Email: support@essaywriterpros.com
Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

The Politics of Contingency and the Equal Rights

social movements’ direct, indirect, and joint effects based on Giugni’s (2004) analysis. It allows us to compare the three models of social movement outcomes as well as to ascertain whether their impacts vary across countries and across movements. Each of the six parts of the table deals with one of the six models of social movement outcomes stressed by the author: the direct-effect model, the two variants of the indirectmodel, and the three variants of the joint-effect model. These models are evaluated both by country and by movement. In addition, an overall assessment of the strength of the impact is provided for each country across movements and for each movement across countries.8 Let us focus on three points from the overall assessment of the impact strength (last column of bottom row of each section). First and most importantly, all three types of joint effect are stronger than both direct and indirect effects. The indirect-effect model, in particular, was found not to be very powerful. In contrast, some limited direct impacts can be observed, which counter the hypothesis that the presence of political allies and a favorable public opinion improve the chances of social movement success. However, these two factors facilitate movements insofar as they intervene simultaneously with a rise in protest actions. The stronger explanatory power of the joint-effect model clearly supports this hypothesis. Second, comparing across movements, we observe a clear pattern of increasing influence as we move from one movement to the other. Specifically, the ecology movement is the most successful, followed by the antinuclear movement and finally by the peace movement, which is characterized by a lack of policy impact. The third variant of the joint-effect model of social movement outcomes (last section in the table) illustrates this pattern quite well. Third, comparing across countries, it is difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We do observe a difference consisting of a strong joint effect of the movements in the United States, an intermediate one in Switzerland, and a weak one in Italy, especially if we look at the third variant of the joint-effect model. In this case, the two federal countries with more open political opportunity structures seem to be more conducive to social movements having an impact than the more centralized country. However, this might simply be a result of the lack of data on public opinion available for the Italian case concerning the ecology and antinuclear movements. In fact, if we look at the first variant (fourth section in the table), we can see that no difference exists among the three countries, whereas Italy has a lower score on both the second and third variants. Mobilization 470 Table 1. Overall Assessment of Direct, Indirect, and Joint Effects from Time-Series Analysis United States Italy Switzerland Overall Direct effect: Ecology movement No No (Yes) Intermediate Antinuclear movement No Yes No Intermediate Peace movement No No No Weak Overall Weak Intermediate Intermediate Indirect effect (first variant: political alliances): Ecology movement No – – Weak Antinuclear movement No – – Weak Peace movement No – – Weak Overall Weak – – Indirect effect (second variant: public opinion): Ecology movement No – No Weak Antinuclear movement No – No Weak Peace movement No No – Weak Overall Weak Weak Weak Joint effect (first variant: protest and political alliances): Ecology movement Yes No (Yes) Strong Antinuclear movement No Yes No Intermediate Peace movement No No No Weak Overall Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Joint effect (second variant: protest and public opinion): Ecology movement No – Yes Intermediate Antinuclear movement (Yes) – No Intermediate Peace movement No No – Weak Overall Intermediate Weak Intermediate Joint effect (third variant: protest, political alliances, and public opinion): Ecology movement Yes – Yes Strong Antinuclear movement (Yes) – No Intermediate Peace movement No No – Weak Overall Strong Weak Intermediate Source: Giugni (2004: table II.3) Note: A significant effect (regression coefficient = p < .05 or p < .10) is indicated by (Yes) in parentheses