Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conflict Versus Consensus Strategic Orientations Among Environmental NGOs: An Empirical Evaluation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Israeli environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) are assessed in light of Resource Mobilization Theory, introducing a new method for dividing ENGOs according to strategic orientation. Based on a national survey, 85 groups are categorized as consensus ENGOs that seek understanding aim at finding common grounds, or as conflict ENGOs working “outside the system.” Results show that conflict ENGOs are more grassroots in orientation and consensus ENGOs are more professionalized. Conflict ENGOs operate primarily in local arenas. Consensus ENGOs appear more stable, with larger annual budgets and paid staff, but with fewer registered members. Consensus ENGOs enjoy a wider variety of income sources; receive more funding from government, foreign, and private donations; and have a broader range of self-generated income sources. Conflict ENGOs depend more on membership fees. Both groups are highly dependent on foundation grants. In general, greater resources are associated with consensus activity than among organizations utilizing conflict tactics.

Résumé

Des organisations non gouvernementales environnementales (ONGE) israéliennes sont évaluées à la lumière de la théorie de mobilisation des ressources, qui introduit une nouvelle méthode de division des ONGE selon leur orientation stratégique. Selon un sondage national, 85 groupes sont catégorisés comme ONGE consensuelles cherchant à être comprises et à trouver des terrains d’entente ou comme ONGE conflictuelles œuvrant « en dehors du système » . Les résultats démontrent que les ONGE conflictuelles ont une orientation plutôt populaire et que les ONGE consensuelles sont plus professionnalisées. Les ONGE conflictuelles œuvrent principalement dans des milieux locaux. Les ONGE consensuelles semblent plus stables et leur budget annuel et leur effectif payé sont plus importants, mais leur adhésion est plus faible. Les ONGE consensuelles profitent d’une vaste gamme de sources de revenus. Elles reçoivent plus de financements du gouvernement et de dons étrangers et privés, et leurs sources de revenus autonomes sont plus diversifiées. Les ONGE conflictuelles ont une plus grande dépendance aux frais d’adhésion. Les deux groupes dépendent fortement des subventions de fondation. En général, plus de ressources sont associées aux activités consensuelles qu’aux organisations faisant appel à des tactiques conflictuelles.

Zusammenfassung

Israelische nicht-staatliche Umweltorganisationen werden im Rahmen der Ressourcenmobilisierungstheorie bewertet, wobei eine neue Methode zur Einteilung dieser Organisationen nach ihrer strategischen Orientierung eingeführt wird. Beruhend auf einer landesweiten Umfrage werden 85 Organisationen in Konsensus-Organisationen, die ein Einvernehmen und gemeinsame Prinzipien anstreben, und Konflikt-Organisationen, die „außerhalb des Systems“arbeiten, eingeteilt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Konflikt-Organisationen im Hinblick auf ihre Orientierung eher auf der Basisebene operieren, während Konsensus-Organisationen professionalisierter sind. Konflikt-Organisationen sind hauptsächlich auf der lokalen Ebene tätig. Konsensus-Organisationen erscheinen beständiger zu sein und verfügen über größere jährliche Budgets und bezahlte Mitarbeiter, haben jedoch weniger registrierte Mitglieder. Konsensus-Organisationen verfügen über vielfältigere Einnahmequellen, erhalten mehr finanzielle Unterstützung von der Regierung sowie durch ausländische und private Spenden und verfügen über eine weite Reihe von selbstgenerierten Einnahmequellen. Konflikt-Organisationen sind mehr von Migliedsgebühren abhängig. Beide Gruppen sind in hohem Maß von Zuschüssen seitens Stiftungen abhängig. Im Allgmeinen werden größere Ressourcen mit Aktivitäten in Verbindung gebracht, die vom Konsensus geleitet werden, als mit Organisationen, die Konflikttaktiken anwenden.

Resumen

Las organizaciones no gubernamentales medio ambientales israelíes (ENGO, por sus siglas en inglés) son evaluadas a la luz de la Teoría de Movilización de Recursos, introduciendo un nuevo método para dividir las ENGO según la orientación estratégica. Basándonos en una encuesta nacional, se clasifican 85 grupos como ENGO de consenso que buscan comprender con el objetivo de encontrar bases comunes; o como ENGO de conflicto que trabajan “fuera del sistema.” Los resultados muestran que las ENGO de conflicto están más orientadas a la base (comunidad) y las ENGO de consenso están más profesionalizadas. Las ENGO de conflicto operan fundamentalmente en ámbitos locales. Las ENGO de consenso parecen más estables, con presupuestos anuales más grandes y con personal pagado, pero con un menor número de miembros inscritos. Las ENGO de consenso disfrutan de una variedad más amplia de fuentes de ingresos; reciben más financiación del gobierno, de donaciones extranjeras y privadas, y tienen una gama más amplia de ingresos autogenerados. Las ENGO de conflicto dependen más de las cuotas de sus miembros. Ambos grupos dependen en gran medida de las subvenciones de fundaciones. En general, se asocia un mayor número de recursos a la actividad de consenso que entre las organizaciones que utilizan tácticas de conflicto.

摘要

本文根据资源调动理论(Resource Mobilization Theory),对以色列非政府环保组织(ENGOs)进行了评估,并介绍了一种根据策略导向对ENGOs进行分类的新方法。在一项全国性调查中,85个小组被分为共识ENGOs(Consensus ENGOs)与冲突ENGOs(Conflict ENGOs),前者寻求理解,并以达成共识为目标,而后者则在“体制之外”努力。结果显示,冲突ENGOs的导向更具草根性,而共识ENGOs则更专业化。冲突ENGOs主要活跃于地方。共识ENGOs表现的更加稳定,年度预算更大,受薪职员更多,但是注册会员则较少。共识ENGOs的收入来源更多样化;更多地得到政府、国外与私人捐助;其自主创造的收入来源更多样化。而冲突ENGOs更多地依赖于会员会费。两个小组的ENGOs都高度的依赖于基金资助。一般地,与共识活动(consensus activity)相关联的资源比与使用冲突策略的组织相关的资源要多。

ملخص

تم تقييم منظمات غير حكومية بيئية(ENGOS) إسرائيلية في ضوء نظرية تعبئة الموارد، إدخال طريقة جديدة لتقسيم المنظمات الغير حكومية البيئية (ENGOS) وفقا” لتوجيه إستراتيجي. إستنادا” على إستطلاع رأي وطني، تم تصنيف 85 من مجموعات منظمات غير حكومية بيئية(ENGOS) على نحو إتفاق على الرأي الذي يسعى إلى فهم الهدف في إيجاد أرضية مشتركة. أو كصراع مجموعات منظمات غير حكومية بيئية(ENGOS) تعمل “خارج النظام”. تشير النتائج إلى أن صراع مجموعات منظمات غير حكومية بيئية(ENGOS) هو أكثر شعبية في التوجيه وإجماع منظمات غير حكومية بيئية(ENGOS) على الرأي بصورة مهنية أكثر. صراع المنظمات الغير حكومية البيئية (ENGOS) يعمل أساسا” في الساحات المحلية. إتفاق المنظمات الغير حكومية البيئية (ENGOS) على الرأي يبدو أكثر استقرارا”، مع الميزانيات السنوية الكبيرة والموظفين المأجورين، لكن مع عدد أقل من أعضاء مسجلين. إتفاق المنظمات الغير حكومية البيئية (ENGOS) على الرأي يستمتع بتنوع واسع من مصادر الدخل؛ يحصل على المزيد من التمويل من الحكومة ، تبرعات أجنبية وخاصة ، وله مجموعة واسعة من مصادر الدخل الذي تم إنتاجها ذاتيا”. صراع المنظمات الغير حكومية البيئية (ENGOS) يعتمد أكثر على رسوم تسجيل العضوية. كل من المجموعتين يعتمد إعتمادا” كبيرا” على منح المؤسسات. بشكل عام ترتبط أكبر الموارد مع نشاط إجماع الرأي أكثر من بين المنظمات التي تستخدم تكتيكات الصراع.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bron, T. (1991). The religion and politics of earth first! The Ecologist, 21(6), 258–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buechler, S. (1993). Beyond Resource Mobilization? Emerging Trends in Social Movement Theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(2), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. M., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Acting in an uncertain world an essay on technical democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheslow, D. (2010). Last resort. Tablet, http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/43894/last-resort. Accessed 31 Aug 2010.

  • Curtis, D., & Gronberg, K. A. (2007). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Their characteristics and activities. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 259–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, J. R. (2005). The greening of the globe? Cross-national levels of environmental group membership. Environmental Politics, 14(4), 441–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, J. R., Recchia, S., & Rohrschneider, R. (2003). The environmental movement and the modes of political action. Comparative Political Studies, 36, 743–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S., Downs, D., Schlosberg, D., & Hernes, H. K. (2003). Green states and social movements, environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, & Norway. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foreman, David. (1991). Confessions of an eco-warrior. Danvers: Crown Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, R. (1993). Forcing the spring: The transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk, M. (1999). Monkey wrenching as Punishment? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 10(2), 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. D., & Wiener, J. B. (1997). Risk vs risk, tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handy, F. (2001). Advocacy by environmental nonprofit organizations, an optimal strategy for addressing environmental problems? International Journal of Social Economics, 28, 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haris, L. (2012). Your taxes: Giving to charity. The Jerusalem Post.

  • Hercowitz, Z., & Lifschitz, A. (2015). Tax cuts and economic activity: Israel in the 2000s. Israel Economic Review, 12(2), 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz-Gerro, T., Greenspan, I., Handy, F., Lee, H., & Frey, A. (2014). Environmental philanthropy and environmental behavior in five countries: Is there convergence among youth? Voluntas, 26(4), 1485–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. M., Min, S. J., Myers, T., and Shen, C. (2010). Organized interests collective action in the new information environment. Working paper. University of Wisconsin: Madison.

  • Kitschelt, H. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16(1), 57–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything, capitalism versus the climate. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, R. (1993). The dynamics of protest waves: West Germany, 1965 to 1989. American Sociological Review, 58(5), 637–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, D. (1983). The framing function of movement tactics: Strategic dramaturgy in the American civil rights movement. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements. Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framing (pp. 338–355). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meizlish, A. (2005). The battle against the Trans-Israel highway—Documentation of an environmental campaign. Jerusalem Institute for Israel Stories: Jerusalem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelson, M. (1994). Wangari Maathai and Kenya’s Green Belt Movement: Exploring the evolution and potentialities of consensus movement mobilization. Social Problems, 41(4), 540–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oser, J. L. (2009). Between atomistic and participatory democracy: Leverage, leadership, and legitimacy in Israeli civil society. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(3), 429–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz, D., & Abu-Baker, K. (2005). Coffins on our shoulders, the experience of the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz, D., & Vardi, I. (2010). Driving forces: The Trans-Israel highway and the privatization of civil infrastructures in Israel. Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, J. P., & Heard, J. (2005). European environmental NGOs: Issues, resources and strategies in marine campaigns. Environmental Politics, 14(1), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rucht, D. (1996). The impact of national context on social movement structures. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements. Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framing (pp. 185–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schreurs, M. A. (2002). Environmental movements in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonit, D. (Ed.). (2003). Globalize liberation: How to uproot the system and build a better world. San Francisco, CA: City Lights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tal, A. (2006). Environment in Israel: natural resources, crises, campaigns and policy from the advent of zionism until twenty-first century. Bnei Brak: HaKibbutz HaMeuhad Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tal, A. (2016). The land is full: Addressing overpopulation in Israel. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tal, A., Leon-Zchout, S., Greenspan, I., Oshry, L., & Akov, S. (2013). Israel’s environmental movement: Strategic challenges. Environmental Politics, 22(5), 779–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, C. (1994). Power in movement, social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. R. (1995). Ecological resistance movements: The global emergence of radical and popular environmentalism. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teschner, N., Garb, Y., & Tal, A. (2010). The environment in successive regional development plans for Israel’s peripher. International Planning Studies, 15(2), 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wapner, P. (1995). Politics beyond the state: Environmental activism and world civic politics. World Politics, 47(3), 311–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston, F. (2003). Groups of a feather flock together: Moderate and Radical cultures in the Environmental Movement. Paper submitted for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta.

  • Zhan, X., & Tang, S. (2011). Political opportunities, resource constraints and policy advocacy of environmental NGOs in China. Public Administration, 91(2), 381–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the JMG foundation.

Funding

This study was funded by a 25,000 Pound Sterling grant from the JMG Foundation of London to pursue independent research. The grant has no number associated with it that is known to the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecopeace Middle East, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Shira Leon Zchout

  2. Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel

    Alon Tal

Authors
  1. Shira Leon Zchout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alon Tal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alon Tal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and have not received funding that would influence their conclusions or data presentation for this research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zchout, S.L., Tal, A. Conflict Versus Consensus Strategic Orientations Among Environmental NGOs: An Empirical Evaluation. Voluntas 28, 1110–1134 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9723-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9723-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation