Jae Hyeok Shin Korea University August 1, 2013 Social Change, Advocacy Groups, and Cross Border Network of Civil Society in Pacific Asia

Examples Social Changes in Pacific Asia

 Communist revolutions Vietnam in 1945 North Korea in 1946 China in 1949  Transitions to democracy (democratization) Thailand in 1975, 1979, 1992, 2007 The Philippines in 1986 South Korea in 1987 Taiwan in 1992 Indonesia 1998 Examples Social Changes in Pacific Asia

1. What led to those social changes? 2. What role did advocacy groups play in bringing about such changes? 3. Why do advocacy groups often build networks across borders? Questions Social Changes in Pacific Asia

The Causes of Social Change Status Quo: No Social Change People often have grievances against the government. Ex) Human rights violations, discrimination, poverty, corruption, pollution, … But most people do nothing even when they have such grievances.  No social change Why?

The Causes of Social Change Status Quo: No Social Change  Collective action or free-rider problem When all other people stay home, if only I revolt, no change and I will pay the price. if I also stay home, no change and I will pay nothing. When all other people revolt, if I also revolt, social change and I will pay the cost. if I stay home, social change and I will pay nothing.  It is always better for me to stay home no matter what other people choose to do.  Everyone should have the same incentive.  No revolt  No social change

The Causes of Social Change Puzzle All of a sudden so many people protest on the street and bring about social change. Why?

The Causes of Social Change Social Change or Tipping Model  There are 10 people who are deciding whether to join revolt or not. Two people have a threshold of 1. Two people have a threshold of 3. Two people have a threshold of 5. Four people have a threshold of 7. 1, 1, 3, 3, 5, 5, 7, 7, 7, 7

The Causes of Social Change Social Change or Tipping Model  There are 10 people who are deciding whether to join revolt or not. Two people have a threshold of 1. Two people have a threshold of 3. Two people have a threshold of 5. Four people have a threshold of 7. 1, 1, 3, 3, 5, 5, 7, 7, 7, 7  no revolt  no change

The Causes of Social Change Social Change or Tipping Model  Now economy is bad, which lowered everyone’s threshold by 1. Two people have a threshold of 0. Two people have a threshold of 2. Two people have a threshold of 4. Four people have a threshold of 6. 0, 0, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6

The Causes of Social Change Social Change or Tipping Model  Now economy is bad, which lowered everyone’s threshold by 1. Two people have a threshold of 0. Two people have a threshold of 2. Two people have a threshold of 4. Four people have a threshold of 6. 0, 0, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6

The Causes of Social Change Social Change or Tipping Model  Now economy is bad, which lowered everyone’s threshold by 1. Two people have a threshold of 0. Two people have a threshold of 2. Two people have a threshold of 4. Four people have a threshold of 6. 0, 0, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6

The Causes of Social Change Social Change or Tipping Model  Now economy is bad, which lowered everyone’s threshold by 1. Two people have a threshold of 0. Two people have a threshold of 2. Two people have a threshold of 4. Four people have a threshold of 6. 0, 0, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, R, R, 6, 6, 6, 6

The Causes of Social Change Social Change or Tipping Model  Now economy is bad, which lowered everyone’s threshold by 1. Two people have a threshold of 0. Two people have a threshold of 2. Two people have a threshold of 4. Four people have a threshold of 6. 0, 0, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, R, R, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R

The Causes of Social Change Social Change or Tipping Model  Now economy is bad, which lowered everyone’s threshold by 1. Two people have a threshold of 0. Two people have a threshold of 2. Two people have a threshold of 4. Four people have a threshold of 6. 0, 0, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, R, R, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R  As grievances increase, the likelihood of revolt/change rises.

 Communist revolutions Vietnam in 1945 North Korea in 1946 China in 1949  Transitions to democracy (democratization) Thailand in 1975, 1979, 1992, 2007 The Philippines in 1986 South Korea in 1987 Taiwan in 1992 Indonesia 1998 The Causes of Social Change Social Change or Tipping Model

 Communist revolutions Vietnam in 1945 North Korea in 1946 poverty, colonialism, … China in 1949  Transitions to democracy (democratization) Thailand in 1975, 1979, 1992, 2007 The Philippines in 1986 human rights violations, South Korea in 1987corruption, Taiwan in 1992bad economy, … Indonesia 1998 The Causes of Social Change Social Change or Tipping Model

 Now economy is bad, which lowered everyone’s threshold by 1. Two people have a threshold of 0. Two people have a threshold of 2. Two people have a threshold of 4. Four people have a threshold of 6. 0, 0, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, R, R, 6, 6, 6, 6 R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R Who has a lower threshold?

The Role of Advocacy Groups Social Network Theory Advocacy groups provide people with social networks.  Social networks also lower the threshold.  Grievances “push” + Social networks “pull”  revolt (Scacco, Alexandra “Who Riots? Explaining Individual Participation in Ethnic Violence.” Columbia University unpublished paper)

The Role of Advocacy Groups Social Network Theory Christian-Muslim riots in Nigeria (Scacco 2008)

The Role of Advocacy Groups Solution to Collective Action Problem  With no advocacy groups, When all other people revolt, if I also revolt, social change and I will pay the cost. if I stay home, social change and I will pay nothing.  It is better for me to stay home even when other people choose to revolt.  Everyone should have the same incentive.  No revolt  No social change

The Role of Advocacy Groups Solution to Collective Action Problem  With advocacy groups that provide rewords and penalties, When all other people revolt, if I also revolt, social change and I will receive reward. if I stay home, social change and I will pay penalty.  It is better for me to revolt when other people choose to revolt.  Everyone should have the same incentive.  Revolt  Social change

The Role of Advocacy Groups Summary  Advocacy groups provide social networks that lower the threshold to participate in social movement.  Advocacy groups give rewards to participants and punish free riders, which helps solve the collective action problem.

The Role of Advocacy Groups Pacific Asia  Communist revolutions Vietnam in 1945 North Korea in 1946 China in 1949  Transitions to democracy (democratization) Thailand 1975, 1979, 1992, 2007 The Philippines in 1986 South Korea in 1987 Taiwan in 1992 Indonesia 1998

The Role of Advocacy Groups Social Network Theory  Communist revolutions Communist parties and organizations Vietnam in 1945 Viet Minh North Korea in 1946 Workers’ Party of Korea China in 1949 Chinese Communist Party  DemocratizationStudent activist groups and opposition parties Thailand National Student Center of Thailand (1973) The Philippines in 1986 United Nationalist Democratic Organization South Korea in 1987 Guk-bon Taiwan in 1992 Student groups from National Taiwan University Indonesia 1998 College student groups

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Puzzle  Advocacy groups provide social networks that lower the threshold to participate in social movement.  Advocacy groups give rewards to participants and punish free riders, which helps solve the collective action problem.  Domestic advocacy groups may be sufficient to bring about social change within countries.  Why do they bother to build cross border networks?

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Social Change or Tipping Model  There are 10 people who are deciding whether to join revolt or not. Two people have a threshold of 0. Two people have a threshold of 5. Two people have a threshold of 7. Four people have a threshold of 9. 0, 0, 5, 5, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9, 9

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Social Change or Tipping Model  There are 10 people who are deciding whether to join revolt or not. Two people have a threshold of 0. Two people have a threshold of 5. Two people have a threshold of 7. Four people have a threshold of 9. R, R, 5, 5, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9, 9  no social change

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Social Change or Tipping Model  A cross border network increases the number of participants. Now five people revolt. Two people have a threshold of 5. Two people have a threshold of 7. Four people have a threshold of 9. R, R, R, R, R, 5, 5, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9, 9

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Social Change or Tipping Model  A cross border network increases the number of participants. Now five people revolt. Two people have a threshold of 5. Two people have a threshold of 7. Four people have a threshold of 9. R, R, R, R, R, 5, 5, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9, 9 R, R, R, R, R, R, R, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9, 9

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Social Change or Tipping Model  A cross border network increases the number of participants. Now five people revolt. Two people have a threshold of 5. Two people have a threshold of 7. Four people have a threshold of 9. R, R, R, R, R, 5, 5, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9, 9 R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, 9, 9, 9, 9

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Social Change or Tipping Model  A cross border network increases the number of participants. Now five people revolt. Two people have a threshold of 5. Two people have a threshold of 7. Four people have a threshold of 9. R, R, R, R, R, 5, 5, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9, 9 R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, 9, 9, 9, 9 R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Social Change or Tipping Model  A cross border network increases the number of participants. Now five people revolt. Two people have a threshold of 5. Two people have a threshold of 7. Four people have a threshold of 9. R, R, R, R, R, 5, 5, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9, 9 R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, 9, 9, 9, 9 R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R  Cross border network of advocacy groups increases the number of participants, and thus raises the likelihood of revolt.

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Expectation  Advocacy groups are likely to build cross border networks for repressive states.

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Examples  Advocacy groups are likely to build cross border networks for repressive states. Free Tibet Burma Partnership International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in North Korea (ICNK).

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Examples  Burma Partnership Burmese Alliance Organizations: Forum for Democracy in Burma (FDB) Nationalities Youth Forum (NYF) Students and Youth Congress of Burma (SYCB) Regional Solidarity Networks: Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (Altsean-Burma) Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia) Asia Pacific Solidarity Coalition (APSOC) National Solidarity Coalitions: Solidaritas Indonesia untuk Burma (Indonesian Solidarity for Burma) (SIB) Free Burma Coalition-Philippines (FBC-Philippines) Burma Campaign Korea (BCK) Hong Kong Coalition for a Free Burma (HKCFB) People’s Forum on Burma (PFB) (Japan)

Cross Border Network of Advocacy Groups Examples  International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in North Korea (ICNK) Advocates International Global Council Aegis Trust ALTSEAN-BURMA Amnesty International Japan Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances Asian Human Rights & Humanity Association of Japan Association for the Rescue of North Korea Abductees, Chiangmai Burma Partnership BurmaInfo, Japan Christian Lawyer's Association for Paraguay (AACP) Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) Committee for Human Rights in North Korea CONECTAS (Brazil).

Social Change, Advocacy Groups, and Cross Border Network of Civil Society in Pacific Asia Conclusions  Advocacy groups contribute to social change in two ways: by providing social networks as “pull” factor, by helping solve the collective action (free-rider) problem.  They played a large role in social change in Pacific Asia, such as communist revolutions and transitions to democracy.  Cross border networks of advocacy groups increase the number of participants in social movement, which increases the likelihood of social change.  Advocacy groups actively build cross border networks for repressive states in Pacific Asia, such as Burma and North Korea.

Social Change, Advocacy Groups, and Cross Border Network of Civil Society in Pacific Asia Discussion Questions 1. Why did political parties play a larger role in communist revolutions, while advocacy groups often played a larger role in transitions to democracy? 2. The active cross border network of advocacy groups seems to contribute to the recent political liberalization of Myanmar (Burma). Why doesn’t it work for other authoritarian regimes in Pacific Asia, such as China and North Korea?