Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Aday, S., & Livingston, S. (2008). Taking the state out of state–media relations theory: How transnational advocacy networks are changing the press–state dynamic. Media, War & Conflict, 1(1), 99-107. doi:10.1177/1750635207087630

Summary: This article is a largely theoretical argument about the relationship between transnational advocacy networks, the media, and states, particularly in times of conflict. Traditional media analysis suggests that journalists are heavily dependent on states, particularly in times of conflict. This article suggests that the existence of robust TANs may limit this dependence.

Questions to Consider

1. Why is it important to consider the level of dependency media has on the state?

2. In what way might robust TANs lessen the dependence of media on states?

3. How might the argument presented in this article be tested empirically?

 

Journal Article 2: Bloodgood, E. A., & Clough, E. (2017). Transnational advocacy networks: A complex adaptive systems simulation model of the boomerang effect. Social Science Computer Review, 35(3), 319-335. doi:10.1177/0894439316634077

Summary: This article uses a computer-based simulation to model TANs and their effectiveness. In particular, the simulation is based on Keck and Sikkink’s boomerang model, discussed in Chapter 13 of the textbook. They find that NGOs may achieve a higher likelihood of through networking, but also that a larger network can lead to network collapse and the failure of some of its members.

Questions to Consider

1. Are you persuaded that this type of simulation provides a useful window into understanding networks?

2. What does this finding (that networks can help achieve policy success, but at the cost of some members of the network or the network itself) suggest about the calculus different organizations may use in deciding to join a network?

3. What is the causal logic of why larger networks may collapse or lead to problems for some members?

 

Journal Article 3: Gilson, J. (2011). Transnational advocacy: New spaces, new voices. Alternatives, 36(4), 288-306. doi:10.1177/0304375411430622

Summary: This is a highly theoretical work that questions the underlying definition and understanding of TANs, arguing that our traditional way of considering groups as “transnational” focuses too much on spatial conceptions and ignores the discourse within the networks. This article provides an alternate understanding of transnational groups and uses examples from Asia to illustrate the argument.

Questions to Consider

1. Do you find the argument that existing discussions of transnational groups may reinforce existing hierarchies in a way that undermines access to the groups by non-traditional actors?

2. How do the examples from Asia represent the author’s re-conception of what we should mean by transnational groups?

3. Do you agree that it is important to consider the deeper meaning of concepts like what we mean by “transnational activism?”

 

Journal Article 4: Noakes, S. (2012). Transnational advocacy networks and moral commitment: The free Tibet campaign meets the Chinese state. International Journal, 67(2), 507-525. doi:10.1177/002070201206700218

Summary: By exploring the international movement advocating for an independent Tibet, this article suggests that TANs that run into a resistant state (or states) may face difficulty in maintaining support for their underlying beliefs and may in fact renegotiate their priorities and objectives both internally and externally.

Questions to Consider

1. Based on your reading of the article, what challenges do the competing interests, beliefs, and objectives of the members of a TAN present to accomplishing the TANs objectives, particularly in the face of a resistant state?

2. One possible conclusion of this article is a “reverse boomerang” effect in which authoritarian states influence TANs as much or more as TANs influence states. What does this suggests about the circumstances under which the boomerang model may be most likely to succeed?

3. How might a strong state’s active resistance to a TAN lead it to fragment or otherwise change its objectives?

 

Journal Article 5: Rosenberg, J. (2018). Transnational advocacy and the politics of sustainable development in a small island developing state: An uncertain future for the Grenada dove. Journal of Environment & Development, 27(2), 236-261. doi:10.1177/1070496518756163

Summary: This article uses a study of the TAN that tried to save the habitat of the Grenada dove, an endangered species on the island of Grenada. It finds that while initially successful in saving the habitat of dove, the TAN, particularly the non-domestic elements, faced a greater challenge when a new threat emerged that included transnational corporations.

Questions to Consider

1. This article suggests that the international components of a TAN can strengthen the voices and access of domestic TANs. How does that occur?

2. Can international businesses, coupled with local politicians and local developers, be considered a different kind of TAN in their own right? Would this be a self-oriented TAN as discussed in the book?

3. This is another article that calls into question the effects of global markets on local populations – based on what you have read to date, on balance do you find that inclusion in global markets is positive or negative?