But sometimes it does not work and then I will turn to the media or to politicians. While the most common outsider tactics used were pressure through media and elected politicians, thirty 30 organizations reported that, in recent years, they had appealed to the Supreme Court against government ministries and institutions.
Others were involved in strikes and in demonstrations in front of government ministries and parliament. In a few cases the organizations attacked government officials personally, delegitimizing them in the media. As mentioned above, many organizations were involved in lobbying activities as part of their attempt to promote new legislation in parliament, mostly through coalitions of NPHSOs. In most of these cases, the government opposed the legislation; e. Although lobbying is not restricted by law in Israel, it could carry some harsh consequences for the NPHSOs that have contracts with the government.
The NPHSOs participating in the study mentioned a few risks and penalties that they associate with lobbying in particular and outsider tactics in general. Another penalty is the labeling of the organization as one that opposes the government, thereby de-legitimizing both its management and its services. However, when specifically asked about this, none of the organizations could cite an instance when the government carried out such threats. They have never done so.
In my experience, our efforts to affect policy and the fact that we say out loud what we think has more of a positive effect than negative consequences or risks for the organization. We have no reason to be afraid, as they respect us for our professional services. This article presents findings on advocacy tactics employed by NPHSOs in Israel in their efforts to influence governmental policies. These NPHSOs frame their advocacy as partnership with the government; they widely use cooperative, administrative, institutional, and insider tactics; they try to achieve insider status in order to secure their participation in decision-making processes and attain a better position from which to promote policy issues Berry and Arons The importance that they attribute to achieving insider status can be explained by their high dependency on the government for funding and legitimacy as part of the contracting-out culture: These organizations now supply more services for the government than they used to do in the past and, in order to survive in their new environments and secure these resources, they wish to retain this support Schmid These findings are consistent with other studies that suggest a preference among nonprofits for insider, softer, and less-confrontational tactics Almog-Bar and Schmid ; Buffardi, Pekkanen, and Smith Verschuere and De Corte , contend that the choice of softer-insider advocacy tactics is especially the case for nonprofit organizations that are active under third-party government, in which they have developed strong ties with the public sector for implementing social services.
The findings of this study reveal that, in the Israeli case too, NPHSOs that have been accepted by policy-makers as legitimate players and part of the partnership with government, wish to reinforce their status by using insider, cooperative tactics. However, the study reveals that the tendency towards the use of insider tactics is accompanied by a variety of aggressive, confrontational, outsider tactics.
These include exerting pressure through the media and politicians; appealing to the courts; participation in coalitions with other nonprofit organizations; aggressive lobbying, mobilizing and educating the public, and participation in demonstrations. The utilization of outsider tactics was reported among all kind of NPHSOs and did not vary with the length of their existence, the extent of government funding they received, or the size of their budget.
The use of insider tactics did not limit that of more aggressive, outsider tactics; rather, the achievement of insider status through insider tactics gives the organizations a better position from which they feel more competent to challenge and confront the government through the other kind of tactic. This is often translated into the utilization of tactics that challenge the government.
While organizations are aware of the risks associated with implementing outsider tactics, it does not seem to restrict their use of them. They also reveal how organizations can use their insider status to attain more power and legitimacy, and thus influence the government from the outside.
The government lacks the infrastructure, mechanisms, technologies, and knowledge for supplying social services, and therefore has become dependent on NPHSOs Bode and Brandsen Thus, NPHSOs are firstly concerned with establishing their insider status, using cooperative tactics to ensure a steady flow of resources through contracts and governmental support.
Later, after achieving this status, they feel confident to turn to more aggressive tactics, utilizing their relative power as major providers of social services, with professional knowledge and expertise, and close relations with clients. In line with the argument of Resource Dependence Theory, NPHSOs continue to make efforts to change the power-dependence relations with their environment, and increase their autonomy, engaging different strategies Pfeffer and Salancik In this way, the organizations develop their distinctive competence and organizational capacity, in an attempt to increase the dependence of government on the services that they provide.
As we found in this study, one significant way in which the efforts to change the power-relations with government is being carried out is through the adoption of both insider and more aggressive outsider tactics. Salamon and Toepler contend that one of the major concerns about government-nonprofit collaboration relates to the ability of nonprofits to pursue their advocacy or lobbying responsibilities while working closely with government agencies.
The findings suggest that these organizations can be important players in social policy-making, and should be understood as interest groups who mobilize resources in order to create policy change — and not only as service providers Bass, Abramson, and Dewey While most of the advocacy efforts do not call for over-arching, fundamental changes in social policies Buffardi, Pekkanen, and Smith , they still focus on policies and services related to the needs of vulnerable populations within the large, diverse communities of people with disabilities and children.
Moreover, while partnering with the government, the organizations are not afraid of criticizing and challenging governmental policies related to the populations they serve. They clearly are willing to adopt aggressive tactics against government, even if this risks their cooperative relations with public managers. This suggests that, while operating within a more complex environment than before, NPHSOs in the age of New Public Governance can still find ways of fulfilling their advocacy roles as civil society organizations representing and promoting the rights of their clients.
In this context, it seems that policies of partnership between government and nonprofits are intensifying the growing polarization between large, often multiservice nonprofits mainly funded by government and small, community-based organizations that often lack adequate funding and staffing, as well as close connections with government Smith Thus, it may be that partnerships policies reinforce the voice of strong nonprofits which become a part of a close-knit community of policy-makers, while distancing smaller, less professional civil society organizations from forums of policy making.
This leaves the latter with even fewer opportunities than before to influence public policy. The findings point to the need for further research into the different ways in which NPHSOs exploit the opportunities to influence policy that have been created as a result of partnership with government.
The findings reveal that the desire for budget expansion is clearly one of the major motivations for policy advocacy by NPHSOs. However more in-depth research is needed in order to distinguish between the different aims related to budget expansion, and especially between budgets for service improvement for clients and those for organizational maintenance and survival.
Finally, it is important to note that the findings of this study should be understood in the specific national, structural, and cultural context in which these organizations operate.
However, they may be helpful for understanding advocacy tactics in other locations where policies of partnership inspired by the New Public Governance approach exist.
Almog-Bar, M. Search in Google Scholar. Bass, G. Abramson, and E. Pekkanen, S. Smith and Y. Tsujinaka, — Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Arons, K. Guinane, and M. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Berger, P. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Books. Berry, J. Reid and M. Montilla, Vol.
A Voice for Nonprofits. Bode, I. Boris, E. Buffardi, A. Pekkanen, and S. Casey, J. Chaves, M. Stephens, and J. Child, C. Dickinson, H. Butcher and D. Gilchrist, 41— Canberra: ANU Press. Donaldson, L. Furneaux, C. Gais, T. Walker, Jr. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gormley, W. Guo, C. Hoefer, R. Kimberlin, S. Leech, B. Ljubownikow, S. Marshall, C. Designing Qualitative Research. McCarthy, J. Flynn and V. Farm Bill that Monica Mills, Director of Government Relations at Bread for the World, had the opportunity to effectively express her moral opposition to certain aspects of the legislation. The advocacy groups surveyed reported approaching policymakers across the three branches of government, not only meeting with high-level officials but their staff as well.
Some well-connected religious advocates exert enough political clout to warrant regular meetings with highranking government officials. Bush on an average of three times a year.
Regardless of stature, however, the overwhelmingly positive response elicited from most organizations with regard to their use of insider advocacy suggests that government contacts play an important role in the advocacy strategy of powerful and less established organizations, alike. Grassroots Advocacy Notably, not a single organization relied solely on insider lobbying. Most reported that the grassroots contacts between their members and policymakers are more important. By mobilizing constituents to push towards political change, grassroots advocacy is inextricably tied to insider strategies.
PS Matters Digital content from across our activities and community: lectures, seminars and discussions available on demand or to stream via podcast channels. PS Matters. Membership Our members are universities across the globe and the scholars who work and study within them; membership benefits both the individual and the institution. Funding We have a range of funding schemes to help progress individual careers and to support the wider development of the discipline. Prizes From distinguished scholars to exceptional PhD students, our prizes recognise service and achievement across the profession.
Our Organisation. Local Organisers. Presenter s. Paul Wagner Northumbria University. Author s. In the policy networks literature, it is assumed that the actors that participate in policymaking processes can influence political outcomes using a variety of strategies. But which are more effective: insider strategies, such as lobbying and taking part in official hearings, or outsider strategies, such as media visibility and mobilization through demonstrations and mass meetings?
We test the hypothesis that actors using insider strategies have more influence over the climate change policy process than those using outsider strategies. Our dependent variable measures how influential each actor is perceived as by others in the network.
The main independent variables of interest measure the use of different insider and outsider strategies by national policy actors. Our network approach makes a unique contribution to the literature on insider versus outsider strategies because it enables us to simultaneously test several alternative explanations for political influence.
0コメント