Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 519–551 | Cite as

Beyond the inside–outside divide: fuzzy-set measurement of configurations of strategies in NGO campaigns

  • Francesca ColliEmail author
Original Article


One of the main focal points of studies on interest groups and lobbying has been the different strategies that groups use. Despite the fact that political actions can target both the state and the market, these have not been examined together within either the literature on lobbying or social movements. Moreover, while it is now accepted that groups use combinations of inside and outside strategies, these combinations have been difficult to measure in practice. This paper develops a method for measuring configurations of strategies using principles of qualitative comparative analysis and demonstrates the method’s application to 24 NGO campaigns in Italy and the UK across four issue areas: cage eggs, ocean plastics, antibiotics in farming and digital civil rights. I find that inside and outside strategies are used differently in the state and the market, and that market strategies can be used either to supplement lobbying on public policy or to directly target companies. These findings imply that it is worthwhile including market strategies in studies, as they improve our understanding of the ways in which NGOs address different audiences while lobbying.


Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) Advocacy campaigns Boycotts 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Bartley, T., et al. 2015. Looking Behind the Label: Global Industries and the Conscientious Consumer. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F.R., and B.L. Leech. 1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berg-Schlosser, D. and G. De Meur, eds. 2009. Comparative Research Methods: Case and Variable Selection. In Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, ed. B. Rihoux and C.C. Ragin, 19–32. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Berkhout, J. 2013. Why Interest Organizations Do What They Do: Assessing the Explanatory Potential of “exChange” Approaches. Interest Groups & Advocacy 2(2): 227–250.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, J.M., and D.F. Arons. 2003. A Voice for Nonprofits. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beyers, J. 2004. Voice and Access: Political Practices of European Interest Associations. European Union Politics 5(2): 211–240.Google Scholar
  7. Beyers, J., et al. 2014. Policy-Centred Sampling in Interest Group Research: Lessons from the INTEREURO Project. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3: 160–173.Google Scholar
  8. Binderkrantz, A. 2005. Interest Group Strategies: Navigating Between Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure. Political Studies 53(4): 694–715.Google Scholar
  9. Binderkrantz, A. 2008. Different Groups, Different Strategies: How Interest Groups Pursue Their Political Ambitions. Scandinavian Political Studies 31(2): 173–200.Google Scholar
  10. Binderkrantz, A., and S. Krøyer. 2012. Customizing Strategy: Policy Goals and Interest Group Strategies. Interest Groups & Advocacy 1(1): 115–138.Google Scholar
  11. Boris, E.T. and C.E. Steuerle, eds. 1998. Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration and Conflict. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  12. Boström, M., and M. Klintman. 2011. Eco-Standards, Product Labelling and Green Consumerism. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Buffardi, A.L., R.J. Pekkanen, and S.R. Smith. 2015. Shopping or Specialization? Venue Targeting Among Nonprofits Engaged in Advocacy. Policy Studies Journal 43(2): 188–206.Google Scholar
  14. Chalmers, A.W. 2012. Trading Information for Access: Informational Lobbying Strategies and Interest Group Access to the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 20(1): 39–58.Google Scholar
  15. Child, C., and K. Gronberg. 2007. Nonprofit Advocacy Organizations: Their Characteristics and Activities. Social Science Quarterly 88(1): 259–281.Google Scholar
  16. Colli, F., and J. Adriaensen. 2018. Lobbying the State or the Market? A Framework to Study Civil Society Organizations’ Strategic Behavior. Regulation & Governance. Scholar
  17. Culpepper, P.D. 2011. Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dellmuth, L.M., and J. Tallberg. 2017. Advocacy Strategies in Global Governance: Inside Versus Outside Lobbying. Political Studies 65(3): 705–723.Google Scholar
  19. den Hond, F., and F.G.A. de Bakker. 2007. Ideologically Motivated Activism: How Activist Groups Influence Corporate Social Change Activities. Academy of Management Review 32(3): 901–924.Google Scholar
  20. den Hond, F., F.G.A. de Bakker, and P. de Haan. 2010. The Sequential Patterning of Tactics. International Journal of Sociology and Social policy 30(11/12): 648–665.Google Scholar
  21. Dür, A., and D. De Bièvre. 2007. Inclusion Without Influence? NGOs in European Trade Policy. Journal of Public Policy 27(01): 79–101.Google Scholar
  22. Dür, A., and G. Mateo. 2013. Gaining Access or Going Public? Interest Group Strategies in Five European Countries. European Journal of Political Research 52(5): 660–686.Google Scholar
  23. Dür, A., and G. Mateo. 2016. Insiders Versus Outsiders: Interest Group Politics in Multilevel Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. 2016. Special Eurobarometer 442: Attitudes of Europeans Towards Animal Welfare [online]. Available at:
  25. Friedman, M. 1999. Consumer Boycotts: Effecting Change Through the Marketplace and Media, Routledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Gais, T.L. and J.L. Walker, eds. 1991. Pathways to Influence in American Politics: Mobilising Interest Groups in America. In Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements, ed. J.L. Walker, 103–123. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gran, B. 2003. Charitable Choice Policy and Abused Children: The Benefits and Harms of Going Beyond the Public-Private Dichotomy. International Journal of Sociology and Social policy 23(11): 80–125.Google Scholar
  28. Guillaume, C. 2018. When Trade Unions Turn to Litigation: ‘Getting All the Ducks in a Row’. Industrial Relations Journal 49(3): 227–241.Google Scholar
  29. Gulbrandsen, L.H. 2006. Creating Markets for Eco-Labelling: Are Consumers Insignificant? International Journal of Consumer Studies 30 (September): 477–489.Google Scholar
  30. Gulbrandsen, L.H., and S. Andresen. 2004. NGO Influence in the Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: Compliance, Flexibility Mechanisms, and Sinks. Global Environmental Politics 4(4): 54–75.Google Scholar
  31. Hamilton, T. 2013. Beyond Market Signals: Negotiating Marketplace Politics and Corporate Responsibilities. Economic Geography 89(3): 285–307.Google Scholar
  32. Junk, W.M. 2016. Two Logics of NGO Advocacy: Understanding Inside and Outside Lobbying on EU Environmental Policies. Journal of European Public Policy 23(2): 236–254.Google Scholar
  33. Koenig, P. 2017. Notes on Sigwatch’s NGO Campaign Database. 2017-62.Google Scholar
  34. Kollman, K. 1998. Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kriesi, H., A. Tresch, and M. Jochum. 2007. Going Public in the European Union: Action Repertoires of Western European Collective Political Actors. Comparative Political Studies 40(1): 48–73.Google Scholar
  36. Kurzer, P., and A. Cooper. 2013. Biased or Not? Organized Interests and the Case of EU Food Information Labeling. Journal of European Public Policy 20(5): 722–740.Google Scholar
  37. Kvist, J. 2007. Fuzzy Set Ideal Type Analysis. Journal of Business Research 60(5): 474–481.Google Scholar
  38. Maloney, W.A., G. Jordan, and A.M. McLaughlin. 1994. Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Insider/Outsider Model Revisited. Journal of Public Policy 14(1): 17–38.Google Scholar
  39. Micheletti, M. 2003. Political Virtue and Shopping: Individuals, Consumerism, and Collective Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Micheletti, M. and D. Stolle, eds. 2005. A Case of Discursive Political Consumerism: The Nike E-mail Exchange. In Political Consumerism: Its Motivations, Power, and Conditions in the Nordic Countries and Elsewhere, ed. M. Boström et al., 255–290. Copenhagen: Nordisk Minsterråd.Google Scholar
  41. Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Page, E.C. 1999. The Insider/Outsider Distinction: An Empirical Investigation. British Journal of Politics & International Relations 1(2): 205–214.Google Scholar
  43. Ragin, C.C. 1994. Constructing Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  44. Ragin, C.C. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rihoux, B., and B. Lobe. 2015. The Case-Orientedness of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full? Teorija in Praksa 52(6): 1039–1245.Google Scholar
  46. Schlozman, K.L., and J.T. Tierney. 1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper Collins College Div.Google Scholar
  47. Schneider, C.Q., and C. Wagemann. 2012. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Schurman, R. 2004. Fighting “Frankenfoods”: Industry Opportunity Structures and the Efficacy of the Anti-biotech Movement in Western Europe. Social Problems 51(2): 243–268.Google Scholar
  49. Soule, S.A. 2009. Contention and Corporate Social Responsibility. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Stolle, D., and M. Micheletti. 2013. Political Consumerism: Global Responsibility in Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Tarrow, S. 2011. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Trapp, N.L., and B. Laursen. 2017. Inside Out: Interest Groups’ “Outside” Media Work as a Means to Manage “Inside” Lobbying Efforts and Relationships with Politicians. Interest Groups and Advocacy 6(2): 143–160.Google Scholar
  53. Trevor Thall, A. 2006. The Myth of the Outside Strategy: Mass Media News Coverage of Interest Groups. Political Communication 23(4): 407–420.Google Scholar
  54. Trumbull, G. 2012. Strength in Numbers: The Political Power of Weak Interests. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wahlström, M., and A. Peterson. 2006. Between the State and the Market: Expanding the Concept of “Political Opportunity Structure”. Acta Sociologica 49(4): 363–377.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leuven International and European Studies (LINES)KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations