Skip to content

Campaigning Wiki

3 min read

lang: en

Summary

Daubanes and Jean-Marie’s 2016 economic model of NGO activism: NGOs choose among strategies (information, legal, market, political) in response to the relative costs of each, the firm’s expected response, and the regulator’s posture. The model explains why some campaigns go to confrontation while others stay at the information stage.

Body

The Theory of NGO Activism is a formal economic model developed by Julien Daubanes (HEC Lausanne) and Aude Jean-Marie (University of St Andrews, formerly MIT CEEPR) in their 2016 paper A Theory of NGO Activism [source: daubanes-ngo-activism]. The model treats NGOs as rational actors choosing among four campaign strategies — information (public reporting, naming-and-shaming), legal (regulatory complaints, lawsuits), market (consumer boycotts, supply-chain pressure), and political (regulator lobbying, legislative advocacy) — and asks: given the firm’s expected response and the regulator’s posture, which strategy is optimal?

The model’s key claim: NGO choice of strategy depends on three structural factors:

  1. The cost of each strategy (information is cheap; legal is expensive; market is medium; political is medium).
  2. The firm’s expected response (a firm that is “sensitive” to reputation will fold under information; a firm that is not will require market or political pressure).
  3. The regulator’s posture (a captured regulator requires political pressure to act; an active one can be moved by information alone).

The model derives predictions. For example: an NGO facing a firm that is reputation-sensitive and a regulator that is active will use information strategies, because they are cheap and the firm will fold without further escalation. An NGO facing a reputation-insensitive firm and a captured regulator must escalate to market or political strategies, because nothing cheaper will move either the firm or the regulator.

The model’s policy implication: NGO effectiveness depends on the institutional environment. An NGO in a permissive environment (active regulator, sensitive firm) can win cheaply. An NGO in a hostile environment (captured regulator, indifferent firm) faces a much higher cost of campaign success and must plan accordingly.

The model has been extended in subsequent work to include financial-market activism (shareholder proposals, divestment) and the role of coalitions. It is the most-cited formal model of NGO strategy in the 2010s literature [source: daubanes-ngo-activism].

The Theory’s limit: it assumes NGOs and firms are rational utility-maximisers and does not model activist identity, movement culture, or non-strategic motivations (moral urgency, solidarity). It is most useful as a structural complement to the identity-and-movement frameworks of Moyer, Keck & Sikkink, and Tarrow.

Use it for

Diagnosing why an NGO campaign stalled (often: the strategy is mis-priced for the institutional environment); arguing for strategy diversification across the four channels; explaining to funders why some campaigns are necessarily more expensive than others.

Examples

The model is descriptive rather than case-study-driven; the paper includes several illustrative applications including the anti-apartheid consumer boycott (market strategy, against reputation-sensitive firms, with an active international regulator in the form of UN sanctions) and the anti-tobacco campaign of the 1990s (information + legal + political, against a reputation-sensitive industry, with an active regulator in the form of the FDA) [source: daubanes-ngo-activism].

Graph View

Backlinks