chapter 1,
·
Changes in economic models in the 1990s came
along with important changes in the urban popular interest regime (4)
o
Labor unions used to be number one
o
Now new community based groups, NGOs, etc. are
most likely actors
·
Shift from UP hub to A Net involves three main
points on contrast
o
Base
units different (unions versus associations) (5)
o
Role of parties different, as parties play a
less central role
o
Structure/internal order: hierarchy under UPhub,
Anet is less well define, less hierarchical
·
(18) many interests of the popular sectors have
material basis, ie people need food shelter water, so popular sector interests
could hardly be seen as “postmaterialist”
·
(21) their survery defines popular sectors as
those who have not completed high school
Chatper 2
·
Analytics themes acorss chapters (37)
o
Individual problem solving repertoires (37-38)
o
Representational distortion (38) how does
popular sector representation compare with middle class rep
o
Associational strategies
o
Scaling
o
State-association ties
Chapter 3, Logics of Collective Action, State Linkages, and Aggregate Traits: The UP-Hub versus the A-Net
- Comparing the UP-Hub (union-party hub) to A-Net (association net) to understand how they work in terms of problem solving and interest mediation for the popular sectors (61-63)
- comparing scope, scaling, access, and autonomy
- IMPORTANT: Comparison between individual collective action (people forming groups) and organizational collective action (groups forming larger groups) is the main difference here
- two comparisons
- the patterns of collective action, individual (creating groups) and organizational (groups cooperating)
- UP-Hub is more likely to be able to do "organizational collective action", but bad at individual
- A-Net is more likely to be able to do "individual collective action", but bad at organizational
- the state reinforces these differences, but in a way that depends on the time period we are talking about (ISI government versus neoliberal government)
- nature of the relationship between popular organizations and the state
- close, extensive relations in UP-Hub
- slightly more arms length, but increasingly more institutionalized linkages as time passes
- Logics of collective action
- Resources
- unions need lots of resources, since the strike is their main form of action (66-7)
- membership becomes formalized in order to gather resources
- means there are high barriers to form a union, but once one exists its easier to have organizational collective action (68)
- popular associations are usually resource poor, have trouble holding on to members since the cost of exit is low, but also don't need to coerce members usually (not sure I believe this...when they need members, they need them!)
- easier to form associations, but harder to have collective action because it's expensive (68)
- same relationship holds true in having a convergence of interests
- unions are hard to create consensus, but easier to have organizational collective action because issues are similar
- associations can gather people to work on a project, but its not easy to get cross-organizational action
- the effect of demands (types) on collective action is ambiguous
No comments:
Post a Comment