Organizational structure and strength and transnational campaign outcomes: a comparison of two transnational advocacy networks

Abstract

AbstractIn this article I address the question of why some transnational advocacy networks (TANs) are better able to influence policy outcomes than others. How do we explain the variation in the political impact of TAN campaigns? Drawing on some of the theoretical formulations developed by social movement and international relations scholars, I argue that organizational structure and organizational strength can help us understand this variation. A comparison of a highly influential and successful TAN, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, with a less successful TAN, the International Action Network on Small Arms, demonstrates that such networks can mobilize a large number of diverse civil society groups. However, a coherent and well‐coordinated campaign with a clear political message provides the major explanation as to why some TANs are more likely to shape the global policy process than others.