Transnational Social Movement

The term transnational social movement refers to a collectivity of groups with adherents in more than one country that is committed to sustained contentious action against governments, international institutions, or private firms. Prominent examples include the antiglobalization movement and the movement against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A narrow definition of the concept emphasizes its differences with international nongovernmental organizations and transnational advocacy networks, which are generally more institutionalized, professionalized, and frequently funded or promoted by particular states or international organizations. A broader conception includes or focuses on other types of transnational actors and posits a causal relationship between globalization and the development of transnational activism. Accordingly, this broader view affords them a greater role and influence in national and international systems of governance, where their primary achievements are the creation, strengthening, implementation, and monitoring of international norms.

Although conceptual approaches to the study of transnational social movements are in many ways similar to the analysis of national social movements, the automatic extension of national social movement definitions and perspectives to the international arena is contested. Some claim that the transfer of state powers, rights, and functions to international bodies implies that challengers redirect their efforts accordingly. Others argue that this transfer does not automatically lead to the emergence of transnational social movement activity and that true mass-based transnational social movements are difficult to mobilize and hard to maintain. In this view, the international women's, labor, and antiglobalization movements may be the only true transnational social movements. Hence, transnational contention is usually undertaken by members of transnational networks that are linked to national movements.

The efforts of transnational social movements, international nongovernmental organizations, and transnational advocacy networks raise a number of issues for contemporary governance. First, because international [Page 987]organizations have little coercive power at their disposal, they must rely on soft enforcement mechanisms involving information, persuasion, and moral pressure. In turn, these empower and favor transnational social movement actors who have traditionally demonstrated great skill in the strategic use of information. Second, because political opportunities—political dimensions that advance or constrain collective action—differ at the national and an international level, the dynamic interactions between these levels becomes a critical factor in the analysis of transnational social movement activity. Third, as national social movement organizations extend their patterns of cooperation and influence across borders in response to the transfer of decision-making power from states to international bodies, interstate cooperation evolves or intensifies in reaction to movement transnationalization, for instance in the area of protest policing. States may therefore reassert certain powers as a consequence of transnational activism.