What Makes a State Advocacy Structure Effective? — Conflicts Between Bureaucratic and Social Movement Criteria

Abstract

State “advocacy structures”—agencies nominally designated to advance the status of collective social movements in public policy and society—must operate under conflicting criteria for “effectiveness.” While government actors likely measure effectiveness as the ability to manage a policyissue—advancing policy influence by prioritizing and packaging demands —collective movements additionally or primarily emphasize structures' performance as representatives of the priorities and diversity of movements. This consequently leads to differing evaluations of agency “effectiveness.” A case study of the Ontario Women's Directorate (OWD) analyzes the inherent conflicts and tensions between these two roles, particularly under repeated changes in government. The experiences of the OWD and other advocacy structures suggest that conflicting criteria are inherent and unavoidable in such institutions.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.