No abstract

Drawing on evidence from the 2011 Egyptian uprising, this article demonstrates how the use of two social media platforms – Facebook and Twitter – contributed to a discrete mobilizational outcome: the staging of a successful first protest in a revolutionary cascade, referred to here as ‘first-mover mobilization’. Specifically, it argues that these two platforms facilitated the staging of a large, nationwide and seemingly leaderless protest on 25 January 2011, which signaled to hesitant but sympathetic Egyptians that a revolution might be in the making. It draws on qualitative and quantitative evidence, including interviews, social media data and surveys, to analyze three mechanisms that linked these platforms to the success of the January 25 protest: (1) protester recruitment, (2) protest planning and coordination, and (3) live updating about protest logistics. The article not only contributes to debates about the role of the Internet in the Arab Spring and other recent waves of mobilization, but also demonstrates how scholarship on the Internet in politics might move toward making more discrete, empirically grounded causal claims.

How do reform-oriented social movements in authoritarian states get off the ground? I argue that authoritarian regimes can actually facilitate social movement mobilization by making it easier for movement leaders to form opposition coalitions. When authoritarian states experience a political opening, certain structural aspects of these regimes will ease the process of coalition formation. I describe three ways in which these states facilitate mobilization: (1) they offer a straightforward set of least-common-denominator goals; (2) they establish incentives for existing organizations to get involved; and (3) they enhance the role of protest events in building cohesion. To make my case, I analyze the Egyptian Kefaya movement, a social movement whose diverse members had never meaningfully worked together before and whose nine months of sustained street protests defied expectations that it would collapse under regime repression.

Civil society is one of the most widely used-and widely maligned-concepts in development studies. In this paper, we argue that much confusion regarding civil society stems from the omnibus nature of its conceptualization. We consider civil society to be an omnibus concept because it has been imbued with several distinct meanings-a normative meaning (civil society as civilized), a functional meaning (civil society as democratizing), and a structural meaning (civil society as a third sector). Using the example of humanitarian NGOs, we demonstrate how the omnibus nature of civil society resists systematization and requires scholars to make problematic assumptions when designing empirical research. As a solution, we propose replacing "civil society" in empirical research with the structural "third-sector" concept. This move narrows the gap between the actors that scholars study and the theoretical construct that they are supposed to represent; it brings the third sector into conceptual alignment with our understanding of the first and second sectors (the market and the state); and it improves our efforts to compare findings across cases and build generalized theories. It also enables scholars to consider questions of power, resources, and influence when studying development NGOs-questions that are difficult to ask when notions of "civil society" are defined as actors that understand, represent, and advocate on behalf of their "constituents." We conclude that "civil society" as a concept should be maintained for theoretical analyses of what makes society civil but that empirical studies of development are best served by a third-sector approach. KEYWORDS development, civil society, NGOs, third sector, concept stretching Civil society is one of the most widely used-and widely maligned-concepts in development studies.1 On the one hand, civil society is considered to be enormously consequential for development processes. Among its many responsibilities, a strong civil society is expected to create responsive states (Putnam ; Carothers ; Peruzzotti ), strengthen democracy (Muller and Seligson ; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady ; Blair ; Gibson ; Newton ; Jordan ), defend human rights (Risse ; Ward ), promote the efficient and fair distribution of basic social services (Gordon Drabek ; Fowler ; Colclough and Manor ; Meyer ), generate social capital and expand levels of generalized trust (Inglehart ; Putnam ; Mishler and Rose ; Woolcock ; Uslaner ), serve as a conduit between constituencies and the public sphere (Verba, Nie, and Kim ; Rosenstone and Hansen ), mediate conflict between ethnic communities (Varshney ; Uslaner and Conley ), and spread progressive cultural norms (Risse ; Edelman ).