Abstract
In this chapter the authors provide an overview of existing theories of how collective actors effect social change and propose a research design to evaluate protest publics’ contribution into politics, policy dynamics, and democratization.
The authors define and describe four models of how protests publics’ participation in politics, policy development, and processes of democratization function as drivers of social change. It is believed that protest movements effect greater changes in embedded democracies and achieve little or even are destroyed in authoritarian regimes. We come to more complex conclusions beyond this received wisdom that protest publics contribute to social change in polyarchies, where major democratic institutions are already established.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). American Economic Association. The American Economic Review, 91(4), 938–963.
Amenta, E., Caren, N., Chiarello, E., & Su, Y. (2010). The political consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 287–307.
Andrews, K. T. (2001). Social movements and policy implementation: The Mississippi civil rights movement and the war on poverty, 1965 to 1971. American Sociological Review, 66(1), 71–95.
Anufriev, A. I., & Zaytsev, D. G. (2016). ‘Protest Publics’ in Egypt and Turkey from 2011 till present days: Assessment of impact on political changes. Comparative Politics (Russia), 2(23), 34–47.
Arbatli, E., & Rosenberg, D. (Eds.). (2017). Non-Western social movements and participatory democracy. Cham: Springer.
Bardach, E. (2011). Policy dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Battera, F. (2014). Perspectives for change in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria: The military factor and implications of previous authoritarian regimes. Contemporary Arab Affairs, 7(4), 544–564.
Béland, D., Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2018). Instrument constituencies and public policy-making: An introduction. Policy and Society, 37(1), 1–13.
Belyaeva, N., & Dzhibladze, A. (2014). “Public” as a “social actor” vs “public” as a “target audience”: Conceptual connection between “the public” and “civil society”. In E. Yasin (Ed.), XIV April International Scientific Conference on the Problems of Economic Development and Society (Vol. 2, pp. 377–389). Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics.
Bosi, L., Giugni, M., & Uba, K. (Eds.). (2016). The consequences of social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bozzoli, C., & Bruck, T. (2010). Determinants of protests: Longitudinal evidence from Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. MICROCON Research Working Paper, 30.
Branton, R., Martinez-Ebers, V., Carey, T. E., Jr., & Matsubayashi, T. (2015). Social protest and policy attitudes: The case of the 2006 immigrant rallies. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 390–402.
Carothers, T. (2002). The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 5–21.
Collier, R. B., & Collier, D. (2002). Shaping the political arena: Critical junctures, the labor movement, and regime dynamics in Latin America. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Della Porta, D. (2014). Mobilizing democracy: Comparing 1989 and 2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social movements: An introduction. Malden: Blackwell.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2011). Social movements. In M. Edwards (Ed.), Oxford handbook of civil society (pp. 68–79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2015). Introduction: The field of social movement studies. In M. Edwards (Ed.), Oxford handbook of civil society (pp. 1–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Durac, V. (2012). Yemen’s Arab Spring – Democratic opening or regime maintenance? Mediterranean Politics, 17(2), 161–178.
Durac, V. (2013). Protest movements and political change: An analysis of the Arab uprisings of 2011. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 31(2), 175–193.
Giugni, M. (2007). Useless protest? A time-series analysis of the policy outcomes of ecology, antinuclear, and peace movements in the United States, 1977–1995. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 12(1), 53–77.
Goldstone, J. A. (1998). Social movements or revolutions? In M. Giugni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly (Eds.), From contention to democracy (pp. 125–145). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Goldstone, J. A. (2001). Towards a fourth generations of revolutionary theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 139–187.
Goldstone, J. A. (2009). Rethinking revolutions: Integrating origins, processes, and outcomes. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 29(1), 8–32.
Goldstone, J. A. (2011). Understanding the revolutions of 2011. Foreign Affairs, 90(3), 8–16.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.
Hinnebusch, R. (2015). Change and continuity after the Arab uprising: The consequences of state formation in Arab North African States. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 42(1), 12–30.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 551–567.
Karanasiou, A. P. (2014). The changing face of protests in the digital age: On (DDoS) attacks. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 28(1), 98–113.
Keukeleire, S., & Hooijmaaijers, B. (2014). The BRICS and other emerging power alliances and multilateral organizations in the Asia-Pacific and the global south: Challenges for the European Union and its view on multilateralism. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(3), 582–599.
Khmelko, I., & Pereguda, Y. (2014). An anatomy of mass protests: The Orange Revolution and Euromaydan compared. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 47(2), 227–236.
Kolb, F. (2007). Protest and opportunities: The political outcomes of social movements. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2016). Does democracy reduce corruption? Democratization, 23(7), 1198–1215.
Krasner, S. D. (1984). Approaches to the state: Alternative conceptions and historical dynamics. Comparative Politics, 16(2), 223–246.
Lee, J. (2012). Micro-dynamics of protests: The political and cultural conditions for anti-U.S. beef protests in South Korea. Sociological Perspectives, 55(3), 399–420.
Madestam, A., Shoag, D., Veuger, S., & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2013). Do political protests matter? Evidence from the Tea Party movement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(4), 1633–1685.
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2009). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mill, J. S., & Nagel, E. (1950). John Stuart Mill’s philosophy of scientific method. Dover: Dover Publications.
Mohanty, R., Thompson, L., & Coelho, V. S. (2011). Mobilising the state? Social mobilisation and state interaction in India, Brazil and South Africa (pp. 1–39). IDS Working Papers, 359.
Morlino, L. (2004). ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ democracies: How to conduct research into the quality of democracy. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 20(1), 5–27.
Morlino, L. (2011). Changes for democracy: Actors, structures, processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moyson, S., Scholten, P., & Weible, C. M. (2017). Policy learning and policy change: Theorizing their relations from different perspectives. Policy and Society, 36(2), 161–177.
Ortiz, I., Burke, S., Berrada, M., & Cortés, H. (2013). World protests 2006–2013. Initiative for Policy Dialogue and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung New York, Working Paper, September 2013. Retrieved from http://policydialogue.org/files/publications/World_Protests_2006-2013-Executive_Summary.pdf
Ottaway, M., & Hamzawy, A. (2011). Protest movements and political change in the Arab world. Policy Outlook, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved from https://carnegieendowment.org/files/OttawayHamzawy_Outlook_Jan11_ProtestMovements.pdf
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.
Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 283–305.
Rock, M. T. (2009). Corruption and democracy. Journal of Development Studies, 45(1), 55–75.
Roland, G. (2004). Understanding institutional change: Fast-moving and slow-moving institutions. Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(4), 109–131.
Schmitt, S. (2012). Comparative approaches to the study of public policy-making. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 47–61). London: Routledge.
Schmitter, P. C., & Santiso, J. (1998). Three temporal dimensions to the consolidation of democracy. International Political Science Review, 19(1), 69–92.
Scoones, I. (2008). Mobilizing against GM crops in India, South Africa and Brazil. Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(2–3), 315–344.
Suisheng, Z. (2010). The China model: Can it replace the western model of modernization? Journal of Contemporary China, 19(65), 419–436.
Takács, K., Janky, B., & Flache, A. (2008). Collective action and network change. Social Networks, 30(3), 177–189.
Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2009). Contentious politics and social movements. In C. Boix & S. C. Stokes (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tremayne, M. (2014). Anatomy of protest in the digital era: A network analysis of Twitter and Occupy Wall Street. Social Movement Studies, 13(1), 110–126.
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wallace, J. (2011). Authoritarian information problems: Data manipulation in China (pp. 1–43). Available at SSRN 1975160.
Wallerstein, I. M. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Durham: Duke University Press.
Wang, Z., & Tan, E. S. (2013). The conundrum of authoritarian resiliency: Hybrid and nondemocratic regimes in East Asia. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 9(1), 199.
Warner, M. (2002). Publics and counterpublics (abbreviated version). Quarterly Journal of Speech, 88(4), 413–425.
World Value Survey. (2015). World Values Survey cultural map (pp. 1–4). World Values Survey Cultural Map Database.
Zaytsev, D. (2017). Brazilian protests: Actors and demands for political changes. In E. Arbatli & D. Rosenberg (Eds.), Non-western social movements and participatory democracy (pp. 43–64). Cham: Springer International.
Dataset: Teorell, J., Dahlberg, S., Holmberg, S., Rothstein, B., Alvarado Pachon, N., & Svensson, R. (2018). The Quality of Government Standard Dataset, version Jan18. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute. Retrieved from http://www.qog.pol.gu.se. doi:https://doi.org/10.18157/QoGStdJan18
Acknowledgments
Authors express their gratitude to Dr. Valentina Kuskova, Head of International Laboratory for Applied Network Research, who has been supervising this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
The chapter was prepared within the framework of the Academic Fund Program at the National Research University “Higher School of Economics” (HSE) in 2016–2017 (grant № 17-05-0018) and by the Russian Academic Excellence Project “5-100”.
Appendix: Variables for Cluster Analysis
Appendix: Variables for Cluster Analysis
1. Magnitude score of episode(s) of civil violence | 40. Some other executive have the power to introduce legislation | 79. Institutionalized Democracy | 118. Transparency Index |
2. Magnitude score of episode(s) of civil warfare | 41. Legislature’s Ratification of International Treaties | 80. Regime Durability | 119. Demographic Pressure |
3. Magnitude score of episode(s) of ethnic violence | 42. Some other executive have the power to use force abroad | 81. Polity Fragmentation | 120. Poverty and Economic Decline |
4. Magnitude score of episode(s) of ethnic warfare | 43. No Parties Allowed | 82. The Competitiveness of Participation | 121. External Intervention |
5. Magnitude score of episode(s) of international violence | 44. Religion Based Banning of Parties | 83. Regulation of Participation | 122. Factionalized Elites |
6. Magnitude score of episode(s) of international warfare | 45. Dichotomous democracy measure | 84. Combined Polity Score | 123. Fragile States Index |
7. Autonomous Regions | 46. Number of previous democratic breakdowns | 85. Revised Combined Polity Score | 124. Group Grievance |
8. Is Chief Executive a Military Officer? | 47. Consecutive years of current regime type | 86. Executive Constraints (Decision Rules) | 125. Human Flight and Brain Drain |
9. Checks and Balances | 48. Dichotomous democracy measure (incl. missing for some countries) | 87. Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment | 126. Human Rights and Rule of Law |
10. Executive Electoral Competitiveness | 49. Democratic transition | 88. Openness of Executive Recruitment | 127. Public Services |
11. Presidential Election Held | 50. New Constitutional System | 89. Regulation of Chief Executive Recruitment | 128. Refugees and IDPs |
12. Finite Term in Office | 51. Year in which the Constitutional System was Promulgated | 90. Press Freedom Index | 129. Security Apparatus |
13. Government Fractionalization Index | 52. Freedom of Assembly and Association | 91. Deliberative democracy index | 130. State Legitimacy |
14. Largest Government Party Orientation | 53. Disappearance | 92. Deliberative component index | 131. Uneven Economic Development |
15. Number of Seats of Largest Government Party | 54. Freedom of Domestic Movement | 93. Electoral component index | 132. Independent Sub-Federal Unit |
16. Number of Seats of 2nd Largest Government Party | 55. Electoral Self-Determination | 94. Egalitarian component index | 133. Independent Judiciary |
17. Number of Seats of 3rd Largest Government Party | 56. Empowerment Rights Index (New) | 95. Egalitarian democracy index | 134. Legislative Chamber |
18. Number of Government Seats | 57. Freedom of Foreign Movement | 96. Women political empowerment index | 135. 2nd Legislative Chamber |
19. Legislative Election Held | 58. Independence of the Judiciary | 97. Liberal democracy index | 136. Business Freedom |
20. Legislative Electoral Competitiveness | 59. Extrajudicial Killing | 98. Liberal component index | 137. Government Integrity |
21. Margin of Majority | 60. Physical Integrity Rights Index | 99. Participatory component index | 138. Economic Freedom Index |
22. Number of Other Government Parties | 61. Political Imprisonment | 100. Participatory democracy index | 139. Financial Freedom |
23. Number of Seats of Other Government Parties | 62. Freedom of Religion (New) | 101. Electoral democracy index | 140. Tax Burden |
24. Number of Other Opposition Parties | 63. Freedom of Speech | 102. Political corruption | 141. Freedom from Government |
25. Number of Seats of Other Opposition Parties | 64. Torture | 103. Executive bribery and corrupt exchanges | 142. Investment Freedom |
26. Number of Opposition Seats | 65. Women’s Economic Rights | 104. Public sector corrupt exchanges | 143. Labor Freedom |
27. Number of Seats of Non-Aligned Parties | 66. Women’s Political Rights | 105. Executive corruption index | 144. Monetary Freedom |
28. Total Seats in Legislature | 67. Workers’ Rights | 106. Executive embezzlement and theft | 145. Property Rights |
29. Number of Seats of Largest Opposition Party | 68. Electoral Process | 107. Public sector theft | 146. Trade Freedom |
30. Number of Seats of 2nd Largest Opposition Party | 69. Freedom of Expression and Belief | 108. Legislature corrupt activities | 147. Corruption Perceptions Index |
31. Number of Seats of 3rd Largest Opposition Party | 70. Functioning of Government | 109. Judicial corruption decision | 148. Control of Corruption |
32. Political System | 71. Level of Democracy (Freedom House/Imputed Polity) | 110. Media corrupt | 149. Government Effectiveness |
33. Fractionalization Index | 72. Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights | 111. Public sector corruption index | 150. Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism |
34. Number of Non-Aligned Parties | 73. Political Pluralism and Participation | 112. The Bayesian Corruption Indicator | 151. Rule of Law |
35. Chief Executive Years in Office | 74. Political Rights | 113. Effectiveness | 152. Regulatory Quality |
36. Banning of Anti-System Parties | 75. Rule of Law | 114. Legitimacy | 153. Voice and Accountability |
37. Some other executive have the power to call elections | 76. Freedom Status | 115. State fragility index | |
38. Constitutional Court | 77. Level of Democracy (Freedom House/Polity) | 116. Accountability Transparency | |
39. Ethnicity Based Banning of Parties | 78. Institutionalized Autocracy | 117. Information Transparency |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zaytsev, D.G., Galina, A.I., Sokol, A.A. (2019). Cross-National Comparison of Protest Publics’ Roles as Drivers of Change: From Clusters to Models. In: Belyaeva, N., Albert, V., Zaytsev, D.G. (eds) Protest Publics. Societies and Political Orders in Transition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05475-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05475-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05474-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05475-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)