Advertisement

Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 333–355 | Cite as

When do refugees matter? The importance of issue salience for digital advocacy organizations

  • Nina HallEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Digital advocacy organizations are permanent institutions which can rapidly mobilize people online and offline. Scholars are beginning to examine these organizations’ distinctive mode of advocacy within national contexts. However, we know relatively little about how these organizations select their campaigns, and when they successfully mobilize the public on international issues. This is important as most advocacy targets national decision-makers, rather than international institutions. This article asks: how do digital advocacy organizations select the issues they campaign on? It examines refugee campaigns across seven organizations in seven different countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA) between late 2015 and 2017. It draws on extensive primary research, including a dozen interviews with digital activists, journalists, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). It finds that digital advocacy organizations choose campaigns based on issuesalience, whereas traditional NGOs are driven by issue-expertise. Professional staff select campaigns in NGOs, whereas in digital advocacy organizations campaign decision-making is member-driven. Overall, this paper calls for International Relations (IR) and interest group scholars to examine campaign selection and decision-making in all advocacy organizations.

Keywords

Digital advocacy Mobilizing Advocacy organizations NGOs Refugees 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the participants of the Stockholm workshop on Advocacy Groups in Global Governance: Global and Domestic Opportunity Structures, in particular Kirsten Lucas, Elizabeth Bloodgood, and Lisa Dellmuth. A special thanks to Rebecca John for her excellent research assistance and feedback on this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Australian Associated Press. 2017. Australia’s Top 20 Power-Brokers News.Com.Au. http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/australias-top-20-powerbrokers/news-story/1befd0a99d89672707750b56a81c7c.
  2. Baum, Matthew A., and Philip B.K. Potter. 2008. The Relationships Between Mass Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betzold, Carola. 2013. Business Insiders and Environmental Outsiders? Advocacy Strategies in International Climate Change Negotiations. Interest Groups & Advocacy 2: 302–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloodgood, Elizabeth A., and Emily Clough. 2016. Transnational Advocacy Networks: A Complex Adaptive Systems Simulation Model of the Boomerang Effect. Social Science Computer Review 35: 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourke, Latikia. 2015. Change of Heart: Abbott Government Agrees to Accept 12,000 Syrian Refugees. Sydney Morning Herald. 09 Sept 2015.Google Scholar
  6. Brady, Sarah. 2016. Irish “Pledge a Bed” for Refugees Campaign is Overwhelmed with Offers. Independent.ie, 03 Sept 2016.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, Charli R. 2007. Studying Issue (Non)-Adoption in Transnational Advocacy Networks. International Organization 61: 643–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chadwick, Andrew, and James Dennis. 2016. Social Media, Professional Media and Mobilisation in Contemporary Britain: Explaining the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Citizens’ Movement 38 Degrees. Political Studies 65: 42–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colmar Brunton. 2016. Community Perceptions of Migrants and Immigration. Report for Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). Wellington: MBIE. December 2016.Google Scholar
  10. Connor, Philip. 2016. Number of Refugees to Europe Surges to Record 1.3 Million in 2015. Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. Google Scholar
  11. Dellmuth, Lisa, and Jonas Tallberg. 2017. Advocacy Strategies in Global Governance: Inside Versus Outside Lobbying. Political Studies 65: 705–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dellmuth, Lisa M., and Elizabeth A. Bloodgood. (this issue). Advocacy Group Effects in Global Governance: Populations, Strategies, and Political Opportunity Structures. Interest Groups and Advocacy.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. 2018. Public Opinion in the European Union (No. Standard Eurobarometer 89). Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  14. Fraussen, Bart, and Darren Halpin. 2017. How Do Interest Groups Legitimate Their Policy Advocacy? Reconsidering Linkage and Internal Democracy in Times of Digital Disruption. Public Administration 96: 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gulbrandsen, Lars, and Steinar Andresen. 2004. NGO Influence in the Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: Compliance, Flexibility Mechanisms, and Sinks. Global Environmental Politics 4: 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hadden, Jennifer. 2015. Networks in Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, Nina. 2019. Norm Contestation in the Digital Era: Campaigning for Refugee Rights. International Affairs 95: 575–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall, Nina. 2017a. Innovations in Activism in the Digital Era: Campaigning for Refugee Rights in 2015—2016. In The Governance Report 2017, Democracy, Innovations, Participation, Legitimacy, Indicators, ed. Helmut Anheier, 143–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, Nina. 2017b. People Power, Populism and the Internet. In Global Policy Online, 11 July 2017.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, Nina and Phil Ireland. 2016. Transforming Activism: Digital Era Advocacy Organizations. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6 July 2016. http://ssir.org/articles/entry/transforming_activism_digital_era_advocacy_organizations.
  21. Halpin, Darren R., Bart Fraussen, and Anthony Nownes. 2018. The Balancing Act of Establishing a Policy Agenda: Conceptualizing and Measuring Drivers of Issue Prioritization Within Interest Groups. Governance 31: 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanegraaff, Marcel, Jan Beyers, and Iskander de Bruycker. 2016. Balancing Inside and Outside Lobbying: The political Strategies of Lobbyists at Global Diplomatic Conferences. European Journal of Political Research 55: 568–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hendrix, Cullen, and Wendy Wong. 2014. Knowing Your Audience: How the Structure of International Relations and Organizational Choices Affect Amnesty International’s Advocacy. Review of International Organization 9: 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henry, Laura A., Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom, Carla Winston, and Priya Bala-Miller. (this issue). NGO Participation in Global Governance Institutions: International and Domestic Drivers of Engagement. Interest Groups and Advocacy.Google Scholar
  25. Jordan, Grant, and William A. Maloney. 1998. Manipulating Membership: Supply-Side Influences on Group Size. British Journal of Political Science 28: 389–409.Google Scholar
  26. Karpf, David. 2012. The MoveOn Effect: The Unexpected Transformation of American Political Advocacy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karpf, David. 2016. Analytic Activism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kelly, Joe. 2018. GetUp! Makes Adani’s Demise Its Major Goal for 2018. The Australian. 1 April 2018.Google Scholar
  30. Kollman, Ken. 1998. Outside Lobbying. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lake, David G. and Wendy Wong. 2009. The Politics of Networks: Interests, Power, and Human Rights Norms. In Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance, ed. Miles Kahler. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100115180.Google Scholar
  32. Markus, Andrew. 2017. Mapping Social Cohesion: The Scanlon Foundation Surveys 2017. Caulfield East: Monash.Google Scholar
  33. Markus, Andrew. 2011. Immigration and Public Opinion. In A “Sustainable” Population?Key Policy Issues. Canberra: Australian Government—Productivity Commission. https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/sustainable-population/01-population-preliminaries.pdf. https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/sustainable-population.
  34. McDonnell, Mary. 2015. Over 6,000 Irish People Pledge to Home Refugees, newstalk.com. 4 September 2015. http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301/54585/0/. Accessed 7 Sept 16.
  35. Murphy, Katherine. 2016. Turnbull Government Launches Sweeping Inquiry into Donations. The Guardian, 14 Sept 2018.Google Scholar
  36. Nathan, Matt. 2015. Aylan Kurdi: David Cameron Says He Felt “Deeply Moved” by Images of Dead Syrian Boy But Gives No Details of Plans to Take in More Refugees. The Independent. 3 Sept 2015.Google Scholar
  37. Newport, Frank. 2018. Immigration Surges to Top of Most Important Problem List [WWW Document]. Gallup.com. https://news.gallup.com/poll/237389/immigration-surges-top-important-problem-list.aspx. Accessed 24 July 2018.
  38. Olesen, Thomas. 2018. Memetic Protest and the Dramatic Diffusion of Alan Kurdi. Media, Culture and Society 40: 656–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Princen, Thomas. 1995. Ivory, Conservation, and Environmental Transnational Coalitions. In Bringing Transnational Relations Back, ed. Thomas Risse-Kappen, 227–254. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bringing-transnational-relations-back-in/46897C34ACC7D3A341D52CD73AD692D3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raja, Irfan, and Nasser N. Alotaibi. 2018. Representations of Syrian Refugees in the British Tabloid Press: An illustration of Aylan Kurdi’s Tragic Event. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research 11 (1): 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sikkink, Kathryn. 2005. Patterns of Dynamic Multilevel Governance. In Transnational Protest and Global Activism, ed. Donatella Della Porta and Sidney G. Tarrow. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  42. Silberman, Michael. 2017. Five Years of Building People Power at Greenpeace. Mobilisation Lab. https://mobilisationlab.org/burning-platform-building-people-power/. Accessed 20 April 18.
  43. Stephens, Murdoch. 2018. Doing Our Bit: The Campaign to Double the Refugee Quota, 1st ed. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stroup, Sarah, and Wendy Wong. 2017. The Authority Trap: Strategic Choices of International NGOs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tallberg, Jonas, Lisa Dellmuth, Hans Agné, and Andreas Duit. 2018. NGO Influence in International Organizations: Information, Access and Exchange. British Journal of Political Science 48: 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomas, Emma, Nicola Cary, Lisa Smith, Russell Spears, and Craig McGarty. 2018. The Role of Social Media in Shaping Solidarity and Compassion Fade: How the Death of a Child Turned Apathy into Action But Distress Took It Away. New Media Society 20: 3778–3798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vromen, Ariadne. 2017. Digital Citizenship and Political Engagement, The challenge from Online Campaigning. London: Palgrave McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wong, Wendy. 2012. Internal Affairs, How the Structure of NGOs Transforms Human Rights. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yanacopulos, Helen. 2009. Cutting the Diamond: Networking Economic Justice. In Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance, ed. Miles Kahler, 67–78. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International RelationsJohns Hopkins SAISBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations