future, 2020c). In autumn 2019, the German government passed a climate protection programme where it formulated goals and measures to meet the Paris Agreement. Hence, it 4 seems like FFF had an impact on policies in Germany. However, a closer look is crucial to establish whether there is really a causal link between the actions of the movement and the German government. In this sense, the research question this paper answers is as follows: Was the social movement FFF successful in influencing policies in Germany? This is studied with the following structure. After this introduction, the second part deals with the theoretical background of social movements. Since scholarly work on this topic has grown significantly in the last decades, the literature review focusses specifically on research about social movements and their consequences for public policies. This is followed by the methods and the research design of the thesis. In doing so, I will outline the case selection, the methodological procedure as well as the determination which data is used. Furthermore, it introduces a method of measuring social movement success and presents the operationalization of this analysis. The fourth section consists of the case study. The focus lies on FFF in Germany and the question whether and how the movement influenced the different levels of access responsiveness, agenda responsiveness, and policy responsiveness. The result of the case study is that FFF had only limited success in influencing environmental policies in Germany. This leads to the discussion in chapter five and the question why the movement had only limited success. This shows an interesting puzzle: Despite most factors would predict a success story of FFF, the actual success is only limited. The thesis ends with a concluding summary of the findings and their implications for future research. For the sake of simplicity, this paper uses the terms “impact”, “influence” and “success” interchangeable in relation to social movements. 2 Theoretical Background This chapter reviews the literature on social movements. In doing so, it starts with a definition and a broader introduction of the theories of social movements. The second part deals especially with the impact of social movements on public policies and structures the literature on this research field. 2.1 Definition and Introduction in Theories of Social Movements Social movements are increasingly omnipresent in world politics. The Arab Spring in the Middle East, the Coloured Revolutions in Eastern Europe, Occupy Wall Street in the United 5 States, or protests against China in Hong Kong are only a few examples (Bosi et al., 2016, p. 3). On this ground, there are attempts to call current societies “social movement societies” (Almeida, 2019, p. 1; Meyer, 2014). However, it is still difficult to structure the literature and theories about social movements as well as to establish the term in a distinct way. What all definitions of social movements have in common is the emphasis of collective actions of a group outside of the institutionalized political power to achieve a common goal. For instance, Özen and Özen (2010, p. 33) define social movements as “(…) collective actions of relatively less powerful social groups that cannot take part in formal decision-making mechanisms at public level in order to voice their demands to public opinion and to influence decision-makers”. From the 1970s on, research about the phenomenon of social movements increased slowly (Bosi et al., 2016, pp. 3–4). With the 1990s and the beginning of the twenty-first century, scholarship significantly emerged. This happened often in an unstructured way. Amenta et al. (2010, p. 288) mention for instance the lack of literature reviews since the influential piece of Giugni (1998). This paper especially focusses on the subarea of impacts and outcomes of social movements and deals in particular with this theme of the literature. This subfield of social movement research can be structured into three broad types of outcomes (Bosi et al., 2016, p. 4). One focus lies on individual, personal, and biographical consequences of social movements (Bosi et al., 2016, p. 4). Another theme addresses cultural changes as well as changes in behaviours or social norms (Bosi et al., 2016, p. 4). The third topic deals with political change (Bosi et al., 2016, p. 4). This is the most common research focus and builds the foundation for this paper. However, structuring this huge amount of literature in a reasonable way remains a difficult task. For instance, Kolb (2007, p. 6) states that the problem of this research field is that the literature grows but does not accumulate. In order to solve this problem, this paper uses a modified structure of Bosi et al. (2016) and Giugni (1994). They distinguish two waves of literature about social movements. The first wave discussed in particular the debate of disruption versus moderation and strongly organized movements versus loosely organized movements (Bosi et al., 2016, p. 11). This is titled “Early Research” in this paper. The second wave of scholarly work emphasizes context as the central variable for social movement outcomes. This is a huge field in the literature since there are plenty of contextual factors which are associated with the impact of social 6 movements. However, according to Bosi et al. (2016, pp. 11–12), there has been a lot of progress since then, especially regarding causal mechanisms explaining why and how social movements do have an impact or not. This is seen as sort of a third wave of the literature in this paper. A further amendment to this structure is the last part of the next chapter. It deals with case studies as this form of research increased in recent years. However, what is important to mention is that the different subareas in this research field cannot be differentiated in a distinct way.