Abstract

This thesis seeks to understand the why some Social Movement Organizations (SMOs) gain greater influence over certain parts of the public policy cycle than other organizations. It asks the following question: Does a more contentious organization have more influence over specific parts of the policy process than more cooperative organizations? To answer this question, a comparative case study of two SMOs is presented, their different characteristics are explored and examples of their actions are analyzed using a framework based on social movement literature including the political process model, political opportunities, and epistemic communities. The various stages of the policy cycle are taken into account when analyzing the policy influence of each SMO. This thesis hypothesizes that a more contentious group will target the public masses and influence the agenda setting stage of the policy cycle, whereas the more cooperative organization will target the sub-government and influence the formulation stage of the policy cycle. It is the expertise and target audience together that determine the point in the policy cycle of policy influence. Through the use of the case study broader theoretical questions regarding social movement theory and SMOs are examined.