Focusing on social movement organizations (SMOs) in the Czech Republic, this article explores the level of transnational activism of these actors. Although knowledge exists on domestic interest groups’ choice of European Union (EU) venues for lobbying, the influence of EU funding on protest and public campaigning by actors such as SMOs remains under-studied. We show what the level of transnationalization of SMOs is, what types of transnational strategies SMOs employ, and what explains these choices. Specifically, the article examines the effect the EU has had on Czech SMOs. We are interested in whether EU funding contributed to their de-radicalization and co-optation by the political elite, or rather empowered them to engage in transnational protest. The results of our analysis support the empowerment hypothesis.
AlberJHoltmannACMarquardtS (2011) Are there visible accession effects? Comparing some key indicators of the trajectories of Central and Eastern European countries inside and outside the EU since the 1990s. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review47(3): 473–506.
2.
BellRG (2004) Further up the learning curve: NGOs from transition to Brussels. Environmental Politics13(1): 194–215.
3.
BernhagenPMarshM (2007) Voting and protesting: Explaining citizen participation in old and new European democracies. Democratization14(1): 44–72.
4.
BeyersJ (2002) Gaining and seeking access: The European adaptation of domestic interest associations. European Journal of Political Research41: 585–612.
5.
BeyersJKerremansB (2007) Critical resource dependencies and the Europeanization of domestic interest groups. Journal of European Public Policy14(3): 460–481.
6.
BeyersJKerremansB (2011) Domestic embeddedness and the dynamics of multilevel venue shopping in four EU member states. Governance25: 263–290.
7.
BörzelTBuzogányA (2010) Environmental organizations and the Europeanisation of public policy in Central and Eastern Europe: The case of biodiversity governance. Environmental Politics19(5): 708–735.
8.
BrooksAC (2000) Is there a dark side to government support for nonprofits?Public Administration Review60(3): 211–218.
9.
BrownLKTrouttE (2004) Funding relations between nonprofits and governments: A positive example. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly33(5): 5–27.
10.
Bruszt L and Vedrés B (2012) Local developmental agency from without. MS under review.
11.
CallananM (2011) EU decision-making: Reinforcing interest group relationships with national governments?Journal of European Public Policy18(1): 17–34.
12.
CarminJVanDeveerS (2004) Enlarging EU environments: Central and East Europe from transitions to accession. Environmental Politics13(1): 3–24.
13.
ChavescMStephensLGalaskiewiczJ (2004) Does government funding suppress nonprofits’ political activity?American Sociological Review69: 292–316.
14.
CísařO (2010) Externally-sponsored contention: The channelling of environmental movement organisations in the Czech Republic after the fall of Communism. Environmental Politics19(5): 736–755.
15.
CísařOVráblíkováK (2010) The Europeanization of social movements in the Czech Republic: The EU and local women’s groups. Communist and Post-Communist Studies43(2): 209–219.
16.
CísařONavrátilJVráblíkováK (2011) Staří, noví, radikální: Politický aktivismus v České republice očima teorie sociálních hnutí [Old, new, radical: Political activism in the Czech Republic through the prism of social movement theory]. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review47(1): 137–167.
17.
DaltonRJ(2008) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Washington, DC: CQ Press.
18.
Della PortaDCaianiM(2009) Social Movements and Europeanization, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
Della PortaDDianiM(2006) Social Movements. An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.
20.
Della PortaDTarrowD(2005) Transnational Protest and Global Activism, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
21.
Della PortaDAndrettaMMoscaL(2006) Globalization from Below. Transnational Activists and Protest Networks, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
22.
DianiMMcAdamD(2003) Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
DohertyB (2006) Friends of the Earth International: Negotiating a North–South identity. Environmental Politics15(5): 860–880.
24.
EisingR (2007) The access of business interests to EU institutions: Toward elite pluralism?Journal of European Public Policy14(3): 384–403.
25.
FaganA(2004) Environment and Democracy in the Czech Republic: The Environmental Movement in the Transition Process, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
26.
FaganA (2005) Taking stock of civil-society development in post-Communist Europe: Evidence from the Czech Republic. Democratization12(4): 528–547.
27.
FairbrassJJordanA (2001) Protecting biodiversity in the European Union: National barriers and European opportunities. Journal of European Public Policy8(4): 499–518.
28.
FlamH(2001) Pink, Purple, Green: Women’s, Religious, Environmental, and Gay/Lesbian Movements in Central Europe Today, Boulder, CO: East European Monographs.
29.
FroelichKA (1999) Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly28(3): 246–268.
30.
GazleyBBrudneyJL (2007) The purpose (and perils) of government–nonprofit partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly36(3): 389–415.
31.
GreenwoodJ(2007) Interest Representation in the European Union, London: Palgrave.
32.
GreenwoodJ(2010) Regulating NGO participation in the EU: A de-facto accreditation system built on ‘representativeness’? In: SteffekJHahnK (eds) Evaluating Transnational NGOs: Legitimacy, Accountability, Representation, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 200–219.
33.
HallstromL (2004) Eurocratising enlargement? EU elites and NGO participation in European environmental policy. Environmental Politics13(1): 175–193.
34.
HaškováH (2005) Czech women’s civic organising under the state socialist regime, socio-economic transformation and the EU accession period. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review41(6): 1077–1110.
35.
HicksB (2004) Setting agendas and shaping activism: EU influence on Central and Eastern European environmental movements. Environmental Politics13(1): 216–233.
36.
HowardMM(2003) The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
HoogheLMarksG(2001) Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
38.
HoxJ(2002) Multilevel Analysis. Techniques and Applications, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39.
ImigDTarrowS(2001) Contentious Europeans. Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
40.
JenkinsCJ(1998) Channeling social protest: Foundation patronage of contemporary social movements. In: PowelWWClemensE (eds) Private Action and the Public Good, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 206–216.
41.
KeckMSikkinkK(1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
42.
KlüverH (2010) Europeanization of lobbying activities: When national interest groups spill over to the European level. European Integration32(2): 175–191.
43.
KriesiHTreschAJochumM (2007) Western European collective political actors going public in the European Union: Action repertoires of Western European collective political actors. Comparative Political Studies40(1): 48–73.
44.
McCarthyJZaldM (1977) Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology82(6): 1212–1241.
45.
McMahonP (2001) Building civil societies in East Central Europe: The effects of American non-governmental organizations on women’s groups. Democratization8(2): 45–68.
46.
MahoneyC (2004) The power of institutions: State and interest group activity in the European Union. European Union Politics5(4): 442–466.
47.
MahoneyCBeckstrandM (2011) Following the money: European Union funding of civil society organizations. Journal of Common Market Studies49(6): 1339–1361.
48.
MarksG(1993) Structural policy and multi-level governance in the European Community. In: CafrunyARosenthalG (eds) The State of the European Community II: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 391–410.
49.
MarksGMcAdamD(1999) On the relationship of political opportunities to the form of collective action: The case of the European Union. In: Della PortaDKriesiHRuchtD (eds) Social Movements in a Globalizing World, New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 97–111.
50.
MarksGHoogheLBlankK (1996) European integration from the 1980s: State-centric v. multi-level governance. Journal of Common Market Studies34(3): 341–378.
51.
MeyerDS (2003) Political opportunity and nested institutions. Social Movement Studies2(1): 17–35.
52.
MeyerDSCorrigall-BrownC (2005) Coalitions and political context: U.S. movements against wars in Iraq. Mobilization10(3): 327–346.
53.
MeyerDSTarrowS(1998) The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
54.
NarozhnaT (2004) Foreign aid for a post-euphoric Eastern Europe: The limitations of Western assistance in developing civil society. Journal of International Relations and Development7: 243–266.
55.
Poloni-StaudingerLM (2008) The domestic opportunity structure and supranational activity: An explanation of environmental group activity at the European Union level. European Union Politics9(4): 531–558.
56.
RohrschneiderRDaltonRJ (2002) A global network? Transnational cooperation among environmental groups. Journal of Politics64(2): 510–533.
57.
RueschemeyerDRueschemeyerMWittrockB(1998) Participation and Democracy East and West: Comparisons and Interpretations, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe Inc.
58.
SaxonbergS(2003) The Czech Republic before the New Millennium: Politics, Parties and Gender, Boulder, CO: East European Monographs.
59.
SnowDSouleSA(2010) A Primer on Social Movements, New York: W.W. Norton.
60.
StarkDBalazsVBrusztL (2006) Rooted transnational publics: Integrating foreign ties and civic activism. Theory and Society35(3): 323–349.
61.
TarrowS(2004) Center–periphery alignments and political contention in late-modern Europe. In: AnsellCPalmaG (eds) Restructuring Territoriality: Europe and the United States Compared, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–64.
62.
TarrowS(2005) The New Transnational Activism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63.
TarrowSPetrovaT (2007) Transactional and participatory activism in the emerging European polity: The puzzle of East Central Europe. Comparative Political Studies40(1): 74–94.
64.
TeuneS(2010) The Transnational Condition. Protest Dynamics in an Entangled Europe, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
65.
TillyC(1995) Popular Contention in Great Britain 1758–1834, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
66.
TillyC(2008) Contentious Performances, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ToeplerSSalamonLM (2003) NGO development in Central and Eastern Europe: An empirical overview. East European Quarterly37(3): 365–378.
69.
VerbaSNieNNKimJ(1978) Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Comparison, New York: Cambridge University Press.
70.
VermeerschP(2006) The Romani Movement. Minority Politics and Ethnic Mobilization in Contemporary Central Europe, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
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.
