The Fridays For Future movement and their global climate strikes put climate change on political agendas worldwide and created a new wave of climate activism. The emergence of a global movement is a rare and contingent phenomenon that promises insights for political sociology and globalization research. This study consists of a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of 17 democratic countries to analyze the conditions for strong mobilization of the third global climate strike. Four mechanisms are identified, showing that trust in environmental movements, the availability of resources through international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) and information and communication technologies (ICT), and frame resonance are sufficient for explaining strong mobilization. These results illustrate that global movements depend on several equifinal mechanisms for mobilization on the nation-state level. Furthermore, the findings illustrate that the global features of a global movement are necessary but not sufficient for explaining its emergence.
AlexanderJC (2005) ‘Globalization’ as collective representation: The new dream of a cosmopolitan civil sphere. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society19: 81–90.
3.
AlexanderJC (2006) The Civil Sphere. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
AnduizaECristanchoCSabucedoJM (2014) Mobilization through online social networks: The political protest of the indignados in Spain. Information, Communication & Society17(6): 750–764.
5.
AnheierHKStaresS (2002) Introducing the Global Civil Society Index. In: GlasiusMAnheierHKKaldorM (eds) The Global Civil Society Yearbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 241–254.
BoliJLoyaTALoftinT (1999) National participation in world-polity organizations. In: BoliJThomasGM (eds) Constructing World Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 50–77.
10.
BuechlerSM (2004) The strange career of strain and breakdown theories of collective action. In: SnowDASouleSAKriesiH (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Malden, Oxford and Carlton: Blackwell, 47–66.
11.
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft and Institut für Friedenssicherungsrecht und Humanitäres Völkerrecht (2019a) Methodological Notes of the WorldRiskIndex. Available at: https://weltrisikobericht.de/ (accessed 7 July 2020).
12.
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft and Institut für Friedenssicherungsrecht und Humanitäres Völkerrecht (2019b) WeltRisikoBericht 2019. Available at: https://weltrisikobericht.de/
13.
CaradonnaJL (2016) Sustainability. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
CastellsM (2008) The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication, networks, and global governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science616: 78–93.
15.
DaltonRJ (2005) The greening of the globe? Crossnational levels of environmental group membership. Environmental Politics14(4): 441–459.
16.
DaphiP (2017) Becoming a Movement. London and New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.
17.
Della PortaD (2019) Global movements. In: JuergensmeyerMSassenSStegerMB (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Global Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 715–729.
18.
Díaz-ParraIJover-BáezJ (2016) Social movements in crisis? From the 15-M movement to the electoral shift in Spain. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy36(9/10): 680–694.
19.
DurkheimE (1968) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. London: Allen & Unwin.
20.
EarlJ (2015) The future of social movement organizations: The waning dominance of SMOs online. American Behavioral Scientist59(1): 35–52.
21.
EarlJHuntJGarrettRK, et al. (2015) New technologies and social movements. In: Della PortaDDianiM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 355–366.
22.
EderK (1996) The institutionalization of environmentalism: Ecological discourse and the second transformation of the public sphere In: LashSSzerszynskiBWynneB (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage, 203–223.
23.
EisenstadtSNGiesenB (1995) The construction of collective identity. European Journal of Sociology36: 72–102.
24.
EisingerPK (1973) The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. The American Political Science Review67(1): 11–28.
GamsonWA (1975) The Strategy of Social Protest. Chicago: The Dorsey Press.
28.
GiddensA (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
29.
GoertzGMahoneyJ (2012) A Tale of Two Cultures. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
30.
HabermasJ (2006) Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory16: 411–426.
31.
HartAKMcMichaelPMilderJC, et al. (2016) Multi-functional landscapes from the grassroots? The role of rural producer movements. Agriculture and Human Values33(2): 305–322.
32.
HaunssSRuchtDSommerM, et al. (2019) Germany. In: WahlströmMKocybaPVydtMD, et al. (eds) Protest for a Future: Composition, Mobilization and Motives of the Participants in Fridays For Future Climate Protests on 15 March, 2019 in 13 European Cities. Berlin: Institut für Protest- und Bewegungsforschung, 68–80.
33.
HeijdenH-AVD (2005) Ecological restoration, environmentalism and the Dutch politics of ‘new nature’. Environmental Values14: 427–446.
JaskoskiM (2014) Environmental licensing and conflict in Peru’s mining sector: A path-dependent analysis. World Development64: 873–883.
36.
JenkinsJC (1983) Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology9: 527–553.
37.
KernT (2008) Soziale Bewegungen. Ursachen, Wirkungen, Mechanismen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
38.
KernT (2010) Translating global values into national contexts: The rise of enviromentalism in South Korea. International Sociology25(6): 869–896.
39.
KernTNamS (2013) From ‘corruption’ to ‘democracy’: Cultural values, mobilization, and the collective identity of the occupy movement. Journal of Civil Society9(2): 196–211.
40.
KitscheltH (1986) Political opportunity structures and political protest: Nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science16: 57–85.
41.
KousisMDella PortaDJiménezM (2008) Southern European environmental movements in comparative perspective. American Behavioral Scientist51(11): 1627–1647.
42.
LechnerFBoliJ (2005) World Culture: Origins and Consequences. Malden, Oxford and Carlton: Blackwell.
43.
LonghoferWSchoferEMiricN, et al. (2016) NGOs, INGOs, and environmental policy reform, 1970–2010. Social Forces94(4): 1743–1768.
44.
MackieJL (1974) The Cement of the Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
MahoneyJ (2000) Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society29: 507–548.
46.
MahoneyJGoertzG (2004) The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review98(4): 653–669.
47.
MayntzR (2004) Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences34(2): 237–259.
48.
McAdamD (1982) Political Process and the Development of the Black Insurgency 1930–1970. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
49.
McAdamDBoudetHSDavisJ, et al. (2010) ‘Site fights’: Explaining opposition to pipeline projects in the developing world. Sociological Forum25(3): 401–427.
50.
McAdamDMcCarthyJDZaldMN (1996) Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes – Towards a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In: McAdamDMcCarthyJDZaldMN (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1–20.
51.
McAdamDTarrowSTillyC (2001) Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
McCarthyJDZaldMN (1977) Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology82(6): 1212–1241.
53.
MeyerDSWhittierN (1994) Social movement spillover. Social Problems41(2): 277–298.
54.
MeyerJW (2007) Globalization: Theory and trends. International Journal of Comparative Sociology48(4): 261–273.
55.
MeyerJWBoliJThomasGM, et al. (1997a) World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology103: 144–181.
56.
MeyerJWFrankDJHironakaA, et al. (1997b) The structuring of a world environmental regime, 1870–1990. International Organization51(4): 623–651.
PrzeworskiATeuneH (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York, London, Toronto and Sydney: Wiley-Interscience.
59.
RaginCC (1987) The Comparative Method. Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
60.
RaginCC (2000) Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
61.
RaginCCDaveyS (2009) fs/QCA, Version 2.5. Tuscon: University of Arizona.
62.
RaginCCFissPC (2008) Net effects versus configurations. In: RaginCC (ed.) Redesigning Social Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 190–212.
63.
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. New York: United Nations.
64.
RobertsonR (1992) Globalization. Social Theory and Global Culture. London, Newbury Park and New Delhi: Sage.
65.
RobertsonR (2007) Glocalization. In: RobertsonRScholteJA (eds) Encyclopedia of Globalization, 2. F to M. London and New York: Routledge, 545–548.
66.
RuchtD (1999) The impact of environmental movements in western societies. In: GiugniMMcAdamDTillyC (eds) How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 204–224.
67.
RuchtD (2019) Faszinosum Fridays For Future. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte47/48: 4–9.
68.
RuchtDNeidhardtF (2002) Towards a ‘movement society’? On the possibilities of institutionalizing social movements. Social Movement Studies1(1): 7–30.
69.
RuchtDRooseJ (2003) Germany. In: RootesC (ed.) Environmental Protest in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 80–108.
SchneibergM (2013) Institutional theory and social movements. In: SnowDADella PortaDKlandermansB, et al. (eds) The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, 2. F-Pe. Malden, Oxford and Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 1–5.
72.
SchneiderCQWagemannC (2012) Set Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
73.
SmelserNJ (1962) Theory of Collective Behavior. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
74.
SmithJFetnerT (2010) Structural approaches in the sociology of social movements. In: KlandermansBRoggebandC (eds) Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines. New York: Springer, 13–57.
75.
SnowDABenfordRD (1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research1: 197–217.
76.
SommerMHaunssS (2020) Fridays For Future. Eine Erfolgsgeschichte vor neuen Herausforderungen. In: HaunssSSommerM (eds) Fridays For Future – Die Jugend gegen den Klimawandel. Bielefeld: Transcript, 237–252.
77.
SzerszynskiBLashSWynneB (1996) Introduction: Ecology, realism and the social sciences. In: LashSSzerszynskiBWynneB (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage, 1–26.
78.
TarrowS (2001) Transnational politics: Contention and institutions in international politics. Annual Review of Political Science4: 1–20.
79.
TarrowS (2005) The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80.
TarrowS (2010) Dynamics of Diffusion. In: GivanRKRobertsKMSouleSA (eds) The Diffusion of Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 204–219.
TsuitsuiK (2006) Redressing past human rights violations: Global dimension of contemporary social movements. Social Forces85(1): 331–354.
84.
Union of International Associations (2008) Yearbook of International Organizations, Vol. 5. München: Saur.
85.
United Nations (2015) Paris Agreement. New York: United Nations.
86.
VerhulstJ (2010) February 15, 2003: The world says no to war. In: WalgraveSRuchtD (eds) The World Says No to War. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1–19.
87.
WahlströmMSommerMKocybaP, et al. (2019) Fridays For Future: A generation of climate activism. In: WahlströmMKocybaPDe VydtM, et al. (eds) Protest for a Future: Composition, Mobilization and Motives of the Participants in Fridays For Future Climate Protests on 15 March, 2019 in 13 European Cities. Berlin: Institut für Protest- und Bewegungsforschung, 5–17.
88.
WalgraveSRuchtD (2010) The World Says No to War. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
89.
WhittierN (2007) The consequences of social movements for each other. In: SnowDASouleSAKriesiH (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Malden, Oxford and Victoria: Blackwell, 531–551.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
