Search results

This paper examines the public protest by grassroots organizations which, in part, led to the withdrawal of the British colonial government’s privatization plan on health care finances in its final years of rule in Hong Kong, The authors argue that grassroots protest has to direct its efforts in the articulation of an ideological climate in favor of policy change. This is because grassroots organizations are often few in number and lack formal political power; they have to rely upon external resources to mobilize for policy change. Although a direct and causal relationship between the grassroots protest and the withdrawal of the government's privatization plan could not be firmly established, it is argued that the change of the debate from one about an administrative issue of health care finances to one about moral justice set the context for the eventual policy change.

Institutional actors are critical allies for grassroots movements, but few studies have examined their effects and variations within the non-democratic context. This chapter argues that while institutional allies are heavily constrained and unlikely to give open endorsement to grassroot activists, some institutional activists indirectly facilitate movement mobilization and favorable outcomes in the process of advancing their own political agendas. Drawing upon in-depth interviews conducted in 2008 and 2012, I illustrate this argument by examining the Anti-PX Movement – a landmark grassroots environmental movement against a chemical plant – in Xiamen, China. I find that the environmental institutional actors were constrained and divided, yet some still fostered opportunities for movement mobilization and in turn exploited the opportunity created by the protesters to pursue their policy interests, thus facilitating positive movement outcomes. As long as the claims are not politically subversive to the authoritarian rule, this type of tacit and tactical interaction between institutional activists within the state and grassroot activists on the street is conducive to promoting progressive policy changes.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on new accountability relationships between Newcastle City Council (NCC) and its citizens and stakeholders in the wake of the British government’s austerity politics and its budget cuts for local authorities. It seeks to show some of the ways in which various kinds of budgeting, for example, for alternative sources of funding, the use of volunteers for service provision, resource sharing, and asset transfers, as well as a diverse set of accounts of the social implications of resource diversions and service cuts, have been implicated in those changes.

The authors conducted a qualitative field study of some of the uses of budgets in the shaping of accountability relationships through interviews with council officers, conversations with activists and citizens, analysis of council and other documents, and observation of public meetings and demonstrations. The approach focused on the relationship between the city’s political grassroots and the NCC leadership and administration.

The authors find that NCC’s senior politicians and officers co-opted the city’s political grassroots and managed to reconstitute local political accountability to citizenry and stakeholders as a choice between the cessation of different types of local government services, by combining appeals to the legal framework of English local authorities, the unfairness of national politics, and the fairness of local government service provision. Local government blamed the funding cuts and the resulting resource shortages on the central government. It sought to push responsibility for cuts to the local citizenry whilst reserving for itself the role of mediator and adjudicator who makes the final decisions about the portfolio of causes that will be funded.

This is the first study to offer detailed insight into the effects of the British government’s austerity budget cuts of local authority grants on the politics of accountability in a local authority.

A new wave of anti-mainland protests has emerged in Hong Kong since 2012. The purpose of this paper is threefold: to delineate its unique characteristics; to trace its historical origins; and to speculate on the political implications of this new wave of anti-mainland protests.

A historical approach has been adopted to trace the origins of the anti-mainland protests. Since this new wave of anti-mainland protests only began in 2012, this paper is based mostly on documentary analysis of mass media reports.

This paper finds that this new wave of anti-mainland protests has been characterized by its targeting of mainland tourists/immigrants, its militancy, its concentration in the New Territories, its constituent membership of people from society’s grassroots, its dependence on e-mobilization and its poor image in Hong Kong’s mass media. In addition, this paper has identified the complex interplay between the influx of tourists/immigrants, the increase of social inequality, the emergence of a localist discourse, the formation of localist organizations and the setbacks to the democracy movement that are the underlying socio-political factors that have sparked this new wave of anti-mainland protests.

Anti-mainland protests have profound implications for Hong Kong politics since they deepen socio-political polarization, have transformed the mode of protesting in Hong Kong society and threaten the prospects for the national reunification of Greater China.

This paper may be one of the first academic papers to examine the anti-mainland protests. Instead of taking a pro-Beijing or anti-mainland approach, this paper takes a neutral position and offers an objective analysis of the anti-mainland protests.

The purpose of this paper is to explore urban mobilisation patterns in two post-Soviet cities: Vilnius and Moscow. Both cities were subject to similar housing and urban policy during Soviet times, and they have implemented urban development using neoliberal market principles, provoking grassroots opposition from citizens to privatisation and marketisation of their housing environment and local public space. However, the differing conditions of democratic Lithuanian and authoritarian Russian public governance offer different opportunities and set different constraints for neighbourhood mobilisation. The purpose is to contrast local community mobilisations under the two regimes and highlight the differences between and similarities in the activists’ repertoires of actions in two distinct political and economic urban settings.

The paper employs qualitative methodology using data from semi-structured interviews conducted with community activists and state officials, presented using a comparative case study design.

Although, citizens’ mobilisations in the two cities are reactions to the neoliberalisation of housing and local public space, they take different forms. In Vilnius they are institutionalised and receive formal support from national and local authorities. Moreover, support from the EU encourages organisational development and provides material and cognitive resources for grassroots urban mobilisations. In contrast, residents’ mobilisations in Moscow are informal and face fierce opposition from local authorities. However, even in an authoritarian setting, grassroots mobilisations evolve using creative strategies to circumvent institutional constraints.

Little attention has been paid to grassroots urban mobilisations in post-Soviet cities. There is also a lack of comparative attempts to show variation in post-Soviet urban activism related to housing and local public space.

Work on repression within the social movements literature has largely focused on state-based and coercive repression, despite both the empirical importance of private and non-coercive forms of protest control and the theoretical leverage studying other forms of protest control could offer. This paper argues that scholars should shift from studying repression, which as a terminology carries connotations about state-based and coercive action, and instead focus on the “social control of protest.” The paper then manufactures a literature on private forms of protest control, culling existing work from disparate fields and literatures. These works are organized using a previously published typology of repressive forms that covers such diverse actions as vigilantism and countermovement violence. This organization reveals that empirical research has been done on private protest control even if it has not been named as such or been connected to a coherent body of scholarship on the subject. The paper then examines possible directions for future research that could facilitate the growth of scholarship on private protest control.

The anti-toxics movement's origins can be traced back to Rachel Carson's A Silent Spring in 1962. The book highlighted the impact of pesticides such as DDT on plant and wildlife in America in the years following the introduction of scientific methods of agriculture in the United States. In the aftermath of a wider public concern and scientific debate about Carson's work, President John F. Kennedy called on the Science Advisory Committee to investigate issues surrounding the use of pesticides. This inquiry confirmed Carson's position, and led to the regulation of the use of chemical pesticides in the United States. Carson has been subject to a number of subsequent criticisms from scientists working for the chemical industry.

Ireland has witnessed a succession of community-based protests in recent years. Issues have included water charges, refuse collection taxes, infrastructural developments, incinerators, dumps and toxic industries. This chapter will argue that the basis for these disputes is the Irish state’s neo-liberal and neo-corporatist policy framework, which favours accelerated and reckless infrastructural development while excluding community concerns about health and environmental issues. The chapter will also examine the use of communications technologies, which form a large part of the modern economy, as a tool for community resistance.