Climate action now! There is no planet B
An in-depth case study of how the young generation mobilizes for
climate change
Karien Meinders S4773942
E-mail address: k.meinders@student.ru.nl
Image front page copied from Beekman, M (2019). Klimaatscholieren gaan weer staken, op 14 maart. Accessed on 14 June 2019 from https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/klimaatscholieren-gaan-weer-staken-op-14-maart~a7e674a8/
Preface
I really enjoyed working on this master thesis on a topic that, also after several months work, is still relevant today. I want to thank some people for their support these months. Firstly, my supervisor Jutta Joachim for her positive and critical feedback, which really helped me to improve the thesis. I also want to thank her for her contributions during the thought process. Secondly, everyone who has participated in the interviews and/or has provided me with documents or ideas (MCF, JKB, children, young person). Thirdly, Suzan Horsthuis for improving my thesis with an English language check. I also would like to thank my parents and brother for their support, not only during the thesis, but always.
Abstract
This research aimed at answering the question what factors enable the youth in the Netherlands to mobilize for climate change in light of the global movement, led by Greta Thunberg. The Dutch youth climate movement is a reaction on ‘Het Klimaatakkoord’ that was established after the COP 21. This turned out to be insufficient. In this research a theoretical framework is created, which looks at internal- and discursive resources (framing) and how these are embedded in the POS (allies). The main results are that the youth create awareness about climate change, mobilize others for campaigns and marches, use lobby tactics to give youth a voice in the climate debate. Their message is that large companies, the industry and the government can be blamed for climate change and that a life style change is necessary, because otherwise the consequences will be irreversible. They mainly use the Internet and social media to mobilize, but they also have unique expertise and experiences (fresh look) and knowledge. In this way, they come up with creative solutions to achieve the SDGs. Furthermore, they have a large network of allies that support them and sometimes also provide other resources. In this way they might exert influence in political decision-making, thereby contributing to the SDGs.
Table of contents
Preface...3
Abstract...4
Table of contents...5
List of abbreviations and acronyms...6
1. Introduction...7
1.1. Theory... 8
1.2. Methods... 9
1.3. Societal and scientific relevance... 10
1.4. Structure... 11
2.Theoretical framework...11
2.1. Initial Explanations for the Emergence of Social Movements...12
2.2. Resource mobilization theory... 14
2.3. Framing theory... 17
2.3.1. Collective action frames... 19
2.4. Political opportunities... 21
2.4.1. Social movement allies... 24
3. Methods...27 3.1. Case study... 28 3.1.1. Case selection... 29 3.2. Process tracing... 31 3.3. Data sources... 33 3.4. Operationalization……….36
3.4.1. Internal resources youth... 36
3.4.2. Framing... 39
3.4.3. Allies youth... 40
4. Empirics...43
4.1. Prelude to the youth climate movement... 43
4.2. Internal resources... 45
4.3. The role of framing in the youth climate movement...48
4.4. The youth climate movement embedded in political opportunities...52
4.4.1. Resources allies... 54
5. Conclusion...60
5.1. Empirical findings and reflection... 60
5.2. Reflection research... 64
5.2.1. Strengths and weaknesses... 64
5.3. Future outlook... 68
Bibliography...71
List of abbreviations and acronyms
SDG(s) Sustainable Development Goal(s)SG Secretary General
COP Conference of the Parties
PvdD Partij van de Dieren
NGO(s) Non-governmental organization(s) POS Political Opportunity Structure
PvdD Partij voor de Dieren
SMO(s) Social Movement Organization(s)
RMT Resource Mobilization Theory
CAF(s) Collective Action Frame(s)
TAN Transnational Advocacy Network
MCF Missing Chapter
YfC Youth for Climate
JKB de Jonge Klimaatbeweging
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
PBL Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving
UN United Nations
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
AD Algemeen Dagblad
WNF Wereld Natuur Fonds
KNVB Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbal Bond
CDA Christen Democratisch Appèl
SP Socialistische Partij
VVD Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie
SGP Staatkundig Gereformeerde partij
SER Sociaal Economische Raad
NRVK Nationale Raad van Kinderen
Ministries
EACP Economic Affairs and Climate Policy
FA Foreign Affairs
1. Introduction
“You say you love your children above all else – and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes” - Greta Thunberg, 2018 at COP24 (Rigitano, 2018, p. 1)
“Some people, some companies, some decision-makers in particular, have known exactly what priceless values they have been sacrificing to continue making unimaginable amounts of money. And I think many of you here today belong to that group of people.” - Greta Thunberg, 2019 at Davos (Landy, 2019, p. 1)
In September 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Wibby, 2016, p. 1). This agenda is created to achieve a sustainable and bright future for all generations. This agenda consists of 17 goals varying from ending poverty to addressing climate change. This last goal has gained much attention from youth. The UN describes the goal of the SDG agenda as development that: “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Wibby, 2016, p. 1).
This last part is exactly what the youth is concerned about. Already in 2008, only 9% of the youth was confident that the world would act quickly enough to tackle climate change (The United Nations, n.d., p. 1). Former SG of the UN Ban Ki-moon agrees with them. According to him,without the involvement of youth it is impossible to achieve the sustainable development goals (European Youth Forum, 2016, p. 1). This is also one of the reasons why they were involved in shaping the SDGs (Wibby, 2016, p. 1) and why the UN has urged policy makers to give the young generation a voice in achieving them (European Youth Forum, 2016, p. 1).
However, since the adoption of the agenda, the youth is unsatisfied with what has happened so far. In august 2018, a 16-year-old Swedish girl, Greta Thunberg, organized a climate school strike. In December of that same year she held a speech at the COP24 in Katowice Poland to make politicians aware of their passive attitude towards the climate problem (Luttikhuis, 2019, p. 1). Since then, youth all over the world are mobilizing to protest against the politicians and demand action with respect to climate change.
In January 2019, the movement has spread towards Belgium where youth protest every Thursday in Brussels (Sadée & van der Borst, 2019, p. 1). More recently, on 7 February there was a climate school strike in the Netherlands after the Dutch policy to
achieve the SDGs ‘Het Klimaatakkoord’ turned out to be insufficient (Bestuur, 2019b, p. 1). Although the youth was invited by the Minister of EACP and the Minister President to talk about their concerns, they were not satisfied with the results. This led to a sequence of school climate strikes in for example De Hague, Amsterdam, Utrecht (ANP/Het Parool, 2019, p. 1; Schipper, 2019a, p. 1; Rijnmond, 2019, p. 1; Omroep Gelderland, 2019, p. 1).
National politicians such as former politician Jan Terlouw support this movement. Member of the Dutch political party PvdD Lammert van Raan states that youth should be involved in political decision making on this issue because they are the ones who suffer the most from climate change and its policies (Partij voor de Dieren, 2019, p. 1). Thus, it seems that the activities that are unfold by the youth contribute to growing attention for this group. This creates space for them as new political actors in the level playing field, which we have to take into account. However, contrary to the mobilization strategies of for example established NGOs (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, pp. 6-25; Betsill & Corell 2008, p. 89) and celebrities (Partzsch, 2015, p. 189), not much is known about how the youth mobilize. To give them a place in political decision making it is important to dive deeper into this transnational mobilization phenomenon. The question that guides this research then becomes the following:
“How do youth in the Netherlands mobilize for climate change and what factors enable them to exert influence in political decision making on climate change, thereby contributing to the achievement of the SDGs”
1.1. Theory
To answer this question, the research draws on theories that can contribute to social movements such as the resource mobilization theory, framing theory and political opportunity structure.
It is argued that resources and the ability to use them are important for the success of social movements (Crossman, 2019, p. 1). Therefore, the RMT is used to explain how youth mobilize their internal organizational resources to reach their goals (Jenkins, 1983, p. 532-533). These resources can be both materialistic such as money, organizations, means of communication and mass media and non-materialistic such as legitimacy, networks, public attention and moral commitment (Fuchs, 2006, p. 104). In this research, it is investigated what internal resources enable youth to mobilize in order
to exert influence in political decision making on climate change, thereby contributing to the achievement of the SDGs.
In addition, this research draws on framing theory. Framing might be useful for the youth climate movement, because they can build a collective action framework. Framing enables an actor to select and give prominence to certain ideas and opinions and actively encourage them in order to create a perceived reality (Hansen, 2007, p. 379). This way, frames can be used as discursive power tools, because they decide how social or political issues are defined or conceptualized (Morth, 2000, p. 174). Social movements often use it as a resource to “shape public attitudes about an issue, topic or event and spur citizen mobilization” (Benford & Snow, 2000; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007 in Nisbet et al., 2013, p. 767). This is the collective action frame.
Lastly, this research draws on the political opportunity structure, because internal resources and frames are embedded in a political context. The POS consists of political opportunities that constrain of facilitate social movement (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 628). This research focuses on the dynamic aspect of social movements. The political opportunity structure might change over time due to the dynamic relationship between political actors and the POS (Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996, p. 1635). Social movements consist not only of activists but are “complex webs of individuals, groups and organizations” (Rucht, in Snow et al., 2004, p. 202). Hence, this research will focus especially on the role of allies in the youth climate movement. This will be elaborated on in the theoretical framework.
1.2. Methods
A qualitative case study is conducted, thereby focusing on the mobilization of youth in the Netherlands. This method is suitable to answer the research question because it examines a contemporary phenomenon, the mobilization of youth for climate change, in its real-life context (Yin, 1981, p. 3). This is applicable to the case in this research because the phenomenon how youth mobilize is embedded in the context of political opportunities from which allies are part. The configuration of these allies and their resources determine how youth mobilize. A within-case analysis is conducted including multiple resources (interviews, documents) on three youth social movement organizations (SMOs): Missing Chapter (NGO), Jonge Klimaatbeweging (NGO) and Youth for Climate NL (action group). Process tracing is used to investigate the interplay
between allies, resources and framing and the emergence of the youth climate movement. The interviews are used to test the theoretical framework, to get an insider’s perspective on the topics of climate and/or youth and are used as a starting point for document analysis. By comparison, the documents are analyzed to “corroborate findings across data sets and reduce the impact of potential bias that can exist in a single case study” (Bowen, 2009, p. 28).
1.3. Societal and scientific relevance
This research is socially relevant for two reasons. Firstly, mobilization of youth for climate change is a cross-cultural phenomenon. As a result, the outcomes of this research are also relevant for understanding the mobilization of youth in other countries. The Dutch case gives starting points for other countries to create the optimal conditions in order to achieve the SDGs.
Secondly, the question about the influence of youth in political decision-making on climate change can be placed in a broader normative debate whether or not youth should have an active role in political decision-making because it is not certain that they have influence. In short, the opponents of this debate argue that youth are apathetic and alienated from formal politics (Tsekoura, 2016, p. 120; Henn & Foard, 2014, p. 361). Furthermore, they mention their lack of knowledge, skills and experience (The National Democratic Institute, n.d., p. 1). Therefore they do not take them seriously (van Dongen, 2019b, p. 1). The proponents think that youth participate in politics, but in a more informal way (e.g. demonstrations, petitions) (Tsekoura, 2016, pp. 121-122). They mention their ability, energy, and ambition to bring about lasting change (NDI, n.d., p. 1). However, they do it in a more short-lived, global and creative way than before (Moller, 2014, p. 1) without being stuck in certain frameworks, routines (Labots, n.d., p. 1) and having to take into account certain interests (Beukeboom, 2018, p. 1).
This research is also scientifically relevant because it makes an addition to the literature of how actors mobilize. An extensive amount of literature is written about the mobilizing strategies of NGOs. Keck and Sikkink (1998, pp. 6-25) explain how NGOs mobilize in transnational advocacy networks. Betsill and Corell (2008, p. 89) systematically approach the influence of NGOs on environmental policy with a framework of the NGOs activities, access and resources and their goal attainment. Furthermore, literature is written on how celebrities mobilize by using their material
resources such as access to media and dominant groups and non-material resources such as legitimacy (Partzsch, 2015, p. 189). Contrary to the mobilization strategies of NGOs and celebrities, not much is known about how youth mobilize. This research gives insight in how their mobilization strategies are similar and or different from the established actors, thereby contributing to the scientific debate.
1.4. Structure
This research is structured in the following way. Firstly, an introduction is provided on the topic. Secondly, a theoretical framework (RMT, framing, POS) is constructed. Thirdly, the methods are introduced. Fourthly, the results of the empirical analysis are presented. Fifthly, a conclusion is provided on the research, thereby reflecting on the results and research and giving a future outlook.
2.Theoretical framework
In this chapter, the theoretical framework for the empirical research on the youth climate movement will be discussed, which consists of the RMT (McCarthy & Zald, 1977), framing theory (Scheufele, 1999) and POS (Tarrow, 1998 in Meyer, 2003). This chapter is structured in the following way. In the first section, the deprivation theory is introduced as an initial explanation for the social movements that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. However, the theory was criticized because it did not take into account the collective action problem (McCarthy & Zald, 1977, p. 1216). Individuals need to be willing to bear the costs of a collective good, such as a better climate, before they will organize in social movements (McCarthy & Zald, 1977, p. 1216). Therefore, in the second section the RMT is introduced, which is about the aggregation of resources.
In the third section, the framing theory will be introduced. It is argued that discursive resources should be added, because then social groups are able to voice their dissatisfaction (McAdam, McCarthy & Zald eds. 1996 in Koopmans & Statham, 1999, p. 1).It is explained why and how social movements use it to “shape public attitudes about an issue, topic or event and spur citizen mobilization” (Benford & Snow, 2000; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007 in Nisbet et al., 2013, p. 767). This is the basis of a collective action frame, which will be elaborated on in this section. In the last section, the POS is introduced. The organizational and discursive resources are embedded in a context of
political opportunities, because the degree of political opportunities facilitates or constrains the possibilities for groups to organize themselves in social movements. More specific, this research focuses on the dynamic aspect of POS, the presence of allies. This will be elaborated on in this section. Then it is justified why those concepts will be used in this research on the youth climate movement.
Figure 2.1. The theoretical framework
2.1. Initial Explanations for the Emergence of Social Movements
In this section, a general overview of social movements is provided, how they have evolved over time and how this explains why social movement scholars use different definitions and the corresponding theories. The section starts with the deprivation theory, which was used to explain the social movements of the 1950s and 1960s to then criticize this theory because of the collective action problem. Consequently, to overcome the collective action problem the RMT will be introduced as an alternative explanation for the emergence of social movements.
Social movement scholars use different definitions to describe the concept of social movement. Some of these definitions focus on unrest, new identities or social problems. For example, Blumer (1969, p. 99 in Fuchs, 2006, p. 109) states that:
“Social movements can be viewed as collective enterprises seeking to establish a new order of life. They have their inception in a condition of unrest, and derive their motive power on one hand from dissatisfaction with the current form of life, and on the other hand, from wishes and hopes for a new system of living. The career of a social movement depicts the emergence of a new order of life”
The first social movement scholars largely focused on these notions, thereby explaining social movements with the deprivation theory. In this theory the assumption is made that there is a direct link between being deprived of a resource or right and social movement (McCarthy & Zald, 1977, p. 1214). The theory states that when social groups are deprived of something this creates emotional feelings of injustice, because there is “an unfavorable discrepancy between value expectations and value capabilities” (Gurr, 1970 in Mummendey et al., 1999, p. 229). This means that the actual situation does not fit with their ideal image of how the world should look like. Thus, this theory looks at social movement from a psychological perspective. The expectation was that these social groups would align themselves in social movements, because then their feelings of injustice could be alleviated (Sen & Avci, 2016, p. 126).
These ideas were used as initial explanations for the social movements of the 1880s onwards (Phongpaichit, 1999, p. 1; Sen & Avci, 2016, p. 125). To illustrate this, this already started with the labor movement (1880-onwards), the gay/lesbian rights movement (1890) and the anti-apartheid movement (1912-1992) where respectively the workers, gays/lesbians and black people were deprived of their resources and rights. This continued in the 1950s and 1960s, with for example the Civil Rights movement where black people fought for their rights and against ethnic racism (Sen & Avci, 2016, p. 125). The deprivation theorists would view these social movements as a direct result of the social groups disadvantageous position in society that could be restored by aligning themselves in social movement.
However, the resource deprivation theory was contested. A point of critique was that it could not explain why not all socially deprived groups organized in social movements (Sen & Avci, 2016, p. 126). Several studies did not found a clear relationship between absolute or relative deprivation and the willingness to form social movements or to act collectively (Snyder & Tilly, 19721). A possible explanation is that the resource deprivation incorrectly assumes that individuals and groups automatically organize when they are deprived of goods, services or resources (Sen & Avci, 2016, p. 126). Before individuals organize, the collective action should be solved, which will be explained now.
According to the economist Olson (1965) the product of a social movement is a collective good. For a collective good to come about, it is important that individuals are willing to bear the costs of that good (McCarthy & Zald, 1977, p. 1216). However, most individuals will not bear these costs on their own, if the incentives of cooperation are lower than the costs of obtaining the collective good. Moreover, since individuals cannot be excluded from the collective good, there are also people that do not want to contribute, but want to benefit from efforts of others (Jenkins, 1983, p. 536). These people are called free riders. Thus, for a collective good - and a social movement - to come about, social groups will not automatically align themselves in social movements.
This section has given an overview of the initial explanations for social movements of the 1880 onwards with the deprivation theory. However, this theory only partially explains why social movements come about. To overcome the collective action problem, another theory must be found that is able to explain why collective action does occur in some situations and does not occur in others. Therefore, the next section gives an alternative explanation with the RMT, which states that aggregation of resources is crucial for social movement (McCarthy & Zald, 1977, p. 1216).
2.2. Resource mobilization theory
In this section, an alternative theory is introduced to explain social movements. This is the resource mobilization theory (RMT). This theory takes into account an important factor for social movement, the internal organizational resources. The introduction is accompanied by an alternative definition of social movement that is more in line with the ideas of the resource mobilization theorists, which will be introduced first. After that, the RMT will be explained critically and in depth. Then an outline of the possible internal resources of social groups is provided. At the end of the section it is explained how the RMT can be used for this research.
As mentioned earlier, social movement theorists use different definitions of social movement, depending on their focus. Since social movement explanations have changed over time two alternative definitions will be introduced. According to Rucht (1996) two components are important when explaining what social movements are. The first one focuses on organized groups or networks “prepared to mobilize for protest actions to promote (or resist) social change” (Rucht, 1996 in Fuchs, 2006, p. 109). The second one focuses on individuals “who attend protest activities or contribute resources
without necessarily being attached to movement groups or organizations”. Another social movement theorist, Tarrow (2005), defines social movement as collectives -whether these are individuals or groups - organize because of “a common purpose and to challenge the interests and beliefs of those with power” (Tarrow, 2005 in Stein, 2009, p.750).
These notions of organized groups, mobilizing structures and collective action come back in the resource mobilization theorist’s explanations for social movement. Contrary to the deprivation theory, which focused on the psychological factors, the RMT was the first theory that looked at social movement by incorporating outside influences (Johnson, 2000 in Eltantawy et al., 2011, p. 1209). Resource mobilization theorists do not see a direct link between feelings of dissatisfaction and the emergence of social movements. For Tilly (1978), Jenkins & Perrow (1977), and Oberschall (1978a) the feelings of dissatisfaction, also called ‘grievances’ are relatively constant. They emerge from interest conflicts “build into social institutions. Long term changes in group resources, organization and opportunities for collective action result in social movement” (Tilly, 1978; Jenkins & Perrow, 1977; Oberschall, 1978a in Jenkins, 1983, p. 530).
McCarthy & Zald (1977) take a slightly different stance by stating that these grievances are structurally present or encouraged by organizational mobilization efforts, which means that grievances increase when people in the organization - movement entrepreneurs - try to mobilize others to solve social conflicts (McCarthy & Zald, 1977 in Jenkins, 1983, p. 530). What both have in common is that in times of dissatisfaction with societal issues, individuals sometimes are able to mobilize resources to alleviate this feeling of dissatisfaction (Sen & Avci, 2016, p. 126). This depends on the availability of resources (Phongpaichit, 1999, p. 1) and the ability to use them (Crossman, 2019, p. 1). Therefore, aggregation of resources is necessary (McCarthy & Zald, 1977, p. 1216). To mobilize these resources, some minimal form of organization is required (McCarthy & Zald, 1977, p. 1216). Thus, instead of focusing on individual social movement, which is the case with the deprivation theory, resource mobilization theorists focus on organizational social movement.
The theory is often criticized for its limited materialistic viewpoint on resources. In early social movement studies much attention was given to material resources such as money (Sen & Avci, 2016, p. 127). Other theorists state that these resources can indeed
be materialistic such as money, facilities, labor, land, capital, technical expertise, expertise organizations, means of communication and mass media. However, they can also be non-materialistic such as for example legitimacy, networks, public attention and moral commitment (McCarthy & Zald, 1977, p. 1216; Tilly, 1978, p. 69 in Jenkins 1983, p. 530; Fuchs, 2006, p. 104; Themudo, 2000, p. 7).
However, Cress & Snow (1996) and Edwards & McCarthy (2004) adopt a more extensive approach. In Cress & Snow’s (1996) study on homeless social movement organizations the resources are divided into four categories: moral, material, informational and human resources. Moral resources are sympathetic support and solidarity; materialistic resources are supplies, meeting space, office space, transportation, employment and money; informational resources are about the know-how and consist of strategic and technical support, referrals and knowledge about building and maintaining the organization; human resources are captive audiences, leaders and cadre (Cress & Snow, 1996, p. 1094-1095).
Edwards and McCarthy (2004) built on this categorization, but they make it more applicable to other social movements by using general terms. Furthermore, they split the informational resources into cultural resources and socio-organizational resources. As a result, they come up with the following categories: moral, cultural, socio-organizational, human and materialistic resources (Edwards & McCarthy, 2004 in Snow et al., 2004, p. 125-128). In the category moral resources celebrity support is added. In the category human resources labor, experience, skills and expertise is added. In the category materialistic resources property and equipment are added. The new category, cultural resources, is about“tacit knowledge about how to accomplish specific tasks” (Edwards & McCarthy, 2004, p. 126 in Snow et al., 2004). For example, technical-, strategic knowledge and “issue relevant production knowledge for music, literature, magazines, newspapers, films and videos” (Edwards & McCarthy, 2004, p. 126 in Snow et al., 2004). The new category, socio-organizational resources, consists of infrastructures (postal service, sanitation, civil infrastructures), social networks and organizations.
Not all resources, as mentioned above, are relevant for this research on the youth climate movement, but some are. In the methods chapter it is investigated why certain organizational resources might be important. The moral resources will only be elaborated on in the section about political opportunities, because only allies can provide them. The empirical section on internal resources will focus on the other
categories.
This section has shown that the RMT is better able to explain the emergence of social movements than the deprivation theory. Contrary to the deprivation theory, the RMT can explain why collective action does occur in some situations and does not occur in others. The explanatory factor is the availability of internal resources and the ability to use them. Although it has become clear that the internal resources are important for social movements, which will be taken into account in this research, the informative list of resources above only provides a basis. In the next chapter it will be investigated what resources might play a role in the youth climate movement. Furthermore, it is argued that in addition to internal resources also discursive resources are needed to explain social movements (McAdam, McCarthy & Zald eds. 1996 in Koopmans & Statham, 1999). This is also referred to as the concept of framing (Scheufele, 1999), which will be elaborated on in the next section.
2.3. Framing theory
This section draws on framing theory to get insight in how discursive resources (frames) contribute to the emergence of social movements. Firstly, the concept of framing is introduced in general and it is explained how frames compete with each other. Then the concept will be applied to social movements by introducing the collective action frame (CAF). It will be explained how this CAF can be used in social movements by elaborating on diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing. Lastly, different processes of framing in social movements will be introduced such as amplification, bridging, extension and transformation.
Since the first conception of framing as ‘a scattered conceptualization’ (Entman in Scheufele, 1999, p. 103.), many modifications have been made to create a clear concept of framing (Brosius & Apps, 19952). One framing definition is “a frame is a perspective from which an amorphous ill-defined and problematic situation can be made sense of and acted upon” (Rein and Schön, 1991, p. 263 in Joachim, 2003, p. 250). Referring back to feeling of grievances, Taylor (2000) defines a frame as a discursive device that can be used to identify and interpret a social or political problem, so that blame and causality can be assigned. By giving meaning to it, movement activists can use it as an action-oriented tool to mobilize others (Taylor, 2000, p 511).
2 (Wicks, 1992, Hamill & Lodge, 1986; Iyengar, 1987; McCombs et al. 1997; Popkin, 1994 in Scheufele, 1999, p. 103-104)
With the framing theory a social constructivist and sometimes also a symbolic interactionist perspective is added to social movements. The RMT has adopted a rationalist perspective stating that social movements are fixed phenomena that cannot be influenced by the outside world. According to Snow (2004) “meanings do not automatically or naturally attach themselves to the objects, events or experiences we encounter but often arise instead through interactively based interpretative processes” (Snow, 2004 in Snow et al., 2004 p. 384). In other words, the social constructivist perspective states that social movements are constructed because individuals give meaning to certain issues. The symbolic interactionist perspective states that symbols play a role in the interaction between people.
The framing theory states that there is a relation between how issues are framed, how people subsequently process information about that issue (Scheufele, 1999, p. 107) and how people develop a particular conceptualization of that issue (Chong & Druckman, 2007, p. 104). Thus, the concept of framing focuses on the ideological element of social movement. Framing enables an actor to select and give prominence to certain ideas and opinions and actively encourage them in order to create a perceived reality (Hansen, 2007, p. 379). By giving prominence to certain ideas and opinions, frames “legitimate certain decisions and activate certain issues, actors and special types of knowledge” (Morth, 2000, p. 173-174). This way, frames can be used as discursive power tools, because they decide how social or political issues are defined or conceptualized (Morth, 2000, p. 174).
This is not a simple process, because there is often no consensus about how a social or political issue should be presented (Robinson, 2008, p. 6). There are many different actors (e.g. politicians, advocacy organizations, corporations, citizens and the media) that “want to construct, tailor and communicate a different frame” (Pan & Kosicki, 2001, p. 47 in Borah, 2011, p. 250; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007 in Nisbet et al., 2013, p. 767). They all have different ideas and interest (Morth, 2000, p. 175). Therefore, frame production is a ‘‘multifaceted process in which influences travel in different directions’’ (Pan & Kosicki, 2001, p. 47 in Borah, 2011, p. 250). Furthermore, framing is an evolving process, which means that it is constantly developing (Snow, 2004, p. 384) As a result, there is always contestation over frames, also called frame competition (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 6253).
Since framing is such a powerful tool, social movements often use it as a resource “to win advantage with authorities and the public” (Zald, 1996; Williams, 1995 in Miceli, 2005, p. 595). They try to persuade them of their interpretation of the issue and this contributes to the validity of their cause (Zald, 1996; Williams, 1995 in Miceli, 2005, p. 595). In this way, they can “shape public attitudes about an issue, topic or event and spur citizen mobilization” (Benford & Snow, 2000; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007 in Nisbet et al., 2013, p. 767). These frames are not only about giving meaning to an social or political issue, but it gives also more action-oriented guidelines on what should be done to solve the problem (Schön and Rein, 1994, p. 29 in Joachim, 2003, p. 250), which is referred to as collective action frames (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 613; Taylor, 2000, p. 511).
2.3.1. Collective action frames
In this subsection, the concept and characteristics of CAFs are explained and thereafter, the discursive (frame articulation and frame amplification) and strategic processes (amplification, bridging, extension and transformation) of collective action framing are explored that social movements can use to mobilize the public and authorities.
CAFs are specific types of frames that have the intention to, among others, mobilize potential adherents and gain support from bystanders (Snow & Benford, 1988, p. 198 in Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 613). These are ‘‘action oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate social movement activities and campaigns’’ (Benford 1997, p. 416 in Robinson, 2008, p. 6). This means that social movement activists use frames as tools to guide and legitimate their social movement actions. A CAF consists of three elements 1) Injustice, because the social conditions for collective action should be identified (Morris & Staggenborg in Snow et al., 2004, p. 183). 2) Agency, because this gives the social movements activists the feeling that they “can alter conditions and policies” (Taylor, 2000, p. 511). 3) Identity, because, in order to create a collective identity, a ‘we’ or ‘us’ usually in opposition to a ‘they’ or ‘them’ should be created (Taylor, 2000, p. 511). This means that it should be clear who is affected by the unjust situation and who is responsible (Klandermans in Snow et al., 2004 p. 368). In creating collective action frames, different tasks should be executed: 1)
diagnostic framing: movement activists should create a shared understanding of an
unjust situation that should be changed and they should assign blame to something or someone; 2) prognostic framing: they should come up with a plan how to change the
situation and subsequently 3) motivational framing: they have to urge others to act (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 615). These are the core framing tasks. However, these tasks cannot take place if the underlying strategic processes are neglected. Strategic processes are used to align the interests and interpretive frames of social movement activists and potential allies that often also provide resources (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 624).
There are three important strategic processes: frame amplification, frame bridging and frame extension. Frame amplification is about which values social movements consider important and what beliefs they hold. Certain ideas and beliefs are emphasized and more prominent than others (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 623). Frame bridging is about “linking two or more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or problem” (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 624). This means that frames from different actors are brought together that already have the same ideas about a social or political issue, but are not yet linked to each other. Frames also can be extended, when the social movements interests do not yet correspond with the issues and concerns of their potential adherents. In other words, social movements extend the frame “beyond its primary interests” (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 625).
In this section about CAFs different tasks (diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing) and processes (amplification, bridging, extension) are mentioned that social movements can use to mobilize others. The framing processes were introduced for purposes of comprehension. However, the analysis will be limited to diagnostic-, prognostic- and motivational framing. In the next chapter it will be investigated, in what way framing might be used in the youth climate movement.
However, before this is investigated, it must be said that the presence of allies, together with other opportunities, is part of a political context. The resources that a social movement can generate and how collective action framing is used interacts with the political context from which allies are part (Joachim, 2003, p. 253). On the one hand, allies can provide external resources for a social movement in a political context (Joachim, 2003, p. 251). On the other hand, allies frame collective action in a political context. It is actually a competition about discursive hegemony, which means that different political actors “try to secure support for their definition of reality” (Teräväinen, 2010, p. 200).
explored and “how certain interpretations are embedded in and derive from some, but not necessarily all, elements of a political opportunity structure” (Teräväinen, 2010, p. 200). Therefore, the political context in which social movements emerge, also referred to as the political opportunity structure (Teräväinen, 2010, p 197-200), is sketched in the next section.
2.4. Political opportunities
This section gives an overview of the political context in which mobilization takes place. The political context consists of political opportunities that constrain of facilitate social movement (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 628). This section is structured in the following way. Firstly, the POS is introduced and critically reflected upon. Secondly, it is explained how the POS still can be used for this research. Since this research largely focuses on the dynamic aspect of the youth climate movement, the role of allies in social movements is explored in depth in the third part.
The POS “encompasses all consistent factors of the political environment that enable people to act collectively by affecting their expectations for success or failure” (Rootes, 1999, p. 13). This means that exogenous factors in the political environment enable or constrain the opportunities of challenging groups for collective action and eventually determine whether social movements emerge (Giugni, 2009, p. 361; Fuchs, 2006, p. 107). Social movements are shaped by its political context. Thus, whether social movements are able to mobilize others, why they give priority to certain claims, why they cultivate some alliances more than others, why they employ certain strategies and tactics and whether they are able to exert influence in political decision-making depends on the context (Meyer, 2004, p. 126). Eventually, the political context determines what the impact is of a social movement on the environment (Kitschelt 1986: 58, cited in Kriesi, 2004, p. 69). In other words, “political opportunities function as filters between the mobilization of the movement and its choice of strategies and its capacities to change the social environment” (Kitschelt, 1986, p. 59 in Rootes, 1999, p. 2).
Although there exist some small differences between social movement theorists in what they list as political opportunities, in general there are five factors that make up the political context for social movement (Caruso, 2015, p. 3; Goldstone, 2004, p. 346-347; Rootes, 1999, p. 6). Firstly, it is about the degree of opening of the political systems to the entry of new actors. In the context of social movement this is about the extent to
which challenging groups (groups that address social issues and want to change them) have access to the political institutions. Secondly, it is about the stability of political alignments, which refers to the degree of change in government- and opposition parties within the political system. If there are changes and subsequently new coalitions must be formed, this creates uncertainty and thus political elites seek new sources of support outside the political arena (Tarrow, 1994 in Estellés, 2010, p. 251). In the context of social movement this means that, when there is instability in political alignments, it is likely that challenging groups have better opportunities to change the policy.
Thirdly, the presence of allies and support groups, because this may increase the opportunities for social movements to find powerful and sympathetic supporters (Goldstone, 2004, p. 347). Fourthly, it is about the level of repression by the state, “so that the social movement has room to grow and persist in its actions” (Goldstone, 2004, p. 347). In essence, this has to do with the level of tolerance towards other ideas about social and political issues. If the level of tolerance is high, then it is more likely that challenging groups will be heard and that social movements can form. Fifthly, the presence of divided elites, which is about the conflicts that take place within the state system and amongst political elites. When elites are divided this creates opportunities for non-represented groups and non-powerful elites to “seize the role of the tribunes of the people” (Tarrow, 2004, p. 119 in Estellés, 2010, p. 251). This means that the opportunities to let their voice be heard increase. Moreover, when they are not divided then it is more likely that they will unite to suppress demonstrations (Goldstone, 2004, p. 347).
The POS is often criticized for its ‘sponge’ effect. According to Gamson and Meyer (1996) almost everything in the environment of social movement fits the concept of POS, thereby becoming a sponge that soaks up all the factors that are part of the context of social movement, ranging from political institutions to cultural factors (Rootes, 1999, p. 14). Although the POS indeed is a broad concept, this does not mean that it cannot be used. It offers possible dimensions that can hamper or enlarge political opportunities, but not all dimensions are always relevant. Researchers are challenged to tailor the concept to the case he or she is interested in (Meyer, 2004, p. 143). This concept puts emphasis on the factors in the political context that might play a role in social movement.
Staggenborg, 1996, p. 1634; Gamson & Meyer, 1996, p. 289 in Rootes, 1999, p. 14). The stable factors are formal, static and institutional such as structures and procedures. The volatile factors are informal and dynamic with the focus on the configuration of actors in the political system (Rootes, 1999, p. 5). The more stable aspects of political opportunities often constrain the possibilities for changing the political environment and thus social movements. However, the volatile aspects of the POS are more dynamic (Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996, p. 1634). On the one hand, political opportunities affect what actors make up social movements and what strategies they can use to carry out protest activities. On the other hand, social movement also can create their own political opportunities (Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996, p. 1634) They can do this in several ways: 1) they can influence policy 2) they can alter political alignments 3) they can raise public profile and give salience to particular issues 4) they create collective action frames 5) they draw media attention that activates balancing norms in mainstream media and 6) they demonstrate the efficacy of various means of political action (Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996, p. 1634).
Social movements consist not only of activists but are “complex webs of individuals, groups and organizations” (Rucht, in Snow et al., 2004, p. 202). The political opportunity structure might change over time due to this dynamic relationship between political actors and the political opportunity structure (Meyer & Staggenborg, 2019, p. 1635). This research wants to investigate how youth mobilize. This potential becomes larger “when there are more possible organizations with which they can establish linkages” (Klandermans, 1993, p. 386). In other words, the potential for collectives to mobilize depends on how much they are supported or can rely on allies. Therefore, the role of allies is investigated.
According to Gamson & Meyer (1996) not only real opportunities are important for social movements but also perceived opportunities. They state that “if potential allies perceive the goals and the strategies of collective actors as compatible with their own, and judge the latter’s chances of success to be high, they are more likely to act in ways which enhance the opportunities for collective action” (Rootes, 1999, p. 11). In other words, if social movements can align their goals and strategies with those of the allies and these allies do think that the social movement has high chances to succeed, then they will use their own opportunities to support the social movement. Rucht (2004) confirms that allies can use their opportunities to support social movements. In addition,
he states that the identification of allies can help to “improve explanations of a social movement organization’s ability to mobilize resources and exert influence” (Rucht, 2004 in Snow et al., 2004, p. 199).
Allies can have different roles in creating a social movement. Firstly, they can help to create a CAF because of their framing power (Holzscheiter, 2005, p. 742-743; Almeida & Stearns, 1998, p. 40). Secondly, they can provide resources. Allies can provide higher levels of material support (Van Dyke & Amos, 2017, p. 6-7), but also financial, tactical and strategic support and participants for public demonstrations (Almeida & Stearns, 1998, p. 40). This especially counts for weak actors who are resource-poor (Joachim, 2003, p. 251; Almeida & Stearns, 1998, p. 40). Furthermore, allies can exert influence by increasing the power of the social movement and providing public exposure (Almeida & Stearns, 1998, p. 39). A critical note is that allies also can reduce the autonomy and therefore limit the mobilizing ability of a group (Caruso, 2015, p. 3). However, because the youth is a weak actor it is likely that they need allies to mobilize. Because allies have different resources, different strategies and ways to exert influence, the most important allies in the social movement literature are investigated and it is described what their role might be in a social movement.
2.4.1. Social movement allies
To investigate the most important allies for social movements the literature on transnational advocacy networks is investigated. Transnational advocacy networks (TAN) mainly consist of NGOs and other organizations that aim at simultaneously pursuing activities on different political levels to challenge the status quo (Jordan & van Tuijl, 2000, p. 2053; Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p. 8). In essence, a TAN is a network of different actors that advocate for a policy change such as climate change by operating on the international, national, regional or local level. Actors that might be part of a TAN are: 1) international and domestic nongovernmental research- and advocacy organizations; 2) local social movements; 3) foundations; 4) the media; 5) churches, trade unions, consumer organizations, intellectuals; 6) parts of regional and international intergovernmental organizations; 7) parts of the executive and/or parliamentary branches of governments (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p. 9). These TANs share values and exchange information and services with each other (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p. 9). These advocacy networks can also be established on the national level, because almost all types
of organizations also operate on the national level, but in a different composition, The social movement literature confirms this, because most of these organizations are mentioned as allies.
The first actors that are investigated in the TAN and social movement literature are NGOs. They are important actors in advocacy networks because they have different materialistic and non-materialistic resources at their disposal. Materialistic resources include money, labor, space and equipment (Themudo, 2000, p. 7). However, there are also many non-materialistic resources ranging from practical resources to resources related to norms and values. (Scientific) expertise and knowledge, information, access to networks such as policy making and closeness to the mainstream media and the availability of social entrepreneurs fall under the first category (Themudo, 2000, p. 7; Corell & Betsill 2001, p. 95; Holzscheiter, 2005, p. 725-735). Resources that are related to norms and values are legitimacy, goodwill, (moral) authority, prestige, normative credibility (Themudo, 2000, p. 7; Joachim, 2003, p. 251; Holzscheiter, 2005, p. 725-735). Furthermore, they can introduce new symbolic capital such as the language of emotions, resistance and desires (Holzscheiter, 2005, p. 742-743). Every NGO has a different mix of resources available, which often depends on their access to these resources and what resources they need. What they need varies, because of different missions, the size of the organization and the type of activities they employ (Themudo, 2000, p. 7)
Furthermore, they have different ways to exert influence in political decision-making. They can be seen as discursive entrepreneurs, because they have framing power to broaden agenda’s, introduce new symbolic capital such as the language of emotions, resistance and desires and to engage in policy discourse (Holzscheiter, 2005, p. 742-743). Besides, they often initiate actions and put pressure on powerful actors to take positions (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p, 9). Lastly, they come up with new ideas, provide information and use lobby tactics in political decision-making (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p. 9).
Secondly, the mainstream media might be an important ally for social movements. The media provides the infrastructure in society for social movement (McCarthy, & Zald, 1977, p. 1217). By establishing links with the mainstream media, the social movement has more opportunities to access the public to communicate their message (Carroll & Hackett, 2006, p. 87; Koopmans, 2004, p. 368-370). Furthermore, the media has a non-materialistic resource at its disposal, which is validation. The media can validate the
social movement by giving the social movement media coverage (Koopmans, 2004, p. 369). This is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is more likely that influential actors will take them into account, meaning recognition and incorporating their demands and claims. Secondly, with media coverage it is more likely that demonstrations will be influential because the public is provided with information about the social movement that can lead to mobilization (Koopmans, 2004, p. 369; Jenkins, 1983, p. 546). The increase in media coverage on climate change ensures that interest in climate change increases (Ford & King, 2015, p. 138).
Thirdly, foundations/funds might be important allies, because they can provide social movements with money. Money is important, because then other resources can be bought (Themudo, 2000, p. 8). Fourthly, intellectuals and experts might be important (Rucht in Snow et al., 2004, p. 203; Jasper, 2004, p. 8), because they provide moral resources such as support and they can provide information to the social movement. Other potential allies might be other social movements, interest groups, elites, churches, trade unions, consumer organizations and political parties, because they provide moral resources such as support (Rucht in Snow et al., 2004, p. 203; Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p. 9). Nevertheless, a critical note is that it is not clear to what extent these allies will subordinate the goals of the social movement to their own goals (Jasper, 2004, p. 8).
In addition, other potential allies that are not incorporated in the TAN literature, but are incorporated in the social movement literature are celebrities. According to Partzsch (2015) celebrities are often affiliated with NGOs (Partzsch, 2015, p. 179). Celebrities help them to reach the goals of the NGO, in the sense that they are often close to the media. Furthermore, they are also close to other dominant groups. This on the one hand helps to “raise awareness and increase the perceived legitimacy of the civil society, vis-à-vis governments and the business sector” (Partzsch, 2015, p. 189). Thus, they have moral resources such as support to make the decision makers as well as the public aware of the issue that is at hand, thereby legitimizing the goals of the social movement. However, on the other hand, there is also a downside to this. They enhance the asymmetries in the playing field, because of their position in society (Partzsch, 2015, p. 189). This means that it is expected that NGOs with links to celebrities have more resources and better opportunities to become influential in political decision- making than others. Furthermore, the same as with the other allies, celebrities also might subordinate the goals of the social movement to their own goals (Jasper, 2004, p. 8).
To summarize, in the literature several potential allies are found that might play a role in social movements: NGOs, the mainstream media, foundations/funds, intellectuals and experts, other social movements, interest groups, elites, churches, trade unions, consumer organizations and political parties and celebrities. These allies all have different resources and ways to exert influence. In the methods chapter it will be investigated what allies might play a role in the youth social movement on climate change.
The concepts of resource mobilization, framing and political opportunities are often used terms to explain the mobilization of established NGOs, celebrities etc. There are also social movements that are committed to the youth, but only in the way that they speak on behalf of them such as organizations that deal with child soldiers, trafficking and children’s rights. This research looks to what extent these concepts also can explain the social movement on climate change initiated by the youth. What factors enable them
to exert influence in political decision making on climate change, thereby contributing to the achievement of the SDGs. To investigate this, a methodological framework will be
employed in the next chapter.
3. Methods
This section gives insight in the qualitative case study method that is used for this research on how the youth mobilize for climate change. Firstly, the initial case is introduced and then it is explained why, despite some pitfalls, a case study is a suitable method for this research. Then the organizational within-cases will be further explored. After introducing the within-cases, it will be discussed how those were selected and what method of analysis (process tracing) and data sources (interviews, documents, audiovisual materials) are used to answer the research question how the youth in the Netherlands mobilize for climate change and what factors enable them to exert influence in political decision making on climate change, thereby contributing to the achievement of the SDGs.
3.1. Case study
A qualitative single case study is conducted, thereby focusing on the mobilization of the youth in the Netherlands in 2019. This method is suitable to answer the research
question because it examines a contemporary phenomenon, the mobilization of youth for climate change, in its real-life context (Yin, 1981 in Zainal, 2007, p. 2). This is especially useful when “the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (Yin, 1981 in Zainal, 2007, p. 2). This is applicable to the case in this research because the phenomenon how the youth mobilizes is embedded in the context of political opportunities of which allies are part. The configuration of these allies and their resources determine how the youth mobilizes. Furthermore, multiple sources such as interviews and document analysis are conducted to find a chain of evidence for the mobilization of the youth.
A case study investigates both the process as well as the outcome of the phenomenon that is observed, reconstructed and analyzed (Tellis, 1997 in Zainal, 2007, p. 1), which is the purpose of this research. On the one hand, it is investigated how the youth exerts influence in political decision making on climate, thereby contributing to the SDGs. On the other hand, it is investigated how allies by providing resources and framing processes have contributed to this outcome.
A disadvantage of this method is that, contrary to cross-case analysis, it is not representative of the whole population, because only a small number is investigated (Gerring, 2006, p. 20). However, a single case study deals in some sense also with generalizability because it “illuminates features of a broader set of cases” (Gerring, 2006, p. 29). Referring to this research, if it is discovered in the Dutch case what enables the youth to exert influence in political decision-making on climate change, then this gives starting points for other countries to create the optimal conditions in order to achieve the SDGs. Furthermore,case study research allows a researcher to go in-depth, which is something what quantitative methods cannot do (Zainal, 2007, p. 2). Since the purpose of this research is to get insight in the role of allies and their resources in the political context, the case study suitable to get answers on the research question.
The Netherlands is an interesting case because the political conditions after signing the Paris accord of 2015 (climate change is high on the agenda) are favorable for youth to mobilize for climate change. This is due to two developments: First other countries are interested in the so-called ‘polder-aanpak’ of the Dutch government to achieve the CO2 goals (Rijksoverheid, n.d., p. 1). The Dutch government wants to reduce the CO2level by involving organizations and companies in their plans4. Since countries 4 As a result, they set up the so-called ‘klimaattafels’ on five climate related issues: electricity, houses and buildings, industry, agriculture and land use and mobility Here organizations and companies participated
(e.g. Spain, Belgium) look at the Dutch approach, there is also external pressure for the Dutch government to follow through with their plans. Second, The Netherlands still uses a lot of fossil fuels and raw materials and consequently they lag behind in the energy transition compared to other countries (Rijksoverheid, n.d., p. 1). On the long term, they also cannot compete with these countries, because of the lower prices for sustainable energy. Thus they have to start with the energy transition. Third, the Netherlands have an interest in achieving the CO2 goals because 1) then they would be less dependent on import of fossil fuels and raw materials. Furthermore, if they assume leadership, they can export knowledge and products to other countries (Rijksoverheid, n.d., p. 1). In short, the Dutch political system seems open for change, which creates opportunities for the youth to mobilize.
A case study consists of more than one observation due to time periods or because of variation within the case at a single point in time (Gerring, 2006, p. 21). Therefore, a within-case analysis is conducted on the organizational level on three youth social movement organizations: Missing Chapter (NGO), De Jonge Klimaatbeweging (NGO) and Youth for Climate (action group). These within-cases will be elaborated on when explaining how the cases are selected.
3.1.1. Case selection
This section consists of three parts. In the first part it is explained what case selection is. In the second part it is argued what cases are selected to answer the research question and why. In the third part it is argued what types the cases are, by taking into account the features of the cases.
Case selection has the same objectives as a cross-case analysis. It provides a representative sample and it selects cases with useful variation on different dimensions that are of theoretical interest (Seawright & Gerring, 2008, p. 296). However, contrary to cross-case analysis the selection is not random, but rather the cases are purposefully selected. There are different possibilities for purposeful sampling. According to Creswell (2017), cases can be selected that view the problem, process or event from different perspectives (Creswell, 2017 p. 75). In this research this would mean that the within-cases that are selected approach the climate issue in different ways. It might also be that who can contribute to the climate-changes in a specific sector, but who are also experts and have the jurisdiction to make agreements on behalf of others (Klimaatakkoord, 2019). Furthermore, they also set up ‘Klimaatberaad’, who have a coordinating function and that consists of the chairs of the ‘klimaattafels’, civil society, fellow authorities and NGOs (Klimaatakkoord, 2019).
they have different views on how the process of mobilization with regard to climate comes about. Furthermore, when a climate-related event is investigated such as the demonstrations on het Malieveld in De Hague, then cases might hold different perspectives on these events. However, they can also be selected because they are ordinary, accessible or unusual cases (Creswell, 2017 p. 75).
Gerring (2008) takes this a step further by dividing the cases into nine types: typical (representative, gives broader understanding of phenomenon), diverse (maximum variance along dimensions), extreme (extreme value on variable of interest, prototypical), deviant (deviant in a certain model, anomaly), influential (questions theory, needs close inspection), crucial (most-likely or least-likely), pathway (hypothesis testing of a causal mechanism), most similar (more than one case, similar on almost every feature but different outcome), and most different (more than one case, different on almost every feature but similar outcome) (Gerring, 2008, p. 1). These types are used to argue how the within-cases in this research are selected.
For this research three within-cases are selected: two NGOs and one action group. The first one is the NGO Missing Chapter Foundation. This is an organization, which deals with child-inclusion on multiple social issues such as climate. This organization consists of one leading organization with multiple partners. The adults in this organization are facilitators for the young individuals who are children. These children try to exert influence in political-decision making as change agents, as advisors, and as Kidsreporters for companies and governmental organizations. The second one is the
NGO Jonge Klimaatbeweging concerned with climate change. This organization functions
as an umbrella organization in which multiple youth organizations are united and consists only of young people. Together they try to exert influence in political decision making on climate change through lobby practices and campaigns. The third one is the
action group Youth for climate NL. This is a group of students from the Daltonschool in
De Hague that have united themselves in an action group to school strike for climate change. Their aim is to ensure that the government understands that a stricter climate policy is crucial for their future.
According to Gerring (2008) these youth SMOs are most different cases with a similar outcome (Gerring, 2008, p. 30). The cases are different in the sense that they all have different characteristics, but they all have the aim to let the voice of the youth be heard in political decision-making on climate change. Thus, three within-cases are
selected: Missing Chapter (NGO), Jonge Klimaatbeweging (NGO) and Youth for climate (action group). These cases are analyzed with the process tracing method, which will be explained in the following section.
3.2. Process tracing
In this research, it is investigated how the mobilization of youth for climate change works. The ‘how’ question can be answered by unraveling the causal mechanism between the opportunities (including resources) of the youth and the youth climate movement. The concept of causal mechanism is defined as “a complex system, which produces an outcome by the interaction of a number of parts” (Glenna, 1996 in Beach & Pedersen, 2013, p. 1). Goertz and Mahoney (2012) see it as “intervening processes through which causes exert their effects” (Goertz & Mahoney, 2012, p. 100). What has become clear though the theoretical framework is that different factors from resources to allies and frames play a role in the emergence of social movements. These factors interact with each other and the composition of these factors depends upon changing political opportunities. Therefore, it will be of interest to study the interplay of these different factors in the case of the youth climate movement in the Netherlands. Consequently, the method of process tracing is used to “peer into the box of causality to locate the intermediate factors lying between some cause and its purported effect” (Gerring, 2006, p. 45)
.
In other words, the method of process tracing is used to find out what the mechanism is between the interplay of allies, resources and framing and the emergence of the youth climate movement.With this method, causal inferences can be made about the process of how the youth mobilizes. The stronger the inferences within the case with respect to the use of allies, resources and framing, the more confidence there is in the validity of theproposed theoretical framework (Beach & Pedersen, 2013, p. 2). Thus, the more evidence is found within the case, the more likely it is that (parts of) the theoretical framework that were already used to explain previous social movements also provide an explanation for the mobilization of the youth for climate change. The challenge in finding causal inferences through process tracing is not to end up in an “infinite regress”, which means that researchers can endlessly search for evidence (Schimmelfennig, 2013, p. 5).
Process tracing can be done in three different ways: by theory-building, theory testing or by explaining an outcome. Theory building starts with empirical evidence
within the case and then, based on this evidence, a theory is build by tracing a more general mechanism (Beach & Pedersen, 2013, p. 3). This method is not used, because this research starts with building a theoretical framework based on already existing literature on social movement. Then expectations are formulated based on this literature and are tested within the case of the Netherlands to find out to what extent the theorized mechanism is present. This corresponds with the process tracing method of theory testing (Beach & Pedersen, 2013, p. 3). Thus, the case is used to find evidence for the theoretical framework on social movement.
In addition, this research also uses the explaining outcome variant of process tracing. This variant starts with a puzzling outcome in a specific case and its goal is to find a minimally sufficient explanation for that outcome (Beach & Pedersen, 2013, p. 3). The puzzling outcome in this research is the mobilization of the youth for climate change in the Netherlands. Especially the involvement of the youth in this social movement is puzzling, because for example it is often said that youth do not yet have the experience and skills to become involved in political activities (The National Democratic Institute, n.d., p. 1) and, thus, cannot make a positive contribution to society as decision-making actors because they lack the expertise to bring about change (International Knowledge Network of Women in politics, 2017, p.1; NDI, n.d., p. 1.). Furthermore, not much has been written in the literature about the mobilization of youth thus far. However, there is a trend of young people mobilizing in different countries, which receives a lot of attention in the media. Process tracing helps to explain this puzzling outcome how youth despite their limited resources mobilize for climate change. Only the most important elements are traced and this variant of process tracing is more case- than theory-centric.
To find evidence with the process tracing method, the factors (resources, framing, allies) in the different hypotheses are operationalized as observable manifestations. If the observable manifestation is present and in accordance with the theoretical expectations, then this can be seen as evidence for a part of the causal mechanism. With these observable manifestations ultimately the process will be traced that gives insight in how the youth climate movement emerges.In the last section it will be specified what these observable manifestations are.
3.3. Data sources
