ABSTRACT
Resource mobilisation theory stresses the inevitability of movement organisations' obsession with organisational maintenance — especially their budgets and their public image (McCarthy & Zald, 1977: 1220–4). To survive, resources — whether in the form of money or active support — are crucial. Informally organised ‘new social movement’ groups tend to extract resources from members in the form of active participation, whereas ‘protest-businesses’ 1 (Jordan & Maloney, 1997) mobilise direct-mail subscriptions to raise finances. Concerns about resources influence EMOs' relations with local supporters and campaigns: some consider that they do not have sufficient resources to support all local campaigns; others — especially those financially reliant on direct-debit supporters -seek to appease supporters rather than active local campaigners. It is important for EMOs that derive a large proportion of funds from ‘supporters’ 2 to maintain their loyalty, especially in the face of high levels of multiple memberships (in 1997, 66% of Friends of the Earth's paper membership also belonged to at least one other EMO; Jordan & Maloney, 1997: 82). Thus, national EMOs may choose to focus on issues or campaigning styles that maximise public sympathy and enhance, or at least protect, their budgets. This can become a vicious circle to the extent that maintaining a public image might, at least in theory, take priority over campaigning. Indeed, by the mid-to late-1990s commentators noted that large EMOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (FoE) appeared increasingly motivated by self-investment, that their activities were curtailed by increasingly cumbersome budgets, and that they were, in consequence, ignoring grassroots issues and local groups (Rawcliffe, 1998: 78). 3
