Book Review: How social movements matter. Marco G Giugni, Doug McAdam, & Charles Tilly. U of Minnesota Press, 1999.

The consequences of social movements remain an area that has not been studied with sufficient methodological and systematic rigor. The existing scholarship in this domain is inadequate for fully understanding the impact of social movements and the processes or means employed to achieve their goals. This book focuses on the means-end analysis of social movements. It is divided into two parts: Types of Consequences and Comparative Perspectives. Comprising ten essays on different types of protest movements, the book seeks to establish the link between means and ends. Most of the essays take William A. Gamson’s 1975 work, Strategy of Social Protest, as a benchmark, critically examining the question of consequences through the theories and hypotheses presented in that work.

The book begins with a historical account of past research, future challenges, and potential developments by Marco Giugni. He distinguishes between earlier studies on social movements, which primarily focused on their goals, and the aim of this book, which seeks to examine their impact and consequences. He explores the two key strategies—'disruption' and 'moderation'—and their effects in different contexts, emphasizing that the success of either strategy depends on the political environment in which the movement operates. Furthermore, he outlines a methodological framework for studying the consequences of movements. According to him, researchers should first define the range of movement consequences, then specify the types of consequences to be studied, identify plausible relevant causes, and finally reconstruct causal patterns and historical trajectories. He asserts that comparative analysis is a valuable tool for studying movement consequences across different countries, offering deeper insights into this field.

The book’s first essay examines the impact of Social Movement Organizations (SMOs) on public policy within a democratic governance framework. In democracies, elected representatives are primarily concerned with reelection, making the will of the majority a crucial factor. Consequently, interest groups and SMOs often struggle to influence public policy, as they may not necessarily represent the majority’s views (Lohmann). However, Gamson describes American democracy as a "members-only system," arguing that SMOs, which he refers to as “challenging groups,” perform poorly due to governmental unresponsiveness. Lohmann counters this view, asserting that in a truly democratic and responsive government, SMOs often fail because elected officials already understand public demands and act accordingly. Thus, the influence of SMOs and interest groups is constrained by two key factors: electoral competition and the limited capacity of citizens and legislators to focus on multiple issues simultaneously (Page, 4). However, on issues of lesser public concern, SMOs can exert a stronger influence by shaping public policy preferences and intensifying concern about specific matters.

While social movements, political parties, and interest groups are distinct entities, the evolving roles and rules of democratic politics often cause these categories to overlap and become ambiguous. In this context, Paul Burstein seeks to define these terms in his essay. McCarthy and Zald emphasize "opinions and beliefs...preferences" in their conceptualization, while Tilly focuses on the interactions that lead to social movements. For Tilly, “the term social movement applies most usefully to sustained interaction between a specific set of authorities and various spokespersons for a given challenge to those authorities.” However, this definition risks being overly inclusive. A key distinction between Social Movement Organizations and interest groups lies in marginality—SMOs operate at the margins of political systems (Page, 7). Moreover, SMOs are less institutionalized and maintain fewer ties with governments than interest groups. Nevertheless, political parties, interest groups, and SMOs share many attributes, forming a continuum, with SMOs positioned at one end and the other entities at the opposite end.

Edwin Amenta and Michael P. Young argue that assessing the goals of a social movement is of limited academic utility, as many movement goals remain hidden. They contend that focusing solely on stated goals overlooks other significant outcomes that may emerge from the movement’s efforts. Their analysis begins with the concept of collective goods, asserting that the greater the collective benefits achieved by a movement, the more favorable its impact. Gamson’s study identifies two forms of success: (1) the realization of new advantages for the challenging organization and (2) the acceptance of the organization as a legitimate representative of the group it claims to advocate for. He categorizes outcomes into full response (complete success), partial success (co-optation and preemption), and complete failure (collapse). However, a critique of this framework suggests that even when a movement does not achieve its stated goals, it may still generate significant collective benefits for its participants. For example, although the Townsend Movement’s programs failed, the movement played a crucial role in influencing reforms in the United States’ Social Security Act.

A strict focus on programmatic success tends to overlook the unintended benefits that movements may generate for their followers. In some cases, social movements gain support from entities beyond the state or their direct target groups, facilitating further mobilization and fueling new waves of protest. Thus, researchers should move beyond merely analyzing the challenges and stated objectives of social movements and instead focus on their broader impact. However, these theoretical considerations are closely linked to Resource Mobilization Theory, and as Claus Offe suggests, there is a potential free-rider problem inherent in this approach. To address these challenges, researchers must go beyond standard methodological propositions—particularly causal analysis—to better ascertain the true impact of social movements. A fundamental question to consider is: What would the consequences have been in the absence of the challenger? Furthermore, scholars suggest breaking down the policy-making process into distinct stages: agenda setting, the specification of legislative content, and the enactment of proposals (Page, 41). This approach enables a more precise assessment of a movement’s success, as well as identifying the specific points in the process where its impact was most significant.

Hanspeter Kriesi and Dominique Wisler have studied the impact of social movements on political institutions in Switzerland and the United States. Social movements, in general, do not challenge the existence of political structures; rather, they generate patterns of beliefs and preferences that sustain these institutions through the use of “adaptive preferences.” Often, individuals dismiss the undesirable when it is unattainable. Paradigmatic shifts in political institutions occur primarily during periods of profound societal crises, particularly economic crises, which create conditions for institutional change. For instance, in the 1860s, Switzerland adopted direct democracy in response to such a crisis. Studies have well documented that both the Swiss democratic movement and the American populist movement emerged during periods of deep economic distress. However, generalizing this pattern is problematic, as crises are inherent to capitalist economies, which operate in cycles of boom and slowdown. Nevertheless, economic crises do not always lead to changes in political institutions. Kriesi and Wisler also consider other structural factors that contribute to institutional change, such as federalism, a lack of institutionalization within the state, the weakness of political parties, and elite divisions. Therefore, institutional vulnerability is one of the primary causes of political institutional change. However, this essay ambiguously subscribes to economic determinism, treating conflicts within other institutions as mere secondary causes.

Della Porta argues that social movements invigorate democracy by promoting “democracy from below.” They open new avenues for public participation, placing these arenas under public control, which in turn strengthens democracy. This phenomenon is evident in the debate on protest rights, which emerged in the 1960s. The recognition of protest rights and the evolution of protest policing both began in this period, becoming integral to the democratic process. The polarization of social and political forces led to the formation of two opposing coalitions: one composed of opponents who advocated for law-and-order policies and another formed by supporters who rallied around civil rights. Della Porta’s analysis of Germany and Italy reveals that both countries’ recent experiences with totalitarian regimes fostered a deep mistrust of democratic procedures. In both cases, coalitions emerged around the issue of protest rights, transforming formalistic democracy into a more participatory model while simultaneously stigmatizing violent movements.

The right to protest enables individuals and groups to mobilize and demand concessions from the state. However, institutions beyond the state differ in their ability to exercise repression. In the context of anti-war protests in the United States, the institution of science faced significant challenges from protesters, leading to substantial changes in the field of science and technology. As a result, information about the benefits and risks of scientific advancements became more accessible to the public, triggering the so-called “science wars” in universities, where proponents and critics of science engaged in heated debates. Some scientists supported the anti-war movement, while the rapid growth of science strengthened ties between the military and universities, ultimately decentralizing power structures. Kelly Moore argues that challenging institutions is particularly difficult because institutional power is often diffuse, making it unclear where authority is centralized. Furthermore, professionals within institutions hold considerable power, limiting the ability of clients and external groups to influence institutional behavior. However, Moore does not assess whether the dissemination of scientific and technological information was beneficial.

During the 1980s and 1990s, women's movements in the United States and the United Kingdom advanced feminist agendas despite the presence of conservative governments. Joyce Gelb and Vivien Hart analyze the impact of these movements, particularly in three domains: abortion rights, economic equity, and domestic violence. Their work also examines the structural changes within women’s organizations and the political challenges they faced. The American feminist movement was characterized by well-established professional networks of national organizations that coordinated a mainstream, reformist movement with liberal equality goals. Additionally, a robust grassroots movement at the local level combined advocacy with service delivery while negotiating with bureaucratic and elected policymakers. In contrast, British feminism lacked an equivalent superstructure. Women remained marginalized in national policymaking, and the movement faced ideological rejection by the centralized parliamentary state. However, at the local level, British feminist movements were as vigorous as their American counterparts.

The success of these movements can be evaluated in multiple ways: through movement mobilization, policy impact, cultural changes, shifts in collective consciousness, and discursive politics, all of which can generate resources for further mobilization and change (Page, 159-160). One significant outcome was the increased participation of women in decision-making processes, a consequence of the heightened politicization of women in both countries. In the United States, the courts recognized women's right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, and economic equity improved due to greater female participation in state and non-state institutions. However, the essay approaches the issue from a “pluralist tradition of power,” overlooking a more comprehensive analysis of decision-making. As Steven Lukes argues, power consists of three dimensions: the ability to make decisions, the capacity to stall or delay decisions, and the ability to shape desires.

The anti-war movement in the United States and the anti-nuclear movement during the Cold War also influenced state foreign policies. David S. Meyer examines the impact of anti-nuclear movements and concludes that in matters of national security, nations are not isolated entities influenced solely by domestic or international considerations. Instead, there is an interplay between both, with movements in one country influencing the policies of other governments. Domestic unrest in Western countries had some impact on foreign policy, though its effects were largely short-lived. The proliferation of nuclear weapons in the developing world after the Cold War, along with subsequent anti-nuclear movements in these countries, had minimal impact. Thus, the change was largely symbolic, as illustrated by Reagan’s offer of the Zero-Zero option to Gorbachev, which ultimately failed.

In the later phase of the century, a new type of movement emerged for the preservation and conservation of the environment, known as the environmental movement. These movements were initiated by networks of non-governmental groups and organizations that sought to prevent the exploitation and destruction of natural resources through social and political interventions, including collective protests. However, these movements face a remarkable paradox: on one hand, they have been successful in setting agendas, influencing individual attitudes and behaviors, and contributing to the establishment of new policies and an emerging green industrial sector. On the other hand, they have largely failed to halt environmental degradation. Despite these movements, natural resource exploitation has intensified, ecological disturbances have increased, human intervention in ecologically sensitive areas has expanded, and various forms of pollution have escalated.

Dieter Rucht argues that the impact of environmental movements has been largely symbolic, with only marginal success. Some tangible achievements include restrictions on oil tankers preventing them from cleaning their tanks with seawater, which would otherwise be discharged into the ocean, and the abandonment of plans to divide and exploit Antarctica. Environmental politics is shaped by a complex web of interrelations, spanning individual attitudes and behaviors, public opinion, and state responses to environmental concerns. The current state of the environment is not solely the result of contemporary policies but rather the outcome of a series of historical policy decisions. Consequently, even positive influences may be overshadowed by the rapid deterioration of the environment in contemporary societies.

This book provides a theoretical, methodological, and empirical analysis of the consequences and impact of various social movements on both state and non-state institutions. Tilly concludes the book with the metaphor of “exploring all parts of the river”—upstream, midstream, and downstream—to understand the causal linkages between social movement activities and their outcomes. The book emphasizes the importance of studying the impact of social movements and distinguishing their effects from those of external social forces and broader socio-political processes. However, it does not address the impact of social movements in the developing world or the so-called "Third World." Nonetheless, the theories and methodologies presented can be applied to assess social movements globally.