Transnational activism of social movement organizations: The effect of European Union funding on local groups in the Czech Republic

Abstract

Focusing on social movement organizations (SMOs) in the Czech Republic, this article explores the level of transnational activism of these actors. Although knowledge exists on domestic interest groups’ choice of European Union (EU) venues for lobbying, the influence of EU funding on protest and public campaigning by actors such as SMOs remains under-studied. We show what the level of transnationalization of SMOs is, what types of transnational strategies SMOs employ, and what explains these choices. Specifically, the article examines the effect the EU has had on Czech SMOs. We are interested in whether EU funding contributed to their de-radicalization and co-optation by the political elite, or rather empowered them to engage in transnational protest. The results of our analysis support the empowerment hypothesis.

The impact of the EU accession process and EU funding on the professionalization of national interest groups: the Slovenian case

“…The adaptation of interest groups and CSOs in response to a diverse variety of internal and external pressures/incentives has been documented by several scholars (Buth 2013;Císař 2009;Císař and Vrábliková 2009;Fagan 2010;Jordan and Maloney 2007;Maloney 2008;Maloney and Jordan 1997;andSaurugger 2007, 2012). In many instances change has been de facto professionalization.…”

“…as the EU has done. Císař (2009), Císař andVrábliková (2009) andCarmin (2010) provide evidence from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. Císař and Vrábliková (2009: 155) argue that, by supporting domestic social movement organizations (SMOs) '… the EU directly contributes to their professionalization'.…”

LGBT Advocacy and Transnational Funding in Singapore and Malaysia

“…Dibley, 2013;Froelich, 1999). Although others have discussed how external funding can empower groups to pursue their agendas (Císař and Vráblíková, 2012;Elbers and Arts, 2011), a common thread in the literature is that simply funding NGOs is insufficient for producing structural change, something that requires broader links to more grassroots organizing and other advocacy efforts.…”

Friend or foe? Foreign donors’ role in the formation of civil society in Ukraine

“…Some of the points I make, like the project culture problem and the disconnectedness of professionalized CSOs from grassroots activists have already been noted in the literature on civil society activism in developing democracies (Kuzmanovic 2010, Cisar-Vrablikova 2012, displaying commonalities of civil society growth and development in the CEE region and European neighborhood. Others, as low sustainability and relations of CSOs with national political parties, are often addressed in the recent scholarly debate and, therefore, may deserve special attention.…”

“…There are authors who argue that while foreign donors had a crucial role in the professionalization and institutionalization of CSOs in CEE countries, this influence has not always been accompanied by the de-politicization of these organizations or has even made internationally funded activists more assertive in domestic political conflicts (Ayoub 2013, Cisar 2010, Cisar-Vrablikova 2012. Other scholars, however, challenge the emancipatory potential of democracy assistance (Hearn 2000), claiming that while foreign donors (the EU, in particular) are declaring empowerment and strengthening of civil society as the main purpose of their assistance, in reality the aim is "to build governance and state capacity" (Fagan-Ostojic 2008).…”