The Fossil Fuel Divestment:
A symbiosis between resources and opportunities
Author:
Volkan Uludasdemir
11408588
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science
in the
Political Science: European Politics and External Relations
Supervisor:
Dr. J.G.W. Bloom
Second Reader:
Acknowledgement
Hereby I want to express my sincere gratitude towards the guidance provided by my supervisor Dr. Jasper Bloom. Beside this, I want to thank my second reader Alexandro Voicu for taking the time to read my thesis.
I would also like to thank my parents for all of the support I received from them during my Bachelor and Masters. Their unconditional love made this thesis possible.
List of Abbreviations
IPPC = Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
SMT = Social Movement Theory
NSM = New Social Movement Theory
RMT = Resource Mobilisation Theory
POT = Political Opportunity Theory
FFDM = Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement
FFDM-M = Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement Münster
FFDM-C = Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement Cologne
FFDM-B = Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement Berlin FFDM-S = Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement Stuttgart
Die Grüne = Bündnis90/Die Grüne
SPD = Sozial Demokratische Partei Deutschlands
CDU = Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands
FDP = Freisinnig Demokratische Partei
Table of Content
1 Introduction 6
2 Divestment for the greater good: The Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement 8
2.1 What is divestment? A definition 8
2.2 The History of Divestment Campaigns 9
2.3 The Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement 10
2.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the FFDM 11
2.5 “The Science” behind it 13
2.6 Conclusion 15
3 Theoretical Framework 16
3.1 Defining Social Movements 16
3.1.1 Defining Contentioisness 17
3.1.2 Collective Identity 18
3.1.3 Collective Action 18
3.2 Social Movements: Forms and reasons of emergence 19
3.3 Social Movement Literature and the why 20
3.4 Resource Mobilisation Theory 21
3.5 Political Opportunity Theory 23
3.6 Conclusion and next steps 25
4 Research Design 27
4.1 Why the Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement? 27
4.2 Discussion of Sample size-N 28
4.3 Disussion of Method 30
4.3.1 Data Gathering 32
4.4 Ethical Considerations 33
4.5 Limitations 33
4.6 Conclusion 34
5 The FFDM and the symbiosis of POT and RMT 35
5.1 Münster 35
5.2 Köln (Cologne 38
5.3 Berlin 40
5.4 Stuttgart 43
6 Conclusion 49
6.1 Recapitulation 49
6.2 FFDM Symbiosis: Implications for RMT and POT literature 50
6.3 Further Recommendations 52 7 Bibliography 54 7.1 Münster 61 7.2 Cologne 62 7.3 Berlin 62 7.4 Stuttgart 63 7.5 350.org 64 8 Appendix 65
1 Introduction
The contemporary environmental discourse on climate change points to one conclusion: the international community must to act now. The exploitation of natural resources and corresponding dependence of humanity is causing global climate problems. Moreover, contemporary neoliberal markets, dominated by capitalist ideals, have become increasingly interconnected. Profit maximisation and increased productivity are demanding success in terms of growth rates. Critics of capitalism claim that greed is hindering climate friendly sustainability and therefore causing irreversible damage to the environment (Parr, 2014). But can capitalism be seen as the sole cause of the problem? Can market systems even be used to trigger change in favour of legislation and growth towards sustainable environmental goals? The Fossil Free Divestment Movement (FFDM) is a contemporary example of a social movement engaging proactively with financial systems. The movement itself uses divestment as a mechanism to apply direct pressure to the fossil fuel industry. Institutions, governments, businesses and individuals are encouraged to divest their fossil fuel related funds in order to accelerate sustainability.
The essence of my thesis is focused on the government interactions of the FFDM. Since its beginning, the FFDM has focused on convincing cities to divest their funds from the fossil fuel industry. A considerable number of cities and institutions have already divested, such as Berlin, Paris and Sydney. Currently, the FFDM is attempting to influence the public discourse on climate change, wherein it has seen significant success (Grady-Benson, 2014). Much is owed to the current issue salience of environmental justice and because of phenomena's such as the ´Carbon Bubble´ and ´Stranded Assets´. Research has already been published about the direct and indirect effects facing the fossil fuel industry as a result of divestment (Ansar, Caldecott & Tilbury, 2013). Scholars have focused extensively on the financial aspects of divestment and the significance of divestment within the environmental justice discourse. However, little research is available on the FFDM‘s approach to convince cities to divest. Whereas Grady-Benson (2014) states that: […] the links between divestment and political change remain unclear (p. 124), Ayling & Gunningham (2015) suggest that: “[…] the divestment movement suggests it may play a significant role within the broader sphere of climate change policy (p. 131). The contemporary literature on the FFDM indicates possible influence in the political domain, however further insights are missing on the circumstances under which the FFDM is interacting with cities. Moreover, which mechanisms enable the movement to convince municipal authorities to change policy according to the demands of divestment. That is why my thesis focuses explicitly on the city divestment campaigns.
To understand the divestment campaigns in relation to social movement theory, the theoretical framework is built around the ´Resource Mobilisation Theory´ (RMT) and ´Political Opportunity Theory´ (POT). RMT argues that social movements depend on resources (e.g. money, organisational strength etc.) in order to be successful (Tarrow, 2013), while POT sees political opportunities (e.g institutional access, political alignment etc) as the enablers of success (McAdam, 1996). The fundamental characteristics of both theories allow me to investigate which mechanisms lead to divestment. In other words, whether political opportunity, resources types or both in symbiosis facilitate the success of the FFDM. Furthermore, during the last decade, scholars have indicated that both theories share similarities (Tarrow, 2011; Cragun & Cragun, 2006). By using both theories to analyse the FFDM, further insights into the ongoing debate between the use of RMT and POT are revealed.
In essence, this thesis is providing further insight into the much needed area of how the FFDM is capable of convincing cities to divest and critically assesses the relevant theoretical arguments surrounding the debate between RMT and POT. Hence, my research questions shall be discussed as follows:
How is the Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement causing cities to divest from fossil fuel investments?
In order to answer my research question, the following framework shall be adopted in this thesis. First, Chapter Two will discuss the background of the movement and under which circumstances the FFDM legitimises its actions. In Chapter Three I will lay out the various social movement literature as part of a critical analysis, with particular discussion of RMT and POT, to further explain what is meant by resource types and political opportunity. Subsequently, Chapter Four provides an extensive discussion of the methodology used in this research, including why this thesis uses qualitative research as a means to answer the research question. Furthermore, the section will address the approach used to gather the relevant data will be laid out. This is important since the analysis will be first focusing on each city separately within the research design.
Chapter Five is devoted to presenting and analysing the findings of my research. The thesis ends with Chapter Six, in which I will conclude my research and present an answer to my proposed research question and a relevant discussion supplemented by the literature. To conclude, the chapter will incorporate further recommendations for research.
2 Divestment for the greater good: The Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement
The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, the aim is to familiarise the reader with the Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement (FFDM). The subject includes the core understanding of divestment and why, per the FFDM , divestment can be considered as a mechanism to advocate for climate change. Furthermore, the chapter illustrates the current divestment background and focuses on how the advocated approach of the FFDM is related to current climate change discourse. Through these brief backgrounds, an understanding of the position the FFDM plays within the discourse mentioned will be developed.
2.1 What is divestment? A definition
Divestment encompasses the selling of assets either for financial, social and/or political goals. According to Soederberg (2009) divestment implies: “A fundamental assumption underpinning the decision to divest from a company is that investors are able to affect the financial fate of the targeted firms […] (p. 2013). To a certain extent, Soederberg’s remarks resemble the notion of divestment used by the FFDM, but should not be confused with economically motivated backgrounds (e.g choices by investors or creditors to divest, due to poor financial performance). For the movement, divestment is socially motivated. It is in contrast to strictly financial or economical investments. In other words, stocks, bonds and funds related to fossil fuel are unethical or morally ambiguous. Ansar, Caldecott & Tilbury (2013) define it as follows: “[…] divestment is about withdrawing or withholding financial capital” (p. 21).
The advocated divestment of the FFDM integrates social, environmental and ethical considerations and therefore, shares values with the term ´Socially Responsible Investments´ (SRI). SRI can be defined as follows:
“Unlike conventional types of investment, SRI apply a set of investment screens to select or exclude assets based on ecological, social, corporate governance or ethical criteria, and often engages in the local communities and in shareholder activism to further corporate strategies towards the above aims”
(Renneboog, Ter Horst & Zhang, 2008, p. 1.)
The difference between these understandings is defined by the target. SRI encompasses a broader set of products and asset classes, while the proposed divestment of the FFDM targets mainly the
fossil fuel industry. Nonetheless, the purpose of divestment as SRI remains the same: to mitigate financial risk through stranded assets (e.g. risk management tool) and to support climate change goals (e.g. social activism). Therefore, divestment is, to a certain extent, a mechanism that fosters social responsibility. Furthermore, divestment movements emerged for the very purpose of tackling social injustice. History has shown that divestment, when engaged with financial actors fosters social and political prosperity. In that regard, both previous and current divestment movements have focused on targeting financial actors and promote moral imperatives to provoke an favourable outcome.
2.2 The History of Divestment Campaigns
Employing the strategy of divestment to tackle injustice is not an entirely new phenomenon. Before the FFDM, campaigners had used divestment as a means to pressure governments and companies. One example of divestment strategy can be found through the “sin stocks” . Divestment 1 aimed at the tobacco industry gained momentum in the 1990s in the United States (Fischer, 2000). Tobacco divestment gained significance through an interplay between social welfare foundations, health organisation and scientific consensus about the destructive nature of the cigarette industry (Wander & Malone, 2006). The withdrawal of welfare foundations and health organisations, backed by scientific research, gave rise to public and media attention. According to the literature, the tobacco divestment campaign gave mandate to further spread the pre-existing scientific consensus about the risks of tobacco smoking in the public domain (Fischer, 2000; Wander & Malone, 2004; 2006).
However, in the context of divestment movements, the Anti Apartheid movement is one of the most prominent examples. The anti-apartheid movement called for comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa, including direct and indirect corporate withdrawal from investments related to South Africa. The movement was a coalition of labour, student, religious and civil rights organisations (Arnold & Hammond, 1994) and the aims of the campaign were to hinder new investments and new financial capital, to weaken the apartheid regime (Hunt, Weber, & Dordi, 2017). The Anti-Apartheid movement and the tactic of advocating for divestment as a tool is evidence of how outside pressure can alter corporate decisions and behaviour (Meznar, High, & Kwok, 1994). Furthermore, research suggest that corporations who publicly announced their divestment experienced significant increase in returns during the period of announcement
“Sin stocks” are publicly traded companies such as alcohol-, tobacco- or gambling sin stocks. 1
(Pasnikoff, 1997). Both examples for divestment demonstrate the far reaching outcomes of divestment campaigns.
2.3 The Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement
The FFDM began in 2008, founded most prominently by Bill McKibben and a group of university peers, established as part of the 350.org (350.org, 2017). Ultimately, the movement gained prominence and pace through the publication of Bill McKibben´s article “Global Warming´s Terrifying New Math” in the Rolling Stones Magazine (McRibben, 2012). The movement initially started as student lead and university focused. The first visible actions began in 2011 on a handful of college campuses, aiming to convince institutions to fully divest from pre-existing fossil fuel fund commitments, while pledging to agree to never return to investments linked to the fossil fuel industry. Six years later the FFDM has significantly grown in terms of size and success.
The FFDM is organised by the global environmental organisation 350.org. It represents the umbrella organisation for each of the Fossil Free Movements around the globe. The organisation helps to build, connect and empower each branch. Moreover, the 350.org provides coordination and resources for the local branches. 350.org operates mainly online through their website, mobilising their various branches and movement members. The principles laid out on their website act as a guideline for each branches operations (350.org, 2017). The “open-source-approach” of the 2 umbrella organisation allows everyone to gain access to crucial information on how to build a divestment campaign. This incorporates published videos, art, graphics, visuals and guidelines, which are accessible to everyone. The website thereby acts as the catalyst for any newly generated campaign. Beside this, 350.org represents the professional side of the FFDM. The organisation employs a professional staff, has offices around the globe and has released an annual independent audit as an NGO under United States Federal Law since 2014.
The FFDM is a global social movement, with three overarching principles at its centre: 1. Climate justice. 2. Collaboration (e.g collective action), and 3. Mass mobilisation (350.org, 2017). Currently, a total of $5.45 Trillion is being divested from the fossil fuel industry, according to the 3 FFDM (GoFossilFree, 2017/a). Such an amount has been accumulated based on the commitments of 719 institutions and more than 58,000 individuals (see Graph 1). The FFDM is an international network of campaigns and campaigners. Each campaign is independently run, thus, according to
In this context the “open-source-approach” does not refer to the general software related term. It refers to the 2
copyright free resources (e.g. photos, videos, guidelines) provided by the 350.org.
The Wallace Global Fund estimated in December 2016 a total amount of $5 Trillion (Wallace Global Fund, 2016). 3
GoFossilFree.org (2017/b) the majority of campaigns demand conditions based solely on the following three principles:
1. The immediate freeze of any new investment in fossil fuel companies.
2 . D i v e s t m e n t f r o m d i r e c t ownership and funds that include fossil fuel public equities and corporate bonds within five years. 3. Bringing to end the indirect sponsorship of fossil fuel by investors.
The FFDM base their targets on the top-200 publicly traded carbon heavy firms. From here, every investment concerning fossil fuel is targeted, regardless of the source
(see Fig. 1). Nonetheless, the primary focus of the FFDM is to force the fossil fuel industry to leave the world wide remaining reserves untouched. Furthermore, the movement is aiming to affect legislative decision-making to foster restrictive legislation. In other words, the FFDM aims to push governments to amend their laws in favour of more climate friendly legislation, imposing restrictions on actions such as fossil fuel drilling.
2.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the FFDM
Due to the relatively recent emergence and work of the FFDM, there is a limited amount of scholarly literature available on the effects of their work (Ansar, Caldecott & Tilbury, 2013; Trinks et al., 2017) . Much of the information available stems from media reports and whitepapers, the most notable of which are publications from investment groups HSBC, Pax World Investments and Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment . These publications connect the movement with 4 three major topics: 1. Ramification of divestment for the political sphere, 2. Financial benefit (or cost) of divestment, 3. Climate risk assessment. For instance the whitepaper from the Smith School
The Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment (also known as the Smith School) is a interdisciplinary hub of the
4
concluded that the FFDM has had a rather limited direct impact on fossil fuel companies, while it poses a serious threat in terms of indirect effects. The former, direct effects refer to the amount of capital divested from the industry, altering market norms and the decrease of debt financing, while the indirect effects are either restrictive legislation or stigmatisation of the fossil fuel industry (Ansar, Caldecott & Tilbury, 2013).
Such results stem from the fact that divested capital from sources such as universities and pension funds are currently not large enough to have a much greater impact. For instance, Coady, Sears & Shang (2015) estimate that fossil fuel companies benefit from global subsidies of $5.3 trillion a year. In contrast, the FFDM divested over the last six years a total sum of $5.45 trillion. However, the direct impact of capital withdrawal can be effective in the long-run, if the movement becomes globally influential. The capability of changing market norms is considered to be a highly influential role in the long run (Ansar, Caldecott & Tilbury, 2013). Hence, it is assumed that a snowball effect could exponentially increase the effect of changing market norms regarding fossil fuel investments. An example of this can be seen in the debt financing of the fossil fuel industry. It is suggested that when banks retreat from financing, the fossil fuel industry could face higher costs, which could ultimately lead to underfunding of new or current projects (Arabella Advisors, 2015).
In contrast, the indirect effects are considered to be far more impactful. Any stigma may bring unwanted attention and consequences for the fossil fuel industry. Stigmatisation through public awareness or media coverage can cause organisations to lose suppliers, subcontractors, (potential-) employees and customers (Vergne, 2012). Beside this, Ansar, Caldecott & Tilbury (2013) point out: “Stigmatised firms may be barred from competing for public tenders, acquiring licences or property rights for business expansion, or be weakened in negotiations with suppliers” (p. 65). Hence, the literature about the indirect effects of the FFDM suggests that stigmatisation will increase the pressure on fossil fuel companies through restrictive legislation. The FFDM summarises this effect as: “revoking the social license” (GoFossilFree.org, 2014). This resembles one of the main goals of the movement, since it advocates that the movement should help to reduce the capability of the fossil fuel industry to influence governments (GoFossilFree, 2014). Although the current development of the FFDM suggests that it is able to successfully stigmatise the industry, the only way to judge such success will be to observe long-term outcomes. As Hudson (2008) suggested: “If resources are available, such an organisation might use migration strategies by diversifying into non-stigmatised domains” (p. 260). He points out that a heavily stigmatised company such as ´Philip Morris´ was able to minimise the impact of its failing image by employing
´migration strategies´ . However, the contemporary situation of the so called ´indirect effects´ is 5 promising for the FFDM. Currently, the movement is gaining increased attention from legislators. Ireland became the first country to vote in favour of laws to fully divest from fossil fuels (Independent, 2017); The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund prioritised the divestment of $900 billion from coal (The Guardian, 2015); while EU policymakers revised the ´Directive on Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provisions II to consider environmental, social and governance issues (Share Action, 2016).
Although these three examples cannot be fully credited to the FFDM, clear patterns of how the divestment issue (e.g direct or indirect effects) has become a salient topic are beginning to show. Therefore, it can be credited that the movement started and developed a response with its collective action by advocating for divestment as a strategy for the broader public to follow. Based on the evidence, the most successful strategies have been to stigmatise and delegitimise, as shown by the case studies given above.
2.5 “The Science” behind it
The divestment arguments advocated by the FFDM are connected to the broader discourse on climate change. For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) has released five assessment reports since 1990 directly warning about
man-made causes of climate change and their impact (IPPC, 1990; 1995; 2001; 2007; 2014). The FFDM uses this consensus as the basis for its argument. In other words, the scientific argument is utilised as a resource by the movement. That is why, the article published by McKibben is claiming that three numbers 2° Celsius, 565 Gigatons and 2,795 Gigatons add up to a global environmental catastrophe (McKibben, 2012). The first number (2° Celcius) refers to the formal recognition during the ´Copenhagen Climate Conference´ in 2009, that the global temperature increase must remain below 2°c. However, the
recognition of this target was the only success, since the outcome of the conference was non-binding and only encouraged countries to act voluntarily. This changed in 2016 with the ´Paris
Phillip Morris used the effect of migration strategy by buying Kraft Foods. 5
Convention’ (see Fig. 2). During the convention all 197 parties agreed to ratify the so called ´Paris 6 Agreement`. According to the ´United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change´ (2017): “The Paris Agreement […] brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist to assist developing countries to do so”. In that regard, the scientific and societal importance of climate change gives the topic of the FFDM salience, backed by agreements such UNCCC COP 21 Paris. The 2°c allows the movement to quantify the goal and present scientific data supporting their arguments for the importance of divestment. Beside this, new reports and the FFDM itself recommended to amendment the 2°c target to 1.5°c (350.org, 2015; Knutti et al., 2016). Despite the differences in assessment, the FFDM’s primary goal continues to be the mitigation of climate change through the reduction of global temperatures.
The significance of the second number, 565 gigatons, bears importance since, as McRibben states (2012): “Scientist estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigaton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury […]” (para. 10). The third number (2.794 Gigatons) is indirectly targeting the fossil fuel industry. The numbers refers to the unused amount of fossil fuels all around the world. If the remaining
reserves are consumed, it would equal the amount of 2.794 gigaton carbon emissions (Carbon Tracker, 2017).“Unburnable carbon” 7 reserve has fuelled the discourse on three major climate change related issues: 1. The Carbon Budget , 2. The Carbon Bubble, 8 and 3. Stranded Assets.
The Carbon Budget refers to the
amount of remaining global fossil fuel reserves available, and the amount that has already been burned, plus how much can still be burned if we are to remain within the 2°c limit (see Fig. 3). Due
UN Framework on Climate Change Conference of Parties (UNFCCC COP 21 Paris) was held in November 2015 and 6
is a legally binding and universal agreement to keep global warming below 2°C.
“Unburnable carbon” refers to the climate change discourse of unburnable fossil fuel energy reserves. 7
The term carbon budget describe the amount of carbon dioxide emissions we have left in order to remain within the 8
to this, the so-called ´Carbon Bubble´ must be brought to the forefront of the debate. In essence, it 9 states that oil, coal and gas reserves face a possible over evaluation. The third, ´Stranded Assets´ refers to the risks of unburnable fossil fuel resources, for instance environmental related risks (see further Appendix Fig.1). According to Ansar, Caldecott & Tilbury (2013) this means that: “[…] environmentally unsustainable assets suffer from unanticipated or premature write-offs, downward revaluations or are converted to liabilities” (p. 2). The stranded asset argument gained especially in the recent years relevance, since more and more banks, media or scholars warned and acknowledged a growing risk (HSBC, 2015; Bank of England, 2015; The Word Bank, 2014; The Guardian, 2013; 2015; 2017; Ansar, Caldecott, & Tilbury, 2013 ;Rozenberg, Vogt-Schilb, & Hallegatte, 2014). Although the awareness of these issues cannot solely be credited to the FFDM, the organisation has been able to push the debate further and raise public awareness in a number of ways (e.g. globally organised protests or convincing major cities to divest).
McRibben article shows already in 2012 major implications concerning the climate change goal. The scientific relevance within the divestment argument can therefore be considered a major accelerator for the FFDM. It allows the movement to create visible arguments to convince individuals, institutions and/or governments to reconsider their investments concerning fossil fuel. Beside this, the three mentioned numbers convey tangible scientific arguments.
2.6 Conclusion
Throughout the previous sections, I presented the background to the movement and fossil fuel divestment, the aims of the movement and the scientific argument upon which it is based. The section is provided to familiarise the reader with the topic of divestment, as well as current climate change debates, specifically the 2°c global temperature increase targets. A growing consensus among scholars and the financial sector find that the direct and indirect effects of divestment have spurred governments and municipalities to react in order to safeguard climate goals and the pension funds. As Fig. 1 shows, 19% of the divested amount from fossil fuel investments is accumulated through governments, including municipalities. In that regard, targeting municipalities is one approach used by the FFDM to influence legislators and target the fossil fuel industry through restrictive legislation. Although divestment is the main tool used by the FFDM to achieve their goals (350.org, 2017/), it also serves as a catalyst to strengthen and sustain climate change advocacy.
The term bubble or more commonly market bubble refers to situations in which asset prices exceed the intrinsic value 9
3 Theoretical Framework
The following section will construct a theoretical framework to best explore the research question. The framework will largely build on the insights of the ´Resource Mobilisation Theory´ and ´Political Opportunity Theory´. In short, the FFDM is a contemporary social movement that can be categorised by its use of contentious politics. Therefore, before examining specific theories, it is necessary to understand the foundations of social movement characteristics and how they interact within contentiousness in politics.
3.1 Defining Social Movements
There is no single or definitive definition of social movements. Mario Diani (1992) argues that almost all definitions encompass three criteria: “a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organisations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, the basis of a shared collective identity” (p.1). The FFDM builds its collective identity by advocating for climate justice. Crucial to their identity building is the emphasis on how political and cultural conflict mitigates sustainability (see Section 2.3). In contrast, Tilly & Wood (2015) point out that social movements are a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns. Contentiousness summarises a key element of social movements. After emerging as an organisation based on collective identity, the FFDM contested various targets, like municipalities. Sustained forms of contention channel the movement´s grievance for change in favour of more restrictive legislation and divestment of municipality owned pension funds.
Furthermore, one commonality that many researchers agree upon is that social movements can have a wide range of consequences and that they should not be reduced to simplified terms of “success” and “failure” (Amenta and Young, 1999; or Giugni 1998). However, defining social movements by their success or failure remains difficult, since the goals of some movements can be broad and wide ranging. This issue of measuring the direct or indirect success of social movements is central to this thesis. The FFDM and its branches in various municipalities determine their own progress by convincing cities to divest (GoFossilFree, 2017/a).
Furthermore, on social movements, Sidney Tarrow (2011) points out that: “Rather than defining social movements as expressions of extremism, violence, and deprivation, they are better defined as collective action, based on common purposes and social solidarities” (p. 9). Collective action and consequently the common purpose is the necessary for the FFDM to establish themselves around the divestment topic and to gain legitimacy as a contesting actor within a
municipality. In that regard, to understanding social movements it is important to further define contentiousness of social movements, collective identity and collective action since these three aspects build the fundament of the FFDM to challenge municipalities.
3.1.1 Defining Contentiousness
Social movements are considered a subset of contentious politics (Tarrow & Tilly, 2007). They differentiate themselves through existing social networks and are therefore capable of preserving action over time. How social movements are able to preserve action over time is largely owed to the notion of their contentiousness, both in their cause and strategies. The meaning of contentious politics according to Tarrow (2013) is thus: “Contentious politics means episodic, public, collective interaction among makers of claims and their objects when: (a) at least one government is a claimant, an object of claims, or a party to the claims, and (b) the claims would, if realised, affect the interests of at least one of the claimants or objects of claims” (p. 1).
Within Tarrow’s definition of contentious politics, many of the key elements of social movements can be found. Sustained forms of contention are essential for social movements to mobilise around their targets and attract support. However, these sustained forms are differentiated according to Tarrow (2013) into: “social movements, civil wars and revolutions” (p. 1). For social movements such as the FFDM, this implies that they challenge power holders to the benefit of the wider society (e.g climate change advocacy). The contentiousness can be identified whereby one group (challengers) collectively target the power holders. In terms of contemporary contestation, some of the major strategies employed by social movements include: demonstration, petitions, occupying the public sphere and/or boycotts (e.g. consumer boycotts). These: “Repertoires of Contention” (Tarrow and Tilly, 2007, p. 3) describe performances employed to contest the opponent. Nonetheless, contestation is inseparably linked to democratic values. Social movements benefit from rights to associate, assemble and freedom of speech. Thus, as previously stated, contestation is not solely linked to social movements. The contentiousness of social movements’s covers a variety of aspects, though in essence contentiousness relates to: the challenging of those who hold power, the techniques adopted and acting within the confines of the democratic system.
3.1.2 Collective Identity
The concept of collective identity is far from consensual among scholars (Flesher Fominaya, 2010). Polleta and Jasper (2001) define collective identity as: “[…] an individuals cognitive, moral and emotional connection with a broader community, category, practice, or institution (p. 285). On the contrary, Snow (2001) states that collective identity suggests a “we-ness”, summarised by shared attributes and experiences in relation to the “others”. He further states that: “Embedded within the shared sense of we is a corresponding sense of collective agency […] it can be argued that collective identity is constituted by a shared and interactive sense of “we-ness” and collective agency” (p. 2.). In that regard, collective identity aids movements to mobilise around a shared and common value. Beside this, contemporary and traditional collective identity debates over social movements are, according to the literature, still very much the same (Bennet & Segerberg, 2013; Habermas, 1981; Tarrow 2011). Social movements still form groups and collective identities in order to challenge the respective power holders through political actions such as demonstrations, petitions or civil disobedience. However, technology has redefined contemporary versions of social movements through the use of digital media (e.g. social media). Technology has helped to facilitate collective identity for certain movements. The FFDM, for example, use their website as an open source in order to spread their message, demands and methods to start a branch in any city (350.org, 2017). Building a collective identity for social movements, in particular the FFDM, remains a key part of their strategy. It is necessary to connect different branches with different targets (e.g. cities or for profit corporations) around the broader topic. In respect to the FFDM, the collective identity is shaped around the divestment of fossil fuel investments.
3.1.3 Collective Action
Collective identity creates the “we-ness” (Snow, 2001) needed to mobilise individual peoples. In contrast, the concept of collective action further describes the process that social movements employ to challenge elites, authorities or institutions. Most often, collective actions are publicly expressed through forms of disruption. Disruption is a form of contentious action, which can be enacted through non-violent direct actions (Tarrow, 1994). Collective action serves as 10 publicly visible dis-obedience, creating awareness among society and generating increased pressure on the intended target. Nonetheless, collective action must be sustained over time, facilitated by sustained collective action so that social movements may effectively oppose better equipped
Non-violent direct actions most commonly include sit-ins, marches, rallies, constructing barricade or mass 10
opponents such as better equipped or greater financial resources (Tarrow, 1994; 2011). Maintaining collective action over times bolsters the resiliency of the issue in question, which is necessary for movements to reach their goals. The FFDM resembles this insight. Over the years, more and more universities, cities, funds and other institutions have contributed to the commitment proposed by the FFDM. Additionally, collective action has helped the movement to spread their topic to a wider audience. For instance, the ´Global Divestment Day´ . Creating successful collective action helps 11 movements to increase their pressure on the target and places their cause into the consideration of citizens, authorities and the media.
3.2 Social Movements: Forms and reasons of emergence
The study of social movements and the theories and concepts pertaining to social movements’s are captured under the notion of ‘Social Movement Theory’ (SMT). The various attempts to understand social movements’s focus on an array of different aspects, since movements emerge due to different circumstances. Social movements occur for a huge array of different reasons. Some movements may begin as attempts to bring about national revolutions, while others advocate for social reforms, or to the contrary to uphold traditional values. Social movements have a wide variety in their ideology, hence the vast body of literature that has arisen to theorise their existence.
In essence, scholars tend to explain the emergence of social movements by pointing out that pre-existing organisations and/or social structures do not resolve existing social problems (McCarthy & Zald, 1990). Hestres (2014) points out in the context of climate change related movements: “[…] a systemic failure across various levels of government and society to deal with climate change effectively has fuelled the belief among activists that a social movement is needed to deal with this global threat” (p. 326). Tarrow (2011) defines the rise of climate change related movements as contentious politics by employing collective action to create opportunity to challenge (p. 28). This contestation of social movements has come to be known as the “Four Stages of Social Movements” (Blumer 1968; Mauss 1975; Tilly, 1978). According to the literature, these stages usually occur in the life of every social movement (see Appendix Fig. 1). The FFDM and its umbrella organisation 350.org are currently located at the “Bureaucratise-Stage” (Tilly, 1978). 350.org is an acknowledged NGO, with its various FFDM branches operating as the executive powers. As Section 2.4 of this thesis has shown, the current stage of the movement is pointing
Globally planned protest day by the umbrella organisation 350.org. 11
towards the “Success-Stage”. However, this can only be determined after a long-term evaluation, since their direct effects are not significantly distinctive, while on the other hand the success of indirect effects such as stigmatisation require some time before they are observable (Ansar, Caldecott & Tilbury 2013).
3.3 Social Movement Literature and the why
While the last century has yielded vast discourse and literature attempting to understand social movements, earlier research focused on collective behaviourist views. These views labelled protestors as irrational individuals, triggered by crowd contagion or system strain (Polletta & Jasper, 2001). After 1970, researchers reformulated their theoretical insights by focusing on theories devoted to different school´s; the ´New Social Movement Theory´ (NSM) is considered as the European school, while ´Resource Mobilisation Theory´ (RMT) and ´Political Opportunity Theory´ (POT) resembles the North American school. Although both approaches reformulated traditional understandings to explain collective action, according to Jenkins (1997), both perspectives address their respective scientific traditions and contemporary debates in each region (p. 1). In order to understand why this thesis advocates RMT and POT, I will first present a brief overview about NSM.
´New Social Movement Theory´ (NSM) emphasises the diverse array of collective action strategies and connects them to politics, ideology and culture. Consequently, Buechler states that there is no definitive definition of NSM (Buechler, 2000), but he denotes the theory as follows: “[…] diverse array of collective actions that has presumably displaced the old social movement of proletarian revolution” (p. 46). This implies that the rise of the post-industrial economy triggered a new form of social movement, which can be considered as fundamentally different from those seen previously. Furthermore, it argues that the differences are primarily found in the reasoning for mobilisation and the aims pursued, as new social movements do not focus primarily on class conflicts such as materialistic well-being. Instead, focus has shifted to issues concerning human rights, such as gay rights, pacifism or environmental issues (Pichardo, (1997). One can therefore distinguish that social movements´s under NSM pursue progressive social changes, hence the overall reason for mobilisation has shifted. Per Kendall (2016) NSM emphasises a shift in focus towards the movement culture and, therefore, that identity plays a greater role, as well as their relation to culture, ideology and politics (p. 674). On top of this, the NSM states that movements, instead of aiming for specific changes in public policy, highlight social changes in identity, lifestyle and/or culture. In essence, the FFDM may represent an example of an NSM, but to understand its
success, RMT and POT are more useful due to the following reasons.
Critics like Lyman (2016) note that NSM‘s: “[…] new social movement discourse overstates the novelty of movements it analyses, selectively depicts their aims as cultural, and exaggerates their separation from conventional political life […]” (p. 113). In fact, this thesis focuses on the german branch of the FFDM and by reason, the NSM represents a viable analytical approach, since it argues that social movements no longer occur due to class struggle. The case of FFDM resembles this fact, since it is not focused on class conflict. However, Polletta and Jasper (2001) stress one crucial aspect about NSM, which is necessary to consider for my thesis: “[…] protestors have been less likely to seek redistribution of political power than to seek to change dominant normative and cultural codes by gaining recognition for new identities (p. 286; see also Pizzorno, 1978). Although the FFDM seeks to change the dominance of the fossil fuel industry by ´revoking their social license´, one of their main targets is aimed at governments and advocates for sustainable climate policies (GoFossilFree.org 2017/b). In that regard, I agree with Polletta and Jasper that: “New social movement theories have proven better at raising questions about the sources of movements identities than at answering them (p. 286). For my thesis it is more crucial to understand how social movements secure mechanisms in order to convince cities to divest. It seeks to determine which factors (e.g. resource mobilisation or political opportunity structures) played a role. For that reason, I adopt for my thesis the ´North American´ approach, which focuses primarily on ´Resource Mobilisation` and ´Political Opportunity´. Both theories focus on structural factors, which enable social movements to act collectively. In order to familiarise the reader with how both theories are implemented in this thesis (so as to better understand the FFDM), I will introduce the background to both theories and their relevance below.
3.4 Resource Mobilisation Theory
The ‘Resource Mobilisation Theory (RMT) emerged in the 1970’s, at a time when scholars emphasised how social movements are structured and patterned, allowing researchers to analyse them by their organisational dynamics (e.g. forms of institutionalised action) (Oberschall, 1973, 1978; McCarthy & Zald, 1977; Tilly, 1978). Original formulations of RMT and contemporary explanations labelled social movements as rationalised actions. According to Kendell (2016) RMT assumes that participants in social movements are rational actors (p. 670). Compared to interest groups, the rational individuals within a social movement are not able to gain access to powerful decision makers easily. In support of this claim, Buechler (1993) noted: “Whereas established, special interest groups have routine, low-cost access to powerful decision makers, social
movements must pay higher costs to gain a comparable degree of influence within the polity (p. 218). These costs are referred to within the RMT as resources. Here, resources include financial capital, material goods (property and equipment), participant´s time and skills and access to the media. Thus, resources can also refer to non-material assets such as legitimacy, loyalty, social relationships, networks, public attention, authority, moral commitment and solidarity (Fuchs, 2006).
Obtaining resources for social movements combines internal and external sources (Edwards & Gillham, 2013). According to Edwards & McCarthy (2004) these internal and external sources are segmented into four “mechanisms of resource access”: self-production, aggregation from constituents, appropriation/co-optation and patronage (see Appendix Table. 2). Edwards & Gillham (2013) highlight that: “[…] recent RMT analysts emphasise more explicitly the uneven distribution of resources in a society, and seek to understand how individuals and collective actors endeavour to alter the distribution to direct resources to social movements (p.2). Although obtaining resources and the distribution for social movements is within the RMT an aspect, for this thesis it is not from essence to understand how the FFDM is able to received the previously mentioned “mechanisms of resource access“. In other words, it is not important to understand from whom the movement is receiving their resources, but it is crucial to investigate how the movement is using its: “Resource Types” (Edwards & Gillham, 2013) and if these resources have any significant impact in influencing the municipalities. As such, the resources types emphasises the organisational and structural factors within a movement.
The literature on RMT (see McCarthy & Zald, 1987; Freeman 1979; Eltantawy, 2011; Tarrow, 2013; Kendall, 2016; Della Porta & Diani, 2009) pinpoint five common factors or as it is called per the RMT: ´Resource Types´. First, ´Material Resources´. This indicator allows to research financial and physical capital of movements. It encompasses monetary resources, property, office space, equipment and supplies. Second, ´Human Resources´. In other words, labour, experience, skills and leadership. Third, ´Social Organisational Resources´. Here, formal organisation is emphasised. It is necessary for social movements to form a mobilising structure, which includes infrastructure, social ties and networks, affinity groups and coalitions. However, this category is divided into two subgroups, between intentional and appropriable social organisation. The former focuses on social organisation especially created to further social movement goals. The latter, describes non-movement purposes, which enable a social movement to activate other resources such as recruiting volunteers or disseminating information through work. Fourth, ´Cultural Resources´. This indicator includes symbols, beliefs, values, identities and behavioural norms, music, literature, blogs, web pages or films/videos. The ´Cultural Resources´ is defined through its
purpose as a reserve supply of resources, ready to activate for collective action. And last, ´Moral Resource´. Moral Resources include legitimacy, authenticity, solitary support, sympathetic support and celebrity.
RMT argues that social movements that can activate these five resources will mobilise more successfully, with their collective action more likely to succeed. However, there is no consensus on which resources are most important. Thus, the RMT perspective will help this thesis to investigate whether any of the resources mentioned played a significant role in influencing municipalities to divest.
3.5 Political Opportunity Theory
According to political opportunity theorists, the social movements cannot be entirely explained by purely considering the variety of grievances or resources available to a mobilising group. Scholars such as Kendall (2016) have argued that opportunities for mobilisation exist within the political system at any given time, proposing to us the theory of political opportunity. Prominent work on POT has been formulated by Charles Tilly (Giugni, 2009, McAdam 1999), including ‘From Mobilisation to Revolution’ (1978), one of the first systematic statement about political opportunities for those who seek to challenge the political domain. However, this correlation between challengers and political systems was not entirely new founded. Scholars such as Lipsky (1970) or Eisinger (1973) previously contended that the degree of institutional access plays a crucial role. For the scholars mentioned, the opportunity structure of a given political system defines the collective action in terms of possibilities to mobilise effectively. This implies that although social movements operate in a different manner to mainstream political groups and actors, they are rooted and intertwined with conventional political systems. Following such reasoning, Koopmans (1999) noted that opportunity within this theory refers to what: “We may define opportunities as option for collective action, with chances and risks attached to them that depend on factors outside the mobilising group” (p. 97). As such, the POT argues that individuals will determine the possible opportunities at any given time by differentiating collective action between two entities. Where one focuses on the opportunity for collective action that is immediately available to them, the other (long-term) focuses on producing the intended favourable outcome for their cause. Therefore, Meyer and Minkoff (2004) conclude that POT accounts for the identification of how certain externalities influence the development of social movements (p. 1459). However, the POT approach highlights opportunity, in the context of political influence, as a necessary condition to successfully forward any action.
According to recent insights from POT, social movements are embedded with the alliances and conflict structures seen in traditional political parties (Hutter, Kriesi & Lorenzini, 2017). The interaction between social movement´s is suggested to be more intertwined than previously assumed. For example, the agenda-setting power of social movements within the POT context. It is suggested that political elites are more likely to respond if protests over a certain issue increase in scale (Hutter, Kriesi & Lorenzini, 2017). This means that social movements act as sources of information that can articulate societal problems to elites (Vliegenthart, 2016). This articulation correlates according to McAdam and SU (2002) with protest size and not protest frequency. Beside this, protests related to certain issues matter more than others (Walgrave & Vliegenthart, 2012). Coincides with the findings of Hutter and Vliegenhart (2016), who state that the issues raised by social movements are often likely to be addressed by local/national opposition parties. Their results indicated that political parties in the opposition are more likely to respond to demands of social movements. Furthermore, Bosi et al. (2016) and Amenta et al. (2017) stress that incumbent parties play a crucial role in determining the political outcome for social movements. The institutional access provided by so called incumbent parties is a key indicator, since they can allow movements to gain cooptation into government.
The basic assumption of the POT is that external factors encourage or discourage the likelihood that social movements will mobilise effectively. More specifically, it refers to the openness of the political system in which the movement is starting to mobilise. POT advocates for discursive opportunities and therefore, according to Giugni (2001): “Political opportunity theorists have traditionally focused on institutional opportunities: degree of access to the institutionalised political system, political alignments, state capacity and propensity for repression and responsiveness of political authorities” (p. 274). In other words, collective action of social movements is dependent on political opportunity structures.
Yet, what are considered political opportunities by social movements? Meyer & Minkhoff (2004) note: “The challenge facing researchers concerned with political opportunity and protest is explaining which aspects of the external world affect the development of social movements and how this development is affected” (p. 1459). Definitions of the aspects of political opportunity are far from being concrete (see Guigni, 2011, McAdam, 1996). Nonetheless the literature stresses four main dimensions of POT: 1. The relative openness or closure of the institutionalised political system; 2. The stability or instability of that broad set of alignments; 3. The presence or absence of elite allies; and 4. The state´s capacity and propensity for repression (Tarrow, 1991; McAdam,
1996; Meyer & Minkhoff, 2004; Guigni, 2011). These four dimensions are the foundation of the POT and therefore need to be further assessed regarding the case this thesis uses as a study.
One central argument for the POT spectrum is that movements are only successful if they can actively utilise the ´window of opportunity´. Therefore, the following indicators must be laid out to further any research. First, political alignments. Political alignments indicate who the movement aligned with, if anyone, and more importantly if these political alignments were crucial for the FFDM to mobilise successfully. Second, the responsiveness of political authorities. In other words, how did the political authorities responded to the movement’s demands and to what extent did a favourable response help the movement to further their collective action. Third, the degree of access to the institutionalised political system. This aspect investigates the political access. This means, access to the municipal political system and if this access played a role in convincing the cities to divest. Fourth, the capacity or propensity for repression. This indicator helps to identify the cities setting against the movement. By investigating this aspect, it can be seen if the authorities allowed the movement to strive and therefore if the city allowed the movement to pursue a ´window of opportunity´. Five, presence or absence of elite allies. This indicator encompasses any allies within the political spectrum (McAdam, 1996). In other words, if favourable individual (elite) allies facilitated any access to the political parties or important municipal authorities.
These five indicators of POT will allow this research to analyse to what extent political opportunities were present for the movement, or if any of these indicators played a significant role. As previously stated the ´Political Opportunity Theory´ asserts that multilayered opportunity structures (e.g. political system) must exist and will, therefore, define the success or failure of a social movement.
3.6 Conclusion and next steps
In fact, researchers suggest that ´Political Opportunity Theory´ shares many similarities with the ´Resource Mobilisation Theory (see Tarrow, 2011; Cragun & Cragun, 2006). Thus, POT recognises that the availability of resources becomes important only if or when the movement has access to the existing political system or is vulnerable to being challenged. In other words, movements are dependent on the existence or lack of political opportunity. Only if this condition is guaranteed POT argues, movements can go on. In that regard, Meyer (2004) stresses: “The key recognition in the political opportunity perspective is that activist’s prospects for advancing particular claims, mobilising supporters, and affecting influence are context-dependent” (p. 126). In contrast, RMT emphasises that movements lie outside institutionalised politics and the available
resources derive from non-institutional sources (Jenkins, 1983). This general disagreement is the point of intersection this thesis is trying to further develop insight into, by using the FFDM as a case of a contemporary social movement. The controversy this thesis is focusing on is, therefore, to investigate which of the theories proves more accurate for the FFDM and which of the corresponding attributes is important for the FFDM to convince cities to divest from fossil fuel investments. Nonetheless, by considering the previously mentioned theories, the FFDM offers a case study to further investigate the RMT and POT approaches in comparison.
4 Research Design
I will present in this section my proposed case study of the FFDM. Furthermore, I will illustrate in detail my research design and methodology and draw attention to how and why the chosen methods are applied to generate reliable data to answer my research question.
4.1 Why the Fossil Free Divestment Movement?
In order to examine the main research question, this thesis will focus on the case of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement for three major reasons:
First, the FFDM has become one of the fastest growing movements in recent years, with notable success (see Fig. 1). Institutions such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Guardian Media Group, Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, World Council of Churches are already interacting with the divestment advocated by the FFDM (FFDM, 2017). The divestment strategy is a relatively new approach for social movements. Although previous divestment movements are in existence (see Section 2.2) the FFDM is a new contemporary case. In other words, by adopting the capitalist mechanisms used by the very system they are challenging, the FFDM exemplifies the perfect case for investigation. Furthermore, the divestment topic unites everyone under the banner of common cause. It highlights the devastating impacts of the fossil fuel industry in relation to the agreed 2°c threshold for global temperature increase of the UN Framework on Climate Change Conference of Parties. The FFDM uses divestment to create awareness and build a floor for social cohesion.
Second, the 350.org and its FFDM branches act on both a global and local scale. The FFDM is targeting the fossil fuel industry on a global scale. Recently the HSBC Bank (2015) advised their clients to divest from fossil fuel investment, due to the risk of ´Stranded Assets; which indicates the wide reaching resilience of the divestment topic. Furthermore, Ireland voted in January 2017 to become the world´s first country to fully divest from fossil fuel. These examples represent just a small number of cases related to concerns over divestment in recent years. The FFDM has created, through their movement, a globally recognisable platform that has quickly developed into an organised social movement, with branches spread around the world. Hence, for this thesis, the division between global and local targets represents a fruitful avenue of discussion to help answer the proposed research question. The local branches allow this thesis to investigate how the movement is causing cities to divest. In addition, by focusing on the local branches in municipalities, it is possible to conduct a cross case comparison to further establish insight into the proposed research question.
Third, the FFDM offers great societal relevance due to its characteristic of focusing on one of the prime political struggles of the 21st century: climate change. Environmental movements provide a cultural platform for a range of scientific experts (e.g. biochemists, ecologists, natural scientists and engineers) to educate the broader public on environmental issues (Jamison, 2010). Movements such as the FFDM act as facilitators of information, creating publicly accessible information sources on issues such as the global temperature increase and its effects. Furthermore, the FFDM is an example of what Clark & Dickson (2003) refer to as how: “[…] movements harness science and technology in the quest for transition towards sustainability […] with equal attention to how social change shapes the environment and how environmental change shapes society (p.1). Climate justice movements articulate key issues and raise public awareness about climate change by harnessing this transition (Jamison, 2010). As such, researching the FFDM and its capabilities to influence cities to divest helps us to further understand how environmental change shapes society, especially in the political domain. In times where “skeptics” question the negative 12 effect of climate change, social movements such as the FFDM are necessary. Recently, the current president of the US, Donald Trump, withdrew from the previously mentioned ´Paris Agreement´. That is why the FFDM holds great societal relevance, due to the approach of actively contesting municipalities and their politicians to react to climate change by divesting from one of its biggest causes: the fossil fuel industry.
4.2 Discussion of Sample size-N
Qualitative study requires an appropriate sample size to adequately answer the research question (Marshall, 1996). This thesis focuses on the FFDM, specifically in Germany, whereby it is necessary to consider whether the German democratic system suppresses social movements or allows them to thrive. Since 2003 Germany has received annual ´Freedom in the World´ and Freedom of the Press´ reports from ´Freedom House´, recording best possible scores in all categories, especially for the categories ´Civil Liberties´ and ´Political Rights´ (Freedom House, 2017). Nonetheless, this does not imply that Germany, or other countries ranked with a perfect score, necessarily support or encourage social movements. In fact, for this thesis, the relationship between the political environment and the movement‘s outcomes is distinctly important. Therefore, this thesis will uncover which factors provided the FFDM and their contentiousness with the
According to Jamison (2010) “skeptics” in the climate change discourse are: “skeptics who, for various reasons, 12
question the importance of dealing with climate change […] primarily by questioning the truth value of scientific knowledge claims that have been made on its behalf” (p. 811).
necessary means to convince cities to divest.
For my thesis I decided that the focus should be placed on four German cities, which are directly related to the FFDM: Berlin, Stuttgart, Münster and Cologne . Berlin, Stuttgart and 13 Münster successfully committed themselves to the claims and cause of the movement by divesting. However, they are distinguished by the degree of commitment, ´Fully´ (Berlin), ´Fossil Free´ (Münster) and ´Partial`(Stuttgart). The Cologne case can be seen as outlier, since the Cologne branch is currently inactive and reached no outcome, nor a partial success worth mentioning. In that regard, my sample size-N is established through purposeful sampling . In the following paragraphs 14 I will provide arguments and justifications for why the sample size of four cities will suit for this thesis case analysis.
In case study research the sample size is small by definition, making reliable sampling approaches of the overall population, such as randomisation, nearly impossible. Gerring (2007) states: “In statistical terms, the problem is that small sample sizes tend to produce estimate with a great deal of variance - sometimes referred to as a problem of precision” (p. 87). In that sense, random sampling is not possible for this thesis, which advocates for a small-N. Nonetheless, the aim of selecting cases for this thesis is to investigate variation, helping to highlight possible inferences towards the research question. In respect to my sample size-N, the four cities represent a viable solution. They offer this thesis a comparison of four cities, each with a different outcome, yet all related with the FFDM and their approach to spread divestment. Furthermore, the distinction between quantitative and qualitative analysis further defines the case selection process of this thesis. The necessary conditions for a quantitative analysis are not evident for the proposed sample size-15 N and therefore, a qualitative approach is used instead. Most commonly, researchers concerned with case study research employ one of these nine types: typical, diverse, extreme, deviant influential, crucial, pathway, most-similar, and most different (Gerring, 2007).
Ultimately, the typical and most-similar variant are viable options for this thesis. Nonetheless, the typical case variant delivers a better starting situation in comparison for the following reasons. The most-similar method requires at least two cases and if chosen the pair of cases are similar in all aspects except or the variable´s of interest (Gerring, 2007). This basis is
In German: Köln 13
Also referred as “judgement sample” (Marshall, 1996) 14
Gerring identifies three requirements for quantitative (statistical) case-selection: inferences must include more than 15
several cases, relevant data must be available for the population (or significant sample size) and statistical research needs observable considerations for identification, specification and robustness (Gerring, 2007).
