Member Influence and Involvement in Civil Society Organizations: A Resource Dependency Perspective on Groups and Parties
| Author | Patricia Correa,Nicole Bolleyer |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321720968018 |
| Published date | 01 May 2022 |
| Date | 01 May 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Response |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720968018
Political Studies
2022, Vol. 70(2) 519 –540
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032321720968018
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Member Influence and
Involvement in Civil Society
Organizations: A Resource
Dependency Perspective on
Groups and Parties
Nicole Bolleyer1 and Patricia Correa2
Abstract
Which membership-based voluntary organizations constitutive of civil society such as parties,
interest groups or service-oriented organizations keep their members active and which forms of
activism do they cultivate? This article addresses this important question distinguishing two forms
of ‘member activism’: ‘member involvement’, defined as members working for an organization,
and ‘member influence’, defined as members’ participation in intra-organizational decision-
making. Building on incentive-theoretical approaches to leader–member relations and resource
dependency theory, we present a theoretical framework specifying distinct drivers of each form of
member activism, which is tested using new data from four organization surveys conducted in four
most different European democracies. None of the theorized factors has the same robust effect
on both involvement and influence. Most notably, professionalization – reliance on paid staff – has
a positive effect on involvement and a negative one on influence, stressing the need to distinguish
carefully the different roles members play in civil society organizations.
Keywords
civil society organizations, membership organizations, member activism, member participation,
political parties, interest groups, non-profit organizations
Accepted: 25 September 2020
Introduction
Which membership-based voluntary organizations constitutive of civil society, such as
political parties, interest groups or service-oriented organizations, keep their members
active, and if so, which forms of activism do they cultivate and why? While these
organizations – by definition – have members and are dependent on them to some
1Geschwister Scholl Institute of Political Science, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
2School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
Corresponding author:
Patricia Correa, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK.
Email: p.correa-vila@aston.ac.uk
968018PSX0010.1177/0032321720968018Political StudiesBolleyer and Correa
research-article2020
Response
520 Political Studies 70(2)
extent, this dependency varies and the particular roles that members play in them differ
widely, irrespective of organizations’ political or social functions (e.g. Evers, 2014;
Gauja, 2015; Jordan and Maloney, 1997; Schlozman et al., 2015; Skocpol, 2003).
Building on the literature on the uses and functions of organizational membership in
party and group research (e.g. Hustinx, 2014; Maloney, 2012; Scarrow, 1994, 2015), this
article conceptually distinguishes two forms of member activism: member involvement
is defined as members working for or providing valuable information to organizations,
an organizational resource that can help ensure organizational functioning and mainte-
nance. The narrower notion of member influence on intra-organizational decision-mak-
ing allows members to hold organizational leaders to account (Binderkrantz, 2009:
660–661; Cross and Katz, 2013; Gauja, 2017; Halpin, 2006). Being qualitatively differ-
ent, their drivers are not necessarily the same, which provides the foundation to integrate
arguments from the party, group and non-profit literatures to theorize which organiza-
tion-level characteristics invite member involvement rather than member influence and
vice versa.1
To study both forms of member activism is important as the two phenomena have been
associated with important yet distinct political and social benefits. The exercise of member
influence helps channel member preferences into the political process and thereby contrib-
utes crucially to democratic representation while enhancing members’ capacity for self-
governance (Dekker, 2009: 228; Gauja, 2017; Hustinx et al., 2010: 420–421). In contrast,
the broader notion of member involvement – akin to the notion of volunteering in social
organizations within non-profit research (but equally applicable to parties and interest
groups) – has been associated with social benefits such as the cultivation of well-being and
life-satisfaction through social interaction, the enhancement of human capital, as well as
the mobilization and detection of unmet social needs (Hustinx et al., 2010: 417–418, 422).
Building on two basic assumptions, we theorize drivers of member activism from the
perspective of those actors in charge of the day-to-day running of an organization, linking
classical incentive-theoretical views on leader–member relations (Moe, 1980; Wilson,
1973) to resource dependency theory (e.g. Beyers and Kerremans, 2007; Froelich, 2005;
Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978): First, member influence and involvement impose different
‘costs’ on leaders:2 member influence on intra-organizational decision-making curtails
organizational leaders (e.g. Evers, 2014; Maloney, 2009; Van Deth and Maloney, 2012;
Webb, 1994); member involvement in organizational activities (e.g. participating in meet-
ings, engaging in recruitment activities, supporting fundraising) can be steered by leaders
(e.g. Hustinx, 2014; Pestoff et al., 2012; Scarrow, 1994) and is compatible with any type
of organization, including those that give their members little or no say (Jordan and
Maloney, 1997; Kreutzer and Jäger, 2011; Maloney, 2012). Second, neither form of mem-
ber activism is necessarily self-sustaining (Andrews et al., 2010: 1192; Han, 2014;
Scarrow, 1996): To keep members actively involved requires resources that organizations
might have or not or, alternatively, might prefer to invest elsewhere. To grant members
influence requires procedural channels organizations might or might not provide. Leaders’
inclinations to make such investments are fundamentally shaped by the availability of
critical resources (e.g. state funding) enhancing organizational autonomy from various
forms of member support (Schmitter and Streeck, 1999: 79–80).
Our study of member activism from an organization-centred perspective contributes to
relevant debates in politics, sociology and non-profit research on the changing roles and
relevance of members (e.g. Andrews et al., 2010; Barasko and Schaffner, 2008; Scarrow,
2015; Van Haute and Gauja, 2015). Those include the organizational consequences of
professionalization (Binderkrantz, 2009; Poguntke and Webb, 2005), the hybridization of
To continue reading
Request your trial