是否参加2016年全民投票?英国环境非政府组织和欧盟成员国

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Studies Pub Date : 2023-06-21 DOI:10.1177/00323217231178997
Nathalie Berny, Viviane Gravey
{"title":"是否参加2016年全民投票?英国环境非政府组织和欧盟成员国","authors":"Nathalie Berny, Viviane Gravey","doi":"10.1177/00323217231178997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Environmental non-governmental organisations stood out during the 2016 European Union referendum campaign. Despite clear reputational and regulatory risks, they participated in this fraught political debate in sharp contrast to other civil society sectors. This challenges common assumptions that material concerns, and ultimately survival, prevail in campaigning choices. We argue that campaigning choices reflect commitments to values that underpin these organisations’ raison d’être. Drawing on a pragmatist view of organisations, we analyse how external (media, regulatory) and internal (competence, governance processes) pressures shaped the campaigning choices of nine UK environmental organisations. We find that most environmental non-governmental organisations chose to engage, some even officially registering for Remain. Those active at the European Union level were most likely to engage – but also most open to criticism. Overall, environmental non-governmental organisations struggled to adapt their usual expertise-based, elite-focused campaigning style to the referendum which raises questions for civil society’s ability to speak for Europe, and contribute to controversial democratic debates, beyond the United Kingdom.","PeriodicalId":51379,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Campaigning or Not in the 2016 Referendum? UK Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations and European Union Membership\",\"authors\":\"Nathalie Berny, Viviane Gravey\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00323217231178997\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Environmental non-governmental organisations stood out during the 2016 European Union referendum campaign. Despite clear reputational and regulatory risks, they participated in this fraught political debate in sharp contrast to other civil society sectors. This challenges common assumptions that material concerns, and ultimately survival, prevail in campaigning choices. We argue that campaigning choices reflect commitments to values that underpin these organisations’ raison d’être. Drawing on a pragmatist view of organisations, we analyse how external (media, regulatory) and internal (competence, governance processes) pressures shaped the campaigning choices of nine UK environmental organisations. We find that most environmental non-governmental organisations chose to engage, some even officially registering for Remain. Those active at the European Union level were most likely to engage – but also most open to criticism. Overall, environmental non-governmental organisations struggled to adapt their usual expertise-based, elite-focused campaigning style to the referendum which raises questions for civil society’s ability to speak for Europe, and contribute to controversial democratic debates, beyond the United Kingdom.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217231178997\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217231178997","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环保非政府组织在2016年欧盟公投运动中脱颖而出。尽管存在明显的声誉和监管风险,但他们参与了这场令人担忧的政治辩论,与其他民间社会部门形成了鲜明对比。这挑战了人们的普遍假设,即物质问题以及最终的生存问题在竞选选择中占主导地位。我们认为,竞选活动的选择反映了对价值观的承诺,这些价值观是这些组织存在的理由。根据对组织的实用主义观点,我们分析了外部(媒体、监管)和内部(能力、治理流程)压力如何影响九个英国环境组织的竞选选择。我们发现,大多数环保非政府组织都选择了参与,有些甚至正式注册留欧。那些活跃在欧盟层面的人最有可能参与,但也最容易受到批评。总的来说,环保非政府组织很难将其通常以专业知识为基础、以精英为中心的竞选风格适应公投,这对民间社会为欧洲发声的能力提出了质疑,并为英国以外有争议的民主辩论做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Campaigning or Not in the 2016 Referendum? UK Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations and European Union Membership
Environmental non-governmental organisations stood out during the 2016 European Union referendum campaign. Despite clear reputational and regulatory risks, they participated in this fraught political debate in sharp contrast to other civil society sectors. This challenges common assumptions that material concerns, and ultimately survival, prevail in campaigning choices. We argue that campaigning choices reflect commitments to values that underpin these organisations’ raison d’être. Drawing on a pragmatist view of organisations, we analyse how external (media, regulatory) and internal (competence, governance processes) pressures shaped the campaigning choices of nine UK environmental organisations. We find that most environmental non-governmental organisations chose to engage, some even officially registering for Remain. Those active at the European Union level were most likely to engage – but also most open to criticism. Overall, environmental non-governmental organisations struggled to adapt their usual expertise-based, elite-focused campaigning style to the referendum which raises questions for civil society’s ability to speak for Europe, and contribute to controversial democratic debates, beyond the United Kingdom.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Political Studies
Political Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Political Studies is a leading international journal committed to the very highest standards of peer review that publishes academically rigorous and original work in all fields of politics and international relations. The editors encourage a pluralistic approach to political science and debate across the discipline. Political Studies aims to develop the most promising new work available and to facilitate professional communication in political science.
期刊最新文献
The Good Politician: Competence, Integrity and Authenticity in Seven Democracies The COVID-19 Pandemic in Britain: A Competence Shock and Its Electoral Consequences Europhoria! Explaining Britain’s Pro-European Moment, 1988–1992 Beyond the Ballot: The Impact of Voting Margin and Turnout on the Legitimacy of Referendum Outcomes in Europe Why Voters Prefer Politicians With Particular Personal Attributes: The Role of Voter Demand for Populists
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1