Herds, Hives, and Hierarchies: Investigating the Success of Contentious Activity

Abstract

This thesis investigates why some contentious episodes, including social movements and revolutions, approach or achieve their stated goals, while others fall short. This paper lends particular attention to organizational structure, regime type, and other contextual variables in how they shape the outcomes of contention. Drawing on NAVCO 2.1 for international data on campaigns seeking significant political change from 1945 to 2013, and SCAD for data on Central American and Caribbean contentious events from 1990 to 2017, the research draws on normative lenses to justify empirical analysis of this question. The statistical tests provide strong evidence that structurelessness has a negative relationship with the progression of campaigns and increases the likelihood of government repression of individual events. By contrast, horizontally organized campaigns tend to be associated with higher participation levels, which in turn enhance progress toward stated goals. Violent tactics generally correlate with poorer short-term outcomes, while US backing and relatively democratic regime type correlate with stronger short-term outcomes. Surprisingly, government surveillance of social media shows some evidence of association with greater campaign progress.