Search

Public policies implemented to flatten the curve of COVID-19 infections created unprecedented challenges for social movements. Most striking was the de facto temporary suspension of the right to as...

Dieser Beitrag präsentiert erste Einblicke in eine Organisationsbefragung zur Auswirkung der COVID-19 Pandemie auf Vereine und Initiativen in Deutschland. Die Studie unterstreicht, dass die Zivilgesellschaft mit großer Wucht getroffen wurde und weitreichende, negative Auswirkungen der Pandemie zu verzeichnen sind. Dennoch zeigen die Ergebnisse ebenfalls, dass sich Teile der Zivilgesellschaft der pandemischen Entwicklung anpassen und ihre Handlungsfähigkeit aufrechterhalten konnten. Besonderes Augenmerk wird in dem Beitrag auf Muster der (De-)Aktivierung sowie die Digitalisierung zivilgesellschaftlicher Akteure in der Krise gelegt. This article presents preliminary findings of a survey conducted among civil society organizations in Germany on the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings of this research document widespread and profound negative consequences. Yet, the data also shows that parts of civil society were able to adapt their activities to the pandemic situation and maintained their ability to act. In particular, this article focusses on patterns of (de-)activation and the digitalization of civil society actors during the crisis.

As an Introduction to the Debate section that follows, this article develops the concept of ‘Networks of Labour Activism’ (NOLA) as a distinct, and important, aspect of cross-border, cross-organizational mobilization of workers, trade unions and other organizations and groups. NOLAs are seen as different from traditional labour activist networks in that they are neither solely connected to the position of labour in production processes, nor wholly reliant on the soft and discursive power of advocacy coalitions. The authors understand NOLAs to be characterized by the interaction of different types of labour rights, social movement and community organizations, joining forces in complex forms of strategizing vis-a-vis multiple targets. Thus, cross-boundary strategizing (across organizational and geographical divides) is seen as a basic characteristic of NOLAs. The authors argue that NOLAs continue to be deeply embedded in political-economic contexts of the state and global value chains, and alliance formation reflects the peculiar vulnerabilities and constraints resulting from this embeddedness. This Introduction draws on multiple studies of NOLAs from around the world, but its main focus is on some of those Asian countries which are at the centre of global supply chain capitalism and labour exploitation, and which have become the laboratory for new forms of networked worker agency and activism.

This contribution discusses trajectories of labour power in the making. Taking a practice theory perspective on power, and focusing on the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, the author asks how Bangladeshi trade unions are attempting to use changes in the industrial landscape after the factory collapse of Rana Plaza in 2013 to constitute different power sources. The article challenges assumptions in power resource theories that associational, institutional and social-cultural power are pre-existing factors, arguing that trade unions have to co-construct and enact those power sources in order for them to become meaningful. The article contributes to the debate on Networks of Labour Activism (NOLA) by showing that networked interactions with global unions and other labour support organizations help to construct power in an incremental way through information sharing, claim reframing, increasing social recognition, and the construction of a ‘shadow of protection’ for trade unions. But it also points out new limitations resulting from managerial and political resistance, which aims to contain and reverse the growing power of labour. The Bangladesh Accord is a double-edged sword: on the one hand it provides unions with new opportunities for developing strategic capabilities, while on the other hand it is used by powerful domestic actors to discredit trade unions and mobilize workers against the constraints of the Accord.

In the context of continuing political, social, and economic crises, trade unions in most European countries are seen as weakened, protest as having little influence, and the solidarity between European populations as damaged. Under these circumstances, scientists and practitioners have placed hope in the cooperation of social movements and trade unions in order to revitalise trade unions and achieve common goals. However, the conditions for forming alliances between trade unions and social movement organisations have, thus far, been primarily researched, and partially theorised, from the point of view of different disciplines. In doing so, approaches that emphasise the strategic alignment with resources and context diverge from approaches that highlight the relevance and necessity of shared ideologies or identities. This contribution aims to bring existing approaches from movement and industrial relations research into dialogue with each other and calls for a further integration of both perspectives. It contributes to a more holistic understanding of joint movement and trade union action current concepts such as social movement unionism cannot provide. It uses two examples to show that instrumental, strategy-driven modes and identity-based, culturally-driven modes of cooperation are not contradictory. There are situations in which strategic decisions on resources and political influence are more decisive than ideological proximity and vice versa. These findings are of social and scientific relevance for understanding mechanisms of solidarity construction and processes of bridging differences even in increasingly fragmented and unequal societies., Im Kontext anhaltender politischer, sozialer und ökonomischer Krisen gelten Gewerkschaften in den meisten europäischen Ländern als geschwächt, Protest als wenig einflussreich und der Zusammenhalt zwischen europäischen Bevölkerungen als beschädigt. Um Gewerkschaften zu revitalisieren und gemeinsame Ziele zu erreichen, wird von Wissenschaft und Praxis Hoffnung in die Kooperation von sozialen Bewegungen und Gewerkschaften gesetzt. Allerdings wurden die Entstehungsbedingungen von Allianzen zwischen Gewerkschaften und sozialen Bewegungsorganisationen bisher nur aus der Sicht der jeweiligen Disziplin erforscht und theoretisiert. Dabei stehen sich Ansätze gegenüber, die entweder strategische Ausrichtung auf Ressourcen und Kontext betonen oder die Relevanz und Notwendigkeit geteilter Ideologien oder Identitäten hervorheben. Dieser Artikel bringt Bewegungs- und industrielle Beziehungsforschung miteinander in Dialog und fordert eine Integration beider Ansätze. Er leistet damit einen Beitrag zu einem holistischeren Verständnis von gemeinsamem Bewegungs- und Gewerkschaftshandeln, was von bisherigen Konzepten wie dem "social movement unionism" nicht geleistet wird. An zwei Beispielen zeigt der Beitrag, dass instrumentelle, strategie-zentrierte und kulturbezogene, identitätsbasierte Kooperation keine Gegensätze sind. Es gibt jedoch Situationen, in denen strategische Entscheidungen über Ressourcen und politischen Einfluss entscheidender sind als ideologische Nähe und vice versa. Erkenntnisse über Mechanismen der Solidarisierung und Überbrückung von Unterschieden sind gerade in zunehmend fragmentierten Gesellschaften von wissenschaftlicher und gesellschaftlicher Bedeutung.

This contribution conceptualizes the politicization of MNCs from outside – the processes by which MNCs become confronted with demands for regulation and engage in political contestation with other non-state actors. It compares two global industries, athletic footwear and toys, to show that the dynamics of politicization follow different trajectories, which are only partially to explain with structural differences across industry fields. If politicization leads to increasing political functioning of business or to a depoliticization of criticism depends to a great extend on the agency of business and their capacity to strategically counter mobilization, but also on the difficulties for activist to construct continuing collective action across a diverse range of cultural-institutional settings.

This article examines the neglected question of workers’ voice in the transnational governance of labour rights. While governance studies often neglect worker's agency and labour studies focus on strikes or collective bargaining, this article takes the theoretical lenses of recursivity to explore and compare new channels for worker participation that developed in the context of transnational governance schemes. Taking the example of the Fair Labor Association, a prominent multistakeholder initiative in the garment industry, the article distinguishes between three channels: workers’ surveys during audits, complaint procedures, and local grievance mediation. Despite the fact that such opportunities count as key innovations for the participation of labour in transnational governance, statistical and qualitative data from FLA's factory audits and self-conducted interviews show that locally situated actors, especially workers, are only occasionally able to make their voice heard in formally open channels. The article identifies two main sources of constraints: the first is workers’ lack of knowledge of these channels and distrust towards these procedures. This is tied, secondly, to the more fundamental problem that business continues to have interpretative power over the nature of the problems and solutions in transnational labour governance.

Zusammenfassung Am 7. und 8. Juli 2017 fand in Hamburg das zwölfte Treffen der Gruppe der zwanzig wichtigsten Industrie- und Schwellenl änder (G20) statt. Gemeinsam mit dem Forschungszentrum Ungleichheit und Sozialpolitik (Socium) und dem Göttinger Institut für Demokratieforschung (GIfD) haben Wissenschaftler_innen des Instituts für Protest- und Bewegungsforschung eine Befragung der Protestierenden für zwei zentrale Demonstrationszüge durchgeführt: die bereits für den 2. Juli, also am Wochenende vor dem offiziellen Gipfel, angesetzte Demonstration „G20 Protestwelle“, zu der vor allem Umweltorganisationen, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen und das Mobilisierungsnetzwerk Campact aufgerufen hatten, sowie die Abschlussdemonstration am 8. Juli mit dem Titel „Grenzenlose Solidarit ät statt G20!“, für die ein Bündnis linker, überwiegend antikapitalistischer Organisationen und Parteien warb. Es werden zentrale Ergebnisse der Studie dargestellt, wobei insbesondere der Frage nachgegangen wird, ob sich die Protestierenden nicht doch ähnlicher sind, als die unterschiedliche Charakterisierung der beiden Demonstrationen suggeriert. Erleben wir ein erneutes Aufleben der globalisierungskritischen Bewegung oder eher eine Parallelit ät einzelner Protestereignisse, die keinen gemeinsamen Nenner mehr besitzen? Diesen Fragen wird nachgegangen, indem die Motive, Überzeugungen und Einstellungen der Protestierenden in den Mittelpunkt der Untersuchung gestellt werden. Damit ist diese Studie auch ein Gegengewicht zu der öffentlichen Fokussierung auf die den Gipfel begleitende Gewalt.