Preferences for the Scope of Protests

• Published date: 01 June 2021
• Date: 01 June 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912920905001
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920905001

Political Research Quarterly

2021, Vol. 74(2) 288 –301

© 2020 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1065912920905001

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Article

Introduction

Research concerned with the political impact of protests

has mainly studied two core dimensions of protest: its

incidence/ size, and to a lesser extent, the use of peaceful

versus violent tactics. A dimension of protest largely

overlooked in the literature is protest scope, that is,

whether protests seek large, structural, changes for a large

share of the population (e.g., regime change) or focus on

small improvements for small groups (e.g., paving a

slum). Yet, this dimension is bound to be important for

protest impact. Protests targeting systemic change, such

as those toppling Arab autocrats in 2010/2011 or those

trying to bring independence to Catalonia in 2017, have

very different political consequences than localized, nar-

row protests focusing on the corruption of a ward coun-

cilor, bad health care in a specific district, or property

rights for shacks in a slum.

This paper focuses on the demand side of protest scope

and asks, what drives preferences for protest scope? The

scope of protests obviously depends on supply factors,

such as the calculations of movement elites and their

decisions on how to frame protest narratives. However,

the demand side is likely to be crucial as well: previous

research demonstrates that protest narratives offered by

elites have little impact unless they resonate with peo-

ple’s preferences and interpretations (Benford and Snow

2000). In the words of Klandermans (2008), effective

“mobilization brings a demand for political protest that

exists in a society together with a supply of opportunities

to take part in such protest.” Thus, understanding indi-

viduals’ preferences for narrow versus broad protests can

help us explain (1) why protest movements that advocate

for a similar scope of change sometimes succeed in mobi-

lizing the population and sometimes not or (2) why under

certain conditions social movements with broad (narrow)

demands are more successful in attracting followers than

movements with narrow (broad) demands.

We define protest scope with reference to previous lit-

erature along two dimensions, intensity (how much

change is sought) and extensiveness (how many people

would be affected by the change). We define a protest to

be of broad scope if the change sought is intense and

extensive. Building on previous research on protest

occurrence and strategies, we suggest a simple theoretical

framework for the analysis of protest scope. While we

acknowledge that the nature of underlying grievances or

the identity of protesters is likely to influence the demand

side of protest scope, we focus in this paper on the role of

people’s sense of efficacy. Specifically, we argue that

efficacy is a crucial determinant of the demand-side of

905001PRQXXX10.1177/1065912920905001Political Research QuarterlyPellicer et al.

research-article2020

1Maynooth University, Ireland

2University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

3University College Dublin, Ireland

4Osnabrück University, Germany

Corresponding Author:

Eva Wegner, University College Dublin, Newman Building, F305,

Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Email: eva.wegner@ucd.ie

Preferences for the Scope of Protests

Miquel Pellicer1,2, Eva Wegner3,

and Alexander De Juan4

Abstract

This paper studies a dimension of protest largely overlooked in the literature: protest scope, that is, whether protests

seek large, structural, changes for a large share of the population or focus on small-scale improvements for small

groups. We argue that this protest dimension is relevant for understanding the political consequences of protests.

We show empirically that protests vary substantially in scope and that scope is not collinear with other protest

dimensions, such as size, motive, or tactics. We explore drivers of individual preferences for protest scope with a

survey experiment in two South African townships. We find that respondents made to feel more efficacious tend to

support protests of broader scope. This effect operates via a social psychology channel whereby efficacy leads people

to assign blame for their problems to more systemic causes.

Keywords

protest, efficacy, South Africa