Mobilization and Threat: Campaigns against Welfare Privatization in Four Cities

Abstract

Previous research treats political opportunities, and threats as alternative catalysts to collective action. By contrast, we argue that perceived political opportunities, which shift in the course of struggle, channel resistance to threat into distinct routes of action (or inaction). Consistent with Eisinger's (1973) and Tilly's (1978) curvilinear model of the relationship between political opportunities and mobilization, we found that mobilization against welfare privatization was most disruptive and extensive when labor and community groups perceived relatively favorable or expanding political opportunities. Our comparative case studies suggest that the levels and forms of popular mobilization also depended on the perceived importance of the issue, access to organizational resources, and groups' tactical repertoires. Finally, we identify two types of strategies that activists used to widen their political opportunities in response to initial defeats.