Social Movements and Policy Implementation: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty, 1965 to 1971

Coopting the State: The Conservative Evangelical Movement and State-Level Institutionalization, Passage, and Diffusion of Faith-Based Initiatives

“…Such access has long been conceptualized as key to movement influence and success [32]. For more traditional "outsider" movements, access to, and influence upon, political institutions may be sought through activities such as lobbying, protest, or attempts to shape public opinion [32].…”

“…Such access has long been conceptualized as key to movement influence and success [32]. For more traditional "outsider" movements, access to, and influence upon, political institutions may be sought through activities such as lobbying, protest, or attempts to shape public opinion [32]. For the movement actors involved in the promotion of the Faith-based Initiative, access has been cultivated by merging, in a sense, with political and state institutions through the election and appointment of movement actors to office and through the creation of new government institutions charged with the pursuit of movement goals [28,30,31].…”

A case study of the early institutionalization process of a restorative justice social movement organization.

“…Formalization and institutionalization encourage the development and survival prospects of the organization (Andrews, 2001;Edwards, 1994;Edwards & Marullo, 1995;Minkoff, 1993Minkoff, , 2002Walker & McCarthy, 2010), yet also increases the risk of co-optation (Coy & Hedeen, 2005;Piven & Cloward, 1977). The current case study may provide one way to deal with this paradox; it questions whether co-optation is only a negative result and simultaneously proposes its use as a strategic plan.…”

“…More inclined to use disruptive tactics (Andrews, 2001), informal organizations profit from the benefits of such demands, which are highly useful in putting pressure on elites (Staggenborg, 1988;Tarrow, 1998). Other scholars contend that informal organizations more frequently remain committed to their original goals and organizational integrity (Piven & Cloward, 1977).…”

“…Formalization and routinization increases an organization's chances for resource mobilization, legitimacy, and survival, but at the same time increases the risk of co-optation and hence the dismantling of the movement (Andrews, 2001;Edwards, 1994;Edwards & Marullo, 1995;Minkoff, 1993Minkoff, , 2002Walker & McCarthy, 2010). As Clemens articulates, "Hierarchical bureaucratic organization is necessary to compete effectively in the formal political arena, yet the processes of competition and organization distance the leadership from the interests of their followers and from the organization's initial commitment to the transformation of the political system" (1993, p. 764).…”