Dropping off the bandwagon: a puzzle for the resource mobilisation perspective on civil society contestation networks

References

• Ansell, C. K. (2001). Schism and solidarity. In C. K. Ansell (Ed.), Schism and solidarity in social movements: The politics of labor in the French third republic, structural analysis in the social sciences (pp. 15–36). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Balme, R., & Chabanet, D. (2008). European governance and democracy: Power and protest in the EU. Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Balser, D. B. (1997). The impact of environmental factors on factionalism and schism in social movement organisations. Social Forces, 76(1), 199. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (2001). Interest niches and policy bandwagons: Patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1191–1213. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beguerisse-Díaz, M., Garduno-Hernández, G., Vangelov, B., Yaliraki, S. N., & Barahona, M. (2014). Interest communities and flow roles in directed networks: The Twitter network of the UK riots. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 11(101), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkhout, J. (2013). Why interest organisations do what they do: Assessing the explanatory potential of ‘exchange’ approaches. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 2(2), 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2013.6
   Google Scholar
• Berkhout, J., Hanegraaff, M., & Braun, C. (2017). Is the EU different? Comparing the diversity of national and EU-level systems of interest organisations. West European Politics, 40(5), 1109–1131. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2017.1308695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binderkrantz, A. (2008). Different groups, different strategies: How interest groups pursue their political ambitions. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31(2), 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00201.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Börzel, T., & Risse, T. (2016). Conceptualizing the domestic impact of Europe (2003). In Domestic politics and norm diffusion in international relations: Ideas do not float freely (pp. 150–171). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bosso, C. J. (2005). Environment, Inc: From grassroots to beltway. University Press of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Bouwen, P. (2004). Exchanging access goods for access: A comparative study of business lobbying in the European Union institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 337–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00157.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond Ses: A resource model of political participation. The American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1–7), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7552(98)00110-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burstein, P. (2014). American public opinion, advocacy, and policy in congress: What the public wants and what it gets. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caiani, M., & Graziano, P. (2018). Europeanisation and social movements: The case of the stop TTIP campaign. European Journal of Political Research, 57(4), 1031–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, P. B., & Wilson, J. Q. (1961). Incentive systems: A theory of organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(2), 129–166. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad, M., & Oleart, A. (2020). Framing TTIP in the wake of the greenpeace leaks: Agonistic and deliberative perspectives on frame resonance and communicative power. Journal of European Integration, 42(4), 527–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2019.1658754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bièvre, D., & Poletti, A. (2017). Why the transatlantic trade and investment partnership is not (so) new, and why it is also not (so) bad. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(10), 1506–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1254274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Ville, F., & Siles-Brügge, G. (2017). Why TTIP is a game-changer and its critics have a point. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(10), 1491–1505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1254273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dür, A. (2012). Rational choice: A critical plea for theories of rational decision-making. Austrian Political Science Review, 41(1), 73–83.
   Google Scholar
• Dür, A. (2019). How interest groups influence public opinion: Arguments matter more than the sources. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 514–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12298
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dür, A., & De Bièvre, D. (2007). The question of interest group influence. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X07000591
   Google Scholar
• Dür, A., Hamilton, S. M., & De Bièvre, D. (2023). Reacting to the politicisation of trade policy. Journal of European Public Policy.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2012). Who lobbies the European Union? National interest groups in a multilevel polity. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(7), 969–987. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.672103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2014). Public opinion and interest group influence: How citizen groups derailed the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(8), 1199–1217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.900893
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2016). Insiders versus outsiders: Interest group politics in multilevel Europe (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2023). Lobbying in the face of politicisation: Interest group strategies in trade policy. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2203161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasson, J., & Huet, P. G.-D. (2019). Civil society, rhetoric of resistance, and transatlantic trade. London: Palgrave Pivot.
   Google Scholar
• Flöthe, L. (2020). Representation through information? When and why interest groups inform policymakers about public preferences. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(4), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1599042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flöthe, L., & Rasmussen, A. (2019). Public voices in the heavenly chorus? Group type bias and opinion representation. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(6), 824–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1489418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraussen, B., Halpin, D. R., & Nownes, A. J. (2020). Why do interest groups prioritise some policy issues over others? Explaining variation in the drivers of policy agendas. Journal of Public Policy, 41(3), 553–572. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X2000015X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, W. (2000). Pressure groups and British politics. Macmillan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). The population ecology of interest representation: Lobbying communities in the American states. The University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2018). Speaking and being heard: How nonprofit advocacy organisations gain attention on social media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017713724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines, H. H. (1988). Black radicals and the civil rights mainstream, 1954–1970 (1st ed.). University of Tennessee Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haines, H. H. (2023). Radical flank effects. In D. A. Snow, D. Porta, B. Klandermans, & D. McAdam (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of social and political movements. Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Halpin, D. (2011). Explaining policy bandwagons: Organized interest mobilisation and cascades of attention. Governance, 24(2), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01522.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpin, D. R., Fraussen, B., & Ackland, R. (2021). Which audiences engage with advocacy groups on Twitter? Explaining the online engagement of elite, peer, and mass audiences with advocacy groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(4), 842–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020979818
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpin, D. R., Fraussen, B., & Nownes, A. J. (2018). The balancing Act of establishing a policy agenda: Conceptualizing and measuring drivers of issue prioritisation within interest groups. Governance, 31(2), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpin, D. R., & Thomas, H. F. (2012). Evaluating the breadth of policy engagement by organized interests. Public Administration, 90(3), 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02005.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanegraaff, M., Beyers, J., & De Bruycker, I. (2016). Balancing inside and outside lobbying: The political strategies of lobbyists at global diplomatic conferences. European Journal of Political Research, 55(3), 568–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanegraaff, M., & Poletti, A. (2019). Public opinion and interest groups’ concerns for organisational survival. European Political Science Review, 11(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773919000031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanegraaff, M., van der Ploeg, J., & Berkhout, J. (2020). Standing in a crowded room: Exploring the relation between interest group system density and access to policymakers. Political Research Quarterly, 73(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919865938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hübner, K., Deman, A.-S., & Balik, T. (2017). EU and trade policy-making: The contentious case of CETA. Journal of European Integration, 39(7), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2017.1371708
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, A. G., & Maloney, W. A. (1997). The protest business? Mobilizing campaign groups. Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, A. G., & Richardson, J. J. (1987). Government and pressure groups in Britain. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph, K., Gallagher, R. J., & Welles, B. F. (2020). Who says what with whom: Using bi-spectral clustering to organize and analyze social media protest networks. Computational Communication Research, 2(2), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.5117/CCR2020.2.002.JOSE
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klüver, H. (2012). Informational lobbying in the European Union: The effect of organisational characteristics. West European Politics, 35(3), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.665737
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollman, K. (1998). Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lijphart, A. (1977). Democracy in plural societies. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lowery, D. (2007). Why do organized interests lobby? A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying. Polity, 39(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300077
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, C. (2007). Lobbying success in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X07000608
   Google Scholar
• McAdam, D., Tarrow, S. G., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilisation and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. https://doi.org/10.1086/226464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on #Egypt. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 138–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161212474472
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Organ, J. (2017). EU citizen participation, openness and the European citizens initiative: The TTIP legacy. Common Market Law Review, 1713–1747. https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2017147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavan, E. (2021). Social and semantic online networks. In A. Lavorgna & T. J. Holt (Eds.), Researching cybercrimes (pp. 263–281). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Pavan, E. (2022). Big data and the study of political participation. In M. Giugni & M. Grasso (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political participation (pp. 298–313). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pavan, E., & Mainardi, A. (2018). Striking, marching, tweeting. Studying how online networks change together with movements. Participazione & Conflitto, 11(2), 394–422. https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v11i2p394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piatak, J., & Mikkelsen, I. (2021). Does social media engagement translate to civic engagement offline? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(5), 1079–1101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764021999444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. D., Campbell, D. E., & Garrett, S. R. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A., Carroll, B. J., & Lowery, D. (2014). Representatives of the public? Public opinion and interest group activity: Representatives of the public? Public opinion and interest group activity. European Journal of Political Research, 53(2), 250–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recuero, R., Zago, G., & Soares, F. (2019). Using social network analysis and social capital to identify user roles on polarized political conversations on twitter. Social Media + Society, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119848745
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothenberg, L. S. (1988). Organisational maintenance and the retention decision in groups. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1129–1152. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salisbury, R. H. (1969). An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 13(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110212
   Google Scholar
• Siles-Brügge, G., & Strange, M. (2020). National autonomy or transnational solidarity? Using multiple geographic frames to politicize EU trade policy. Politics and Governance, 8(1), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i1.2649
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, B., Willer, R., & Feinberg, M. (2022). Radical flanks of social movements can increase support for moderate factions. PNAS Nexus, 1(3), pgac110. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac110
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Soule, S. A., & King, B. G. (2008). Competition and resource partitioning in three social movement industries. American Journal of Sociology, 113(6), 1568–1610. https://doi.org/10.1086/587152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, F., & De Bruycker, I. (2020). Influence, affluence and media salience: Economic resources and lobbying influence in the European Union. European Union Politics, 21(4), 728–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116520944572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theocharis, Y., Lowe, W., van Deth, J. W., & García-Albacete, G. (2015). Using Twitter to mobilize protest action: Online mobilisation patterns and action repertoires in the occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi movements. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.948035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilly, C. (1999). Durable inequality. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• van der Graaf, A., Otjes, S., & Rasmussen, A. (2016). Weapon of the weak? The social media landscape of interest groups. European Journal of Communication, 31(2), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323115612210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1987). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, A. (2014). A theory of contestation. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Willems, E. (2020). Politicized policy access: The effect of politicisation on interest group access to advisory councils. Public Administration, 98(4), 856–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winslett, G. (2016). How regulations became the crux of trade politics. Journal of World Trade, 50(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.54648/TRAD2016005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, A. R. (2016). Not your parents’ trade politics: The transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations. Review of International Political Economy, 23(3), 345–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2016.1150316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar