ABSTRACT

Resource mobilization theory posits that the amount of resources available to a movement is the strongest determinate of its success. Gamson (1990), in particular, has argued that the most critical kinds of resources are strong organizations. Moreover, in studies of social movement groups, researchers have found that successful groups tend to be more bureaucratized and centralized and do not have as many problems with factionalism (Gamson, 1990; Giugni, 2004). Alinsky and many of his followers have been strong advocates of the importance of building organizations as the pathway to achieving organizing victories. Others have argued just the opposite: movements are more likely to succeed when they avoid building strong organizations because they are better able to utilize the tactic of disruption (Giugni, 2004; Piven & Cloward, 1979). Although mobilization may allow for more flexibility, spontaneity, and creativity, institutionalization may allow for more stability, development of resources, and sustainability (Tait, 2005). Rubin and Rubin (2001) have suggested that organizations are able to focus power, offer continuity, develop expertise, and react quickly to changing conditions. In the context of a globalizing economy and neoliberal social welfare policies that have resulted in the abandonment of state interventions, the roles of nonprofit organizations and NGOs are particularly salient in communities across the globe (Reisch, 2005). It is clear that organizations play an important though contested role in community organizing work.