The Importance of Institutions in Social Change: How Disability Rights “Burst” onto the U.S. Congressional Agenda

• In Event: 463 - Section on Collective Behavior and Social Movements Roundtables (one-hour)
  In Refereed Roundtable: Table 19. Social Movements Working With and Challenging Institutions

Abstract

When it comes to explaining political change, sociologists, especially social movement scholars, traditionally focus on the ways in which so-called incumbent and challenging groups gain access to the political process and either directly or indirectly influence legislators and legislative activity (a so-called bottom-up approach to social change). On the other hand, social policy and welfare state scholars have also shown that policy innovation can generate important social change, as well as new political constituencies. Sometimes, policy innovations cannot wholly be explained by demand-side approaches. This paper seeks to specify how institutional arrangements explain social change using longitudinal data on congressional committees and their hearings over a 45-year period (1961-2006). The central claim in this paper is that expanding informal committee jurisdictions (or so-called “common law” jurisdictions)– that is, what committees actually hold hearings on rather than their formally defined jurisdictions– help to explain how disability and disability rights became an increasingly larger share of the congressional agenda. I find that while both formal and informal committee jurisdictions explain general disability issue expansion, important differences exist in explaining how disability rights “burst” onto the policy agenda compared to disability more generally. I suggest that this approach helps specify political opportunities for both state and non-state actors and provides a framework for understanding the importance of the congressional opportunity structure and strategic action fields in social change projects, particularly how it can increase the representation of minority groups, like people with disabilities.

Author

• David Nicholas Pettinicchio, University of Toronto