Special Issue on “Online Collective Action and Policy Change”

The Internet has multiplied the platforms available to influence public opinion and policymaking. It has also provided citizens with a greater capacity for coordination and mobilization, which can strengthen their voice and representation in the policy agenda. As waves of protest sweep both authoritarian regimes and liberal democracies, this rapidly developing field calls for more detailed inquiry. However, research exploring the relationship between online mobilization and policy change is still limited. This special issue of Policy & Internet addresses this gap through a variety of perspectives. Contributions to this issue view the Internet both as a tool that allows citizens to influence policymaking, and as an object of new policies and regulations, such as data retention, privacy, and copyright laws, around which citizens are mobilizing. Together, these articles offer a comprehensive empirical account of the interface between online collective action and policymaking. Previous research has disproved the notion held by political elites—and some researchers—that collective action resides outside of policymaking processes, and is limited in generating a response from government. The literature on the history of social movements is rich in examples of campaigns that have successfully influenced public policy. Classic works have proved how major reforms can start as a consequence of civic mobilizations, as Gamson (1975) shows with his comprehensive account that explores more than 50 mobilizations in the United States over almost 150 years of American history. In the same vein, Tarrow (1993) has argued that the French mobilizations in May 1968 had an impact on reforms to the educational system in France, while Giugni (2004) has provided a historical overview of the influence of collective action within policy debates on environmental, national security, and peace issues. However, social movement research has traditionally paid more attention to the process rather than the outcomes of mobilizations (Giugni, 2004). The difficulty of identifying the consequences of collective action and the factors that contribute to its success (Della Porta & Diani, 2006; Giugni, 2004; Skrentny, 2006) may lie behind this tendency. As Gamson (1975) argues, the notion of success is elusive and can be most usefully defined with reference to a set of outcomes; these may include the new advantages gained by the group's beneficiaries after a challenge with targets, or they may refer to the status of the challenging group and its legitimacy. As for the factors determining success, some scholars believe that collective action is likely to succeed when its claims are close to the aims of political elites. Others, like Kriesi (1995), note that government responses depend on the forms and tactics of contentious politics. Activists occupy different positions on the spectrum between radical and reformist, which in turn affects their willingness to engage with policymakers (Tarrow, 2004). For instance, movements pursuing a type of “prefigurative” politics tend to avoid direct contact with policymakers, focusing instead on building alternatives which “prefigure” the values that they would like to see on a grander scale (Polletta, 2002). The Internet has raised new questions around the outcomes of collective action and its interface with policymaking. Internet governance constitutes a new source of contentious politics, while the use of the Internet for the organization of protest influences the forms of contemporary collective action. As a tool of collective action, the Internet facilitates the rapid organization of protests around issues of public concern (Castells, 2009). Mobilizations can be organized without a formal hierarchy in place, and spread easily as online networking helps the creation of flexible “opt-in/opt-out” coalitions (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012). Information about protest can diffuse through online interpersonal networks and alternative media, and can capture the attention of mainstream news outlets. In addition, the Internet has expanded the “repertoire of contention” of current movements. Petitions, direct action, and occupations now have their online counterparts with tactics such as email bombings, DDoS attacks, and e-petitions (Van Aelst & Van Laer, 2010; Zuckerman et al., 2010). The affordances of online tools are thought to be affecting the characteristics of collective action and thus its capacities for policy change. Compared to past mobilizations, current movements tend to be more decentralized and flexible, constituted by loose coalitions between a plurality of actors. They are also more inclusive, addressing a diverse and at times incongruent combination of issues. Online mobilizations tend to have a more temporary and fleeting character as they can emerge and dissolve with equal speed; they are also more global in nature, since they can scale up easily and at a low cost (Della Porta, 2005). At the same time, the Internet has facilitated the rise of a new “hybrid” (Chadwick, 2007) type of civil society actor who combines traditional tactics, such as petitioning, with the more flexible forms of organizing favored by less institutional groups. Organizations like MoveOn in the United States, Avaaz on the transnational level, and GetUp! in Australia (on which the contribution by Vromen and Coleman in this issue focuses) use the power of the Internet to influence policymakers (Kavada, 2012). The Internet helps such organizations to operate at a very low cost, which in turn allows them to be flexible and easily switch the focus of campaigns around issues that capture the public interest (Karpf, 2012). As an object of policy, the Internet has become in itself a source of new contentious politics (Calderaro, 2011). Melucci (1996) argues that research on collective action should pay attention to the new types of inequality that generate contentious politics, rather than restricting its focus to the forms of mobilizations. Studies of online collective action should thus consider the Internet not only as a tool for practicing politics but also as a new “dominant discourse” which produces new claims and inequalities. This opens new “windows of opportunities” (Kriesi, 1995) for collective action to play an important role in policy-making on Internet-related issues. Within this framework, an increasing body of research is addressing collective action around the governance of the Internet (Brousseau, Marzouki, & Méadel, 2012), the regulation of free and open software (Coleman, 2012), privacy and data retention (Mayer-Schönberger, 2011), and file sharing and copyright issues (Benkler, 2006; Lessig, 2006). In this line of inquiry, the first two articles included in this special issue (Breindl & Briatte, 2013; Milan & Hintz, 2013) discuss the relationship between collective action and policy change within this new policymaking arena. Whether and to what extent these new types of actors and mobilizations organized through and around the Internet can have an effect on policymaking is an issue requiring further research. For instance, the decentralized and temporary character of some movements and their lack of clearly identified leaders and spokespersons can make it difficult for activists to become incorporated in policymaking processes. New types of “hybrid” actors may encounter problems in establishing themselves as legitimate representatives of public opinion. In addition, new online tactics like e-petitions, which require limited time and commitment from participants, tend to have a weaker impact on policymakers. At the same time, the technical nature of Internet regulation complicates efforts to influence public opinion due to the degree of knowledge necessary for the lay public to understand the issues at stake. Within this framework, the first article in this issue, “Networked Collective Action and the Institutionalized Policy Debate: Bringing Cyberactivism to the Policy Arena?” by Milan and Hintz (2013), looks at the Internet as both a tool of collective action and an object of policy. The authors provide a comprehensive overview of how computer-mediated communication creates not only new forms of organizational structure for collective action, but also new contentious policy fields. By focusing on what the authors define as “techies activists,” Milan and Hintz explore how new grassroots actors participate in policy debates around the governance of the Internet at different levels. This article provides empirical evidence to what Kriesi et al. (1995) define as “windows of opportunities” for collective action to contribute to the policy debate around this new space of contentious politics. Milan and Hintz demonstrate how this has happened from the first World Summit of Information Society (WSIS) in 2003 to more recent debates about Internet regulation. Breindl and Briatte's (2013) article “Digital Protest Skills and Online Activism Against Copyright Reform in France and the European Union” complements Milan and Hintz's analysis by looking at how the regulation of copyright issues opens up new spaces of contentious politics. The authors compare how online and offline initiatives and campaigns in France around the “Droit d'Auteur et les Droits Voisins dans la Société de l'Information” (DADVSI) and “Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet” (HADOPI) laws, and in Europe around the Telecoms Package Reform, have contributed to the deliberations within the European Union Parliament. They thus add to the rich debate on the contentious issues of intellectual property rights, demonstrating how collective action contributes to this debate at the European level. The remaining articles in this special issue focus more on the online tactics and strategies of collective actors and the opportunities opened by the Internet for them to influence policymakers. In her article, “Activism and the Online Mediation Opportunity Structure: Attempts to Impact Global Climate Change Policies?” Uldam (2013) discusses the tactics used by London-based environmental activists to influence policymaking during the 17th UN climate conference (COP17) in 2011. Based on ethnographic research, Uldam traces the relationship between online modes of action and problem identification and demands. She also discusses the differences between radical and reformist activists in both their preferences for online action and their attitudes toward policymakers. Drawing on Cammaerts' (2012) framework of the mediation opportunity structure, Uldam shows that radical activists preferred online tactics that aimed at disrupting the conference, since they viewed COP17 as representative of an unjust system. However, their lack of technical skills and resources prevented them from disrupting the conference in the virtual realm. Reformist activists, on the other hand, considered COP17 as a legitimate adversary, and attempted to influence its politics mainly through the diffusion of alternative information online. The article by Vromen and Coleman (2013) “Online Campaigning Organizations and Storytelling Strategies: GetUp! in Australia,” also investigates a climate change campaign but shifts the focus to the new “hybrid” collective actors, who use the Internet extensively for campaigning. Based on a case study of GetUp!, Vromen and Coleman examine the storytelling strategies employed by the organization in two separate campaigns, one around climate change, the other around mental health. The authors investigate the factors that led one campaign to be successful and the other to have limited resonance. They also skillfully highlight the difficulties encountered by new collective actors to gain legitimacy and influence policymaking. In this respect, GetUp! used storytelling to set itself apart from traditional party-based politics and to emphasize its identity as an organizer and representative of grassroots communities, rather than as an insider lobbyist or disruptive protestor. Badouard and Monnoyer-Smith (2013), in their article “Hyperlinks as Political Resources: The European Commission Confronted with Online Activism,” explore some of the more structured ways in which citizens use online tools to engage with policymakers. They investigate the political opportunities offered by the e-participation and e-government platforms of the European Commission for activists wishing to make their voice heard in the European policymaking sphere. They focus particularly on strategic uses of web technical resources and hyperlinks, which allow citizens to refine their proposals and thus increase their influence on European policy. Finally, Bates' (2013) article “The Domestication of Open Government Data Advocacy in the United Kingdom: A Neo-Gramscian Analysis” provides a pertinent framework that facilitates our understanding of the policy challenges posed by the issue of open data. The digitization of data offers new opportunities for increasing transparency that is; traditionally considered a fundamental public good. By focusing on the Open Data Government initiative in the United Kingdom, Bates explores the policy challenges generated by increasing transparency via new Internet platforms by applying the established theoretical instruments of Gramscian trasformismo. This article frames the open data debate in terms consistent with the literature on collective action, and provides empirical evidence as to how citizens have taken an active role in the debate on this issue, thereby challenging the policy debate on public transparency. Taken together, these articles advance our understanding of the interface between online collective action and policymaking. They introduce innovative theoretical frameworks and provide empirical evidence around the new forms of collective action, tactics, and contentious politics linked with the emergence of the Internet. If, as Melucci (1996) argues, contemporary social movements are sensors of new challenges within current societies, they can be an enriching resource for the policy debate arena. Gaining a better understanding of how the Internet might strengthen this process is a valuable line of inquiry.