Signals or Mixed Signals: Why Opportunities for Mobilization are not Opportunities for Policy Reform

Abstract

Drawing on political opportunity theory, the theory of legislative logic, and political mediation theory, we hypothesize differential effects of the political environment on the actions of challengers (suffragists) and state actors (legislators) in the women's suffrage movement. We use sequential logistic regression to assess the effects of explanatory variables on two intermediate stages of mobilization and policy change. In the case of challengers, we estimate the likelihood a state-level organization is present in any given legislative year. In the case of state actors, we estimate the likelihood a bill passes one legislative house given the presence of a state-level suffrage organization and that a bill has been introduced. Mixed signals are apparent in that challengers and legislators respond to the same environmental factors differently. Challengers respond to perceived opportunities for change. Legislators seek to enhance their political careers and are responsive to the demands of challengers when they perceive challengers as politically powerful or when social and cultural change signals a demand for policy reform. Legislators, in the end, are much more conservative in their response to the political context.

Maternal mortality and women’s political participation

“…States in the 'wild west' were the first to extend suffrage, all during the late nineteenth century. Some historians attribute this to harsh frontier conditions making it more difficult to sustain traditional gender roles (Brown 1958;Grimes 1967), but the quantitative literature has found no robust correlates of adoption dates (Cornwall et al 2007). Importantly, there is no evidence that implementation of other gender-progressive policies that may have had direct impacts on maternal mortality decline was correlated with suffrage adoption.…”

When Organizations Matter

“…First, by moving beyond the approval stage of lawmaking, the results presented here demonstrate that advocacy organizations are influential at both stages of lawmaking, but that the effect of advocacy organizations on lawmaking depends on different factors when there is more at stake. This challenges past research which suggests that advocacy organizations are influential at the proposal stage but not at the approval stage of lawmaking (Cornwall et al, 2007;King et al, 2007 ;King et al, 2005 ;Soule and King, 2006 ;Soule and Van Dyke, 1999 ). Second, we further elucidate the link between racial and immigration politics through the finding that the institutionalization of colorblind racial ideology, in the form of racially conservative organizations, legitimates the agenda of politicians sympathetic to anti-immigrant efforts.…”

Does the Controversy Matter? Comparing the Causal Determinants of the Adoption of Controversial and Noncontroversial Rape Law Reforms

“…Despite the growing body of literature devoted to understanding the social factors and processes that affect legal change (Amenta et al 2005;Cornwall et al 2007;King et al 2005;McCammon et al 2001;McMahon-Howard et al 2010;Soule & Earl 2001;Soule & King 2006;Soule & Olzak 2004), researchers have neglected to consider the role of controversy in the policy process. Instead, researchers have identified several important factors, such as social movement organizations, public opinion, electoral competition, and the process of diffusion, that affect the adoption of a particular law.…”

“…According to political opportunity theory, when the dynamics of the political system are perceived as favorable to the interests of a particular group, the group will mobilize and advocate for policy change (Meyer & Minkoff 2004;Soule & Olzak 2004). Although debated among political opportunity theorists (i.e., see Cornwall et al 2007 andMeyer &Minkoff 2004), some scholars claim that the aspects of the political environment that instigate social movement mobilization are the same factors that affect policy outcomes (McAdam 1982). Thus, according to political opportunity theory, ''political factors external to the movement are important because variations in the larger political context can make government officials more or less willing to change policy'' (Kane 2007:216).…”

“…When legislators pass partial reforms for controversial policies, however, this may serve as a resistance strategy, which inhibits the adoption of stronger legislation (McMahon-Howard et al 2010;Soule & Earl 2001). Here, lawmakers may view their adoption of such legislation as an effort to pacify reform advocates without upsetting opponents (Cornwall et al 2007). Therefore, I predict that the prior adoption of partial reforms will positively affect the adoption of noncontroversial rape law reforms and negatively affect the adoption of controversial rape law reforms.…”