Fondo de garantía de instrumentos derivados

Social movements are “sequences of contentious politics that are based on un- derlying social networks and resonant collective action frames, [. . . ] which develop the capacity to maintain sustained challenges against powerful oppo- nents” (Tarrow 1998, p. 3). The social networks that these movements are based on are usually deeply rooted in civil society, while political parties act in the in- stitutionalized political arena (and often are among the “powerful opponents” Tarrow (1998) references). I follow Epstein (1980) in defining political parties as “any group, however loosely organized, seeking to elect government office- holders under a given label” (Epstein 1980, p. 9). Drawing on this wide defini- tion of parties is advantageous here, because it includes groups with significant bottom-up influence and civil society links, like movement parties. Definitions that center on elites (e.g., Aldrich (2011)) narrow the focus to an extent that of- ten leads authors to overlook the significant degree to which institutionalized politics are shaped by civil society (see the discussion of Aldrich and rationalist approaches more generally in the section on alternative explanations below).

As highlighted in the introduction, the study of social movements and polit- ical parties has long been conducted on separate tracks which rarely intersected (McAdam & Tarrow 2010). This is partially the result of the relatively late emer- gence of a research agenda on social movements’ political outcomes (Amenta, Caren, Chiarello, & Su 2010, p. 289), though studies in the field have recently become more common (Amenta et al. 2010, Walgrave & Vliegenthart 2012). Work in this vein has addressed questions such as under what circumstances movements achieve the outcomes they seek (e.g., Cress & Snow (2000)) and institutionalized political actors are occasionally considered in these studies,

mainly as the addressees of movement action. Scholars have, for instance, in- vestigated under what circumstances protest leads to parliamentary or gov- ernmental reactions (Fassiotto & Soule 2017, McAdam & Su 2002, Walgrave & Vliegenthart 2012). Scholars of social movements have only recently stud- ied political parties as important players shaping parliamentary and govern- mental responses to movement activity with Hutter & Vliegenthart (forthcom- ing) demonstrating that opposition parties are more likely to respond to street protest than parties in government.

Additionally, on both sides of the Atlantic the relationships between political parties and interest groups have received some attention. In the U.S. context, in- terest group endorsements in elections have been shown to exert strong effects on how voters, especially those who ideologically break with their preferred party on the issue of an interest group’s endorsement, evaluate candidates (Neddenriep & Nownes 2014). Moreover, Koger, Masket, & Noel (2009) have shown that the Democratic and Republican national party organizations are a central part of a liberal and conservative “network of interest groups, media, other advocacy organizations and candidates” (Koger, Masket, & Noel 2009, p. 633), respectively. By contrast interest group relationships with political par- ties in Europe are characterized by a low level of institutionalization, though, as in the United States, the partisan origins of interest groups play a role in shaping these interactions (Rasmussen & Lindeboom 2013). They are moreover moderated by the institutional context, i.e. these interactions mirror the specific party-political cleavages that dominate a country (Otjes & Rasmussen 2015). These studies shed light on important channels of representation, but a specific focus on social movements is lacking in this literature. While some SMOs have institutionalized into forms similar to traditional interest group organizations,

political contention remains central to how social movements exert their influ- ence (cf. chapter 6 of this study). Moreover, because of this focus on contention, social movements’ mobilizing structures often center on mobilizing many peo- ple at one specific point in time. That is, movements are in a much better, and for parties more valuable, position to influence election outcomes by mobilizing on election day.

Consistent attention to party-movement interactions has been relatively re- cent and mostly limited to four lines of research that focus on distinct aspects of these interactions. First, there are case studies of interactions between spe- cific social movements and parties, for instance regarding the tensions inside and between the Irish Republican movement and Sinn F´ein in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Ross 2006), the views activists in the women’s movements in the U.K. and U.S. hold of political parties (Evans 2016), and a comparison between the Dutch Labour Party and Italian Christian Democrats as a most- and a least-likely case, respectively, of being influenced by the ecology move- ment (Piccio 2016). Second, researchers have focused on how movements shape parties under the specific conditions of democratic transitions in South Africa (Klandermans 2015) and Latin America (Almeida 2010). Third, scholars have elucidated the conditions that drive social movement activists to the electoral arena in general (Farrer 2014) and with a focus on New Social Movements in Europe in particular (Rucht 1994, p. 313)1_{. Students of political parties have also}

investigated what factors determine which side of the party-movement divide activists decide to participate in once both sides are well-established (Ramiro & Morales 2014). Finally, the recent wave of social movements responding to the

1_{See also Rohrschneider (1993a) for an analysis of New Social Movements’ influence on} mainstream party models.

European debt crisis and austerity politics2 _{and the parties that they gave rise}

to have spawned significant interest in party-movement interactions (see e.g. della Porta, Fern´andez, Kouki, & Mosca (2017) for a systematic analysis of these new parties). This literature is beginning to systematically highlight the im- portance of party-movement interactions and Charalambous & Ioannou (2017), for instance, demonstrate that the absence of anti-austerity protest in Cyprus is rooted in the way political parties in the country connect to civil society.3

McAdam & Tarrow (2013) reacted to this lack of systematic research into the link between social movements and electoral politics by outlining mecha- nisms and processes linking the former to the latter (McAdam & Tarrow 2010, McAdam & Tarrow 2013).4 _{This project responds to McAdam and Tarrow’s call}

for a systematic connection between social movements and elections by illumi- nating the interactions between social movements and the parties that they once spawned. I begin by theorizing the (potential) links between social movements and political parties, before demonstrating that existing approaches cannot ex- plain the currently pre-dominant model of these links in Western European and outlining a theory accounting for this contemporary pattern.

2_{See della Porta (2015) for an overview of these movements.}

3_{Earlier, Hutter (2014) had also touched on the role of parties sponsoring protest in the con-} text of a new cleavage separating those preferring further international integration from those who prefer national demarcation.

4_{For the foundational work on a research program focusing on mechanisms, processes, and} episodes, see McAdam, Tarrow, & Tilly (2001). See also chapter 6 of this dissertation for mecha- nisms linking movement demands to party platforms.