10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts,
Converging Experiences, Transnational
Solidarity
Ulrike Zschache and Christian Lahusen
Introduction
Citizen groups across Europe are engaged in solidarity activism in a wider
range of issue fields. Many of these groups and organisations have been
active for many years, but this engagement has been stepped up considerably in reaction to the growing social needs and political demands provoked by the various crises that have affected European countries since
2008. The previous chapters have painted a rich picture of the organisational fields in a number of European countries, paying particular
The chapter takes up results of the research project “European paths to transnational solidarity at
times of crisis: Conditions, forms, role models and policy responses” (TransSOL), which has
received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
under grant agreement No. 649435.
U. Zschache • C. Lahusen (*)
Department of Social Sciences, University of Siegen, Siegen,
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
e-mail: zschache@sozialwissenschaften.uni-siegen.de; lahusen@soziologie.
uni-siegen.de
© The Author(s) 2021
C. Lahusen et al. (eds.), Transnational Solidarity in Times of Crises, Palgrave Studies in
European Political Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49659-3_10
271
272
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
attention to smaller and mostly local initiatives engaged in practices of
transnational solidarity. In-depth interviews with representatives and
activists from these citizen groups and civic organisations were conducted
in Denmark, France, Greece, Germany, Italy, Poland, Switzerland and
the UK in order to map solidarity work in the fields of unemployment,
migration and asylum and disabilities, to better understand the experiences of these organisations, the challenges and constraints they have
faced, the action repertoires and strategies they have employed and the
national and transnational webs of cooperation they have been involved
in. This book offers chapters summarising the main findings of their
fieldwork at the grassroots level, giving a vivid account of the situation
within each of the countries under analysis. The experiences of the analysed groups and organisations mirror the specificities of the issue field
they are working in, as well as the specific features of the socio-economic,
political and cultural context of their respective countries. However, the
perceptions of the interviewed activists, the experiences they report and
the lessons learned share a great number of similarities, testifying that
citizen groups, while committed to local activism and restricted to a limited area of operation, seem to be part of a cross-national arena of transnational solidarity work, committed to a similar mission in a context of
similar challenges and degradations.
Diverging Contexts
and Converging Experiences
Engaged citizens are aware that solidarity work is confronted with increasing problems and challenges. In most interviews, we heard about growing
deprivations, and in part, respondents spoke of apparent moments of
crisis. In times of economic recession, mass unemployment, growing precariousness and high immigration, civic groups and organisations have to
respond to growing needs, increasing external pressures and limited
organisational capacities. Problems have increased in the wake of the
financial and economic crisis since 2008, and additional challenges have
emerged with the so-called refugee crisis, which announced itself through
increasing inflows of refugees in the South European countries,
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
273
culminating in the dramatic summer of 2015. Solidarity groups have
been exposed to these crises to varying degrees, depending on the
issue field they are operating in and also on the country where they are
located. However, accounts and experiences are surprisingly similar, as
the various chapters in the book testify.
The Great Recession as a Joint Experience?
Citizen groups and civic organisations have had to respond to the socioeconomic and financial crisis in a very different way. Greek organisations
providing services and help to the unemployed, for instance, had to
struggle with far greater difficulties than German unemployment groups
or unions. However, it is important to stress that the Great Recession has
had an impact on the work of almost all solidarity organisations, across
countries and issue fields (Sanchez Salgado 2017; Papadaki and Kalogeraki
2017; Zamponi and Bosi 2018). In particular, three aggravations are
mentioned everywhere: the socio-economic degradation due to the financial and economic crisis since 2008, the ongoing retrenchment of the
welfare state and a new wave of austerity measures, and a growing disruption of social cohesion (Bermeo and Bartels 2014; Blyth 2013; Schmidt
2016). In most countries, these three elements of crisis are described with
similar verve. In Italy and Greece, activists report exposure to economic,
political and social degradation. In Poland, France and the UK, respondents stress the gravity of those deprivations that are tied to the political
and institutional transformation of the welfare state, whose pace has
increased since the outbreak of the financial and economic crisis. Engaged
citizens in Denmark and Germany, finally, do not highlight current
developments and short-term shocks but argue that the immediate
impact of the economic and political aggravations is only part of a more
general and long-term development that implies structural deteriorations
of social cohesion within society. In this sense it is astonishing that the
similarities between perceptions of aggravations and problems prevail, in
spite of apparent contextual differences: while countries have been
exposed to the Great Recession to varying degrees, activists across all
countries share a similar diagnosis of their times, even though they
emphasise the various elements of crisis differently.
274
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
In Greece, the conflation of all three elements of crisis was the most
notable. Due to the severity and the length of the economic recession,
Greek activists report that a considerable share of the Greek population
was affected by the harsh fallout from the economic and financial crisis,
the implementation of Troika Memoranda and drastic austerity policies.
Over a million people lost their jobs, social and health care was minimised due to cuts in public spending, and most Greeks became frustrated
and desperate. Also in Italy, interviewees underline that the global economic crisis increased social vulnerabilities, having a devastating impact
on deprived population groups, as it increased unemployment and deteriorated the conditions of those living in conditions of precarious work
and/or joblessness. In the years between 2010 and 2013, the economic
and financial crisis provoked severe cuts in welfare services, which affected
not only those groups within society dependent on social benefits but
also the prospects of those wishing to be included more proactively in
society, such as people with disabilities.
In other countries, the feeling of significant aggravations is shared,
even though the financial and socio-economic crisis was not identified as
the main catalyst of social degradations. In Poland, TSO representatives
could not pinpoint moments of financial strain and economic degradation, given that Poland’s economy was little affected by the global and
European crisis. However, the Polish government seems to have used the
more adverse economic context to push for austerity policies that aimed
at the liberalisation and flexibilisation of the labour market, cuts in
unemployment rights and welfare benefits for the disabled. In other
countries, the Great Recession seems to have expedited a deeper transformation of the welfare state, already well under way at that point in time.
Here as well, TSO activists largely agree on welfare retrenchment and
austerity policies being the main reason for growing social problems and
grievances. In the UK, decades of privatisation seem to go hand in hand
with a roll back of the state and immediate impacts of austerity policies,
which all had a significant impact on the living conditions of disabled
people, sparked numerous redundancies, poorer working conditions and
lower levels of labour security, an increase in non-standard forms of
employment, and social benefits characterised by sanctions and compulsion. In addition, the sensibility to social degradations was fostered by
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
275
public concerns about potential job losses as a consequence of Brexit.
According to French transnational solidarity organisations (TSOs), the
global economic crisis nurtured a long-standing process of welfare
retrenchment in their country as well. Social degradation is attributed
not to the impact of the crisis per se but to austerity measures. The Great
Recession is thus perceived as part of a long-term project to reinforce a
neoliberal agenda of welfare cuts, privatisation of public services and
increased exposure of citizens to market competition. Overall, there is a
sense of a gradual welfare retrenchment that is associated with a crisis of
the welfare state value and thus, consequently, of social cohesion. Similarly
in Denmark, Germany and Switzerland, the perception of living in times
of substantial degradation is less tied to specific dates. In particular, the
outbreak of the financial and economic crisis is less of a noteworthy event
for our respondents in Denmark, Germany and Switzerland. This does
not exclude, as some civic organisations indicate, considerable blows to
the national labour market, a rising demand for social benefits and growing pressure on public finances, as well as increasing public debt. However,
from the perception of activists, these financial and economic shocks
were transitory and thus a specific episode of a long-term development.
Danish activists, for instance, report that their country was hit much less
forcefully by the 2008 financial crisis, and the stagnation in the initial
crisis years was soon replaced by an economic recovery. Prior to the financial crisis, however, Denmark had been through a structural reform of the
local government system that significantly changed social policies and
implied cuts in the distribution of welfare.
German activists agree with this general diagnosis, because the financial and economic crisis of the years 2008 and 2009, which affected the
German labour market considerably over a short period, is perceived as
part of a long-term process of welfare retrenchment, rising social inequalities and problems, and declining levels of social cohesion and solidarity.
Due to the economic recovery and growth in Germany since 2010, problems related to unemployment, social exclusion and poverty disappeared
from the public eye, while debates about austerity measures and the
financial sustainability of the German social model featured high on the
public agenda. Activists are mainly concerned that unemployment and
poverty are being pushed off political and media agendas, thus
276
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
contributing to the erosion of solidarity towards concerned societal
groups. This also limits the possibilities of promoting the full equity and
inclusion of people with disabilities in society.
For respondents from Switzerland, the global and European financial
and economic crisis does not seem to have had any marked impact. Yet
activists shift attention to the influence of the long-term restructuration
of the welfare system. In particular, the development of a system of active
labour market policies for unemployed people, or people with difficulties
gaining access to the labour market, is seen as a factor that contributes to
an increased divide between the insiders and the outsiders of the labour
market, as well as a growing opposition between organisations representing the interests of people in employment, on the one hand, and unemployed people, on the other. Similar to their German counterparts,
unemployment TSOs are concerned about a lack of public and political
awareness of the structural reasons for unemployment, underemployment and poverty, and the erosion of solidarity towards the most vulnerable groups in society.
The current times are thus described as a situation of economic, political and social regression that substantially challenge the work of solidarity groups and organisations, even though activists are steering clear of a
wholly doom and gloom portrayal of societal degradation, while underlining moments of change and opportunity. In this sense, the perception
of crisis is nurtured by an inherent narrative of risks and opportunities.
In regard to risks, our interviews underline that civic groups and organisations have to operate in a more difficult environment, implying more
challenges, pressures and limitations. Local TSOs have to meet more
needs and demands of unemployed people, migrants and refugees, and
disabled citizens. At the same time, they have to operate with fewer
(financial) resources, given rising public debt and austerity measures and
more competition among civic groups and organisations for a smaller
share of public and private funding. In part, these groups see the need to
adapt their activities and services in order to survive. Moreover, the relations with public authorities develop more confrontational elements,
particularly when groups stress their advocatory mission and militate for
defending the political rights of the deprived groups they advocate for.
In regard to opportunities, the current situation of crisis and
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
277
regression is also perceived as a situation of growing mobilisation of
engaged citizens, the formation of new initiatives and experimentation
with more advocatory and participatory action repertoires. Additionally,
the activists’ accounts testify a growing public awareness about the political underpinnings of socio-economic degradations, stressing the criticism of public policies of austerity, the retrenchment of welfare services
and the questioning of citizens’ social rights. In this context, solidarity
has become more political in that it requires a struggle to preserve and
extend social rights, to speak out on behalf of the demands of deprived
groups on the fringes of society and to empower and involve them in
collective actions.
In Greece, the regressive and permissive repercussions of the crises on the
organisational field of TSOs have been most notable. In reaction to the
economic recession, the Troika Memoranda, the austerity policies and
the growing incapacity of the welfare state to respond, a wide range of
solidarity groups and organisations emerged in order to provide direct
support to cover basic, everyday needs. Greek respondents report that
their country has experienced unprecedented growth in civil society
organisations, which have also become stronger and more autonomous
from state and partisan control, thus stepping out of the clientelistic
framework of previous decades. In other countries, this experience of
growth is less marked, given that civil society organisations are more
widely spread and integrated into issue field-specific practices of political
advocacy and public service provision. Activists thus describe the impact
of the adverse economic, political and social circumstances as paradoxical
pressures that increase public expectations, while limiting public
resources. Italian activists report that they have sought to mitigate the
impact of economic breakdown and austerity policies by stepping up
both advocacy and service provision. With a certain unease, they see
themselves engaged in playing a complementary role to the welfare state,
thus correcting the mistakes of current policy developments. Also, British
respondents stress that public debt, privatisation and austerity policies are
creating a difficult funding environment which limits the ability of organisations to do more work with fewer resources. In addition, Polish respondents add that the lack of public funding cannot be compensated for by
donations from members or supporters, thus pulling the plug on certain
278
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
activities and services. They all agree that these aggravations are primarily
caused by inadequate government actions. Danish respondents share the
conviction that the current situation is marked by a homemade crisis,
thus stressing that they have become more critical of their government,
which is undermining the traditionally close ties between Danish civil
society and municipalities in providing welfare services, not only in the
disability sector but also in regard to services for the unemployed,
migrants and refugees. Against this backdrop, a more advocatory stance
is being adopted by many civic groups, as is true for the situation among
French civic groups. This situation, however, is not without contradictions and ambivalences. On the one hand, the retrenchment of the welfare state is increasing the complementary function of civil society
organisations in the provision of services, thus opening a door for organisations to professionalise and institutionalise. On the other hand, however, the organisational mission of these solidarity groups is being
politicised, underlining the advocatory approach of their work and introducing more confrontational relations with public authorities.
The So-Called Refugee Crisis: Aggravating Contexts
and Regressive Tendencies
Solidarity groups had been confronted with a societal environment that
was marked—according to the representatives of these organisations—by
regressive tendencies and multiple hardships. The detrimental consequences of the financial and economic crisis and the limitations imposed
by public policies of welfare retrenchment have not been, however, the
only source of concern to TSOs, given that the so-called summer of
migration since 2015 has multiplied problems and challenges for civic
groups engaged in the field of migration and asylum and for citizens concerned with the situation of incoming refugees. Also, the so-called refugee crisis has had a differential impact on civic solidarity, even though all
countries seem to have been affected to some degree (della Porta 2018;
Zamponi 2017; Kousis et al. 2020). Countries on the transit route of
refugees fleeing from war, persecution or famine—such as Greece—and
countries of destination—such as Germany—experienced a considerable
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
279
mobilisation of civic solidarity as a consequence of the inability of public
authorities to respond to human tragedies and individual needs, true also
for solidarity groups in the other countries with no or few incoming refugees. Activists testify that the so-called refugee crisis has changed public
perceptions and policies, thus calling for more proactive and advocatory
work in solidarity with non-citizens, migrants and refugees. While the
so-called refugee crisis had positive effects on the mobilisation of support
for solidarity initiatives in the short term, activists rather tend to insist on
the risks and pressures the summer of migration has brought about in the
long term.
The momentum of public mobilisation was the most pronounced in
Greece, Germany and Italy, following the reports of TSO representatives.
In Greece, solidarity groups committed to fighting social exclusion have
stepped up their activities in order to integrate refugees and immigrants,
but these activities were not dissociated from initiatives working on
behalf of the disabled and/or unemployed people. As a consequence of
the dual crisis, many new TSOs were established in the fields of migration, disability and unemployment, and in many cases, members and
activists had already been active in civil society organisations and social
movements. Civil society has not only experienced moments of considerable growth; it has been exposed to an internal integration in terms of
cross-cutting needs, constituencies and demands. The Italian experience
deviated in one important aspect from the Greek one, because in Italy, a
web of civic groups and organisations working on behalf of migrants and
refugees had already been in place, which expanded and intensified their
current activities. This has to do also with new funding opportunities for
TSOs as an immediate reaction to the so-called refugee crisis, which
helped to support the organisational work, mainly concerning services
for immigrants and refugees.
The situation in Germany deviates from the Greek and Italian experiences, because the German economy had largely recovered before the
high inflow of refugees and migrants from Syria, other regions of the
Middle and Far East and Africa. Activists were generally very successful
in claiming that Germany had a moral obligation to welcome people fleeing from war and poverty, which led to innumerable new citizen groups,
initiatives and volunteers that started to assist the newly arrived asylum
280
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
seekers. This civic engagement was not confined to religious or left antiracists’ groups, but it mobilised ordinary citizens across political orientations and social milieus. The informal initiatives and groups were able to
emerge across the whole country, also because these organisations could
build on a well-developed network of civil society organisations, activists
and members. However, welcoming culture and pro-refugee groups were
confronted with public reservations from the very beginning, often struggling with committing public authorities to provide sufficient services
and goods. Additionally, their activism was paralleled by growing countermobilisations, which tried to discredit their solidarity work and push
public opinion towards a more restrictive approach to immigration and
integration.
The constraining effect of public hostility has also been experienced by
activists from other countries, even though these countries had been
much less exposed to the inflows of refugees than Greece and Germany.
Denmark and the UK were among those countries with a limited number of Syrian refugees, while Poland resisted any attempts to participate
in burden-sharing, even though the number of migrants from Ukraine
was quite substantial. TSOs in these countries aimed primarily to confront restrictive immigration and asylum policies that had been introduced by the national government. In Denmark, the so-called refugee
crisis provoked a wave of mobilisation, with many citizens volunteering
in grassroots movements engaged in practical help and support activities.
This mobilisation, however, had to struggle from the very beginning with
a public opinion leaning towards populist and anti-immigrant sentiments, thus limiting their scope of activities considerably. Similar to the
experience in France, TSOs working on behalf of migrants and refugees
are confronted by restrictive migration policies and less supportive programmes of social integration. Under these circumstances, solidarity
groups are forced to focus on more urgent needs (such as food, housing
and health). Even though many organisations in Italy, France, Denmark
and the UK underline their advocatory mission as struggling for the
rights of refugees and asylum seekers, their political activism seems to be
much more severely challenged within the public sphere.
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
281
Solidarity Activities
and Cooperation Structures
Solidarity groups have been shaped by the aggravating social conditions
of their societies. Both crises—the Great Recession since 2008 and the
crisis of the European migration regime emerging since 2012—have left
their imprint on the organisational fields in all countries under analysis.
Even though the exposure to the dual crisis was very different between
TSOs, depending on which target groups they addressed and in which
countries they operated, it is true that all of them were directly or indirectly affected by growing socio-economic grievances, more restrictive
social and immigration policies, and a less permissive and supportive
opinion climate in regard to excluded groups. While the Great Recession
and the so-called refugee crisis called for more solidarity between
European governments and citizens, national policies and public debates
tended to regress towards national conceptions of solidarity.
This context has encouraged TSOs to maintain an activism that
remains committed to transnational solidarity. The two crises have quite
markedly impacted on the organisational fields of TSOs, even in those
countries with a short-lived economic downturn and comparatively low
numbers of incoming refugees and asylum seekers. They have encouraged
activists to broaden the concept of solidarity, given that TSOs questioned
more overtly the distinctiveness of different target groups, calling for
more integrated, intersectional approaches to meet the needs of the
unemployed, migrants or refugees and disabled people, and engaging in
a more concerted struggle in favour of an inclusive, open and fair society.
While many TSOs have been prioritising the charitable dimension of
solidarity when providing services and goods to meet the immediate
needs of those groups exposed more severely to the dual crisis, activists
across issue fields and countries tend to stress the limitations of such an
approach, agreeing on the need for a more political approach to rightsbased advocacy. Additionally, TSOs have seen the need to engage in
cooperation and networking activities and to continuously develop their
action repertoires in order to more effectively conform to their goals and
missions. As we will see in the following, activists in all countries under
analysis seem to be part of a shared learning environment.
282
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
Politicisation and Contentiousness
Unquestionably, this book has something to add to the literature on the
subject of the politicisation and contentiousness of TSOs in the three
analysed fields of vulnerability. In this regard, some similarities emerge
across countries. At the same time, relevant differences exist that require
us to draw a more nuanced picture. Generally, it appears that the smaller,
grassroots-based and mostly locally embedded solidarity organisations
are more often than not political, critical and contentious (also Zamponi
and Bosi 2018). Moreover, the findings of most country chapters reveal
that action repertoires are in many cases characterised by a strong combination of service provision and political activities (also Zamponi 2019).
Hence, many TSOs have a “hybrid” character (Minkoff 2002) and bridge
the divide between service- and policy-orientation, evidenced in previous
research (Baglioni and Giugni 2014; Baglioni 2001). In direct confrontation with urgent needs and grievances, providing direct help and support
is the first response of many solidarity organisations. Nevertheless, many
of them pursue a political mission or agenda. What is more, in many
instances, TSOs have been duly created out of the political motivation to
counterpose and mitigate insufficient public policies in times of state
retrenchment, austerity and crises.
On closer inspection, it appears that action repertoires vary notably
with respect to different fields and countries. Basically, a first distinction
can be made with regard to the question of whether TSOs centre their
activities more strongly on service provision or on political action.
Secondly, we can distinguish between different types of political activity.
On the one hand, there are more moderate and cooperative forms, such
as awareness raising, advocacy, lobbying and campaigning. On the other
hand, we find more critical, contentious, confrontational and radical
forms, involving protest and strike action, and social movement campaigns. There is wide agreement among the findings across the eight
countries under review that TSOs from the disability field usually focus
more strongly on service provision and that their political activism is
mostly based on moderate and cooperative forms of action, like awareness raising, interest representation and lobbying. However, when it
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
283
comes to the other two fields, the findings are not so clear. In large parts,
we see that TSOs from the unemployment and migration fields tend to
follow a hybrid approach, combining practical help and political mobilisation invariably without prioritising one over the other. To a certain
degree, service-oriented and political action are, in fact, inextricably
interlinked because providing direct practical help to their target groups
is regarded as a political statement in itself. However, this pattern does
not apply equally to all countries. In the UK, for instance, there is a
clearer division of labour between service- and policy-oriented migration
TSOs. Moreover, the smaller, grassroots-oriented unemployment and
migration TSOs often appear more critical and contentious compared to
the disability TSOs, and a minority of them are indeed quite radical and
confrontational. Yet again, this observation is not true for all countries. In
Italy, for instance, the analysed TSOs across all three fields are rarely
heavily politicised and tend to engage in more moderate forms of political action, like awareness raising, advocacy and lobbying, while only a
few are overtly contentious and more radical. This is in sharp contrast to
Greece, the second country analysed in this book that is strongly impacted
as a consequence of the dual crisis. Here, we found the highest degree of
politicisation and radicalism among the smaller, grassroots-oriented
TSOs forming the focus of this book.
Cooperation and Transnationalism
For the smaller scale, grassroots-oriented and mostly locally based citizen
groups and organisations, mutual help, sharing and pooling of resources
and cooperation with other civil society organisations is an important
strategy in order to face hard times of austerity, state retrenchment and
crises. Accordingly, trends show that grassroots transnational solidarity
organisations have both tightened and expanded their cooperation with
others over the past decade. For the vast majority of these groups and
organisations, cooperation within the domestic context has been prioritised. Since most of their activities are geared towards responding to
urgent needs and grievances in their direct local environment, interrelations of mutual support and exchange with other local initiatives,
284
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
organisations and networks prevail. This local focus applies particularly
strongly to the migration and refugee help organisations. In addition,
many of the analysed organisations are involved in regional to national
forms of cooperation and networking.
Yet, the way in which cooperation is organised differs notably among
the fields, and these differences are similarly patterned across countries.
Overall, disability organisations typically belong to rather formal national
associations or umbrella organisations. Moreover, cooperation and interorganisational relations of solidarity among disability organisations are
markedly structured according to particular types of disability or disease,
thus leading to considerable fragmentation in this field. In comparison,
organisations from the migration and unemployment sector are much
more embedded in informal networks and platforms, unless they are
trade unions that also tend to be part of formal associations and umbrella
organisations. What is more, there seems to be a widespread trend that
particularly labour and unemployment organisations, but also organisations from the migration field, respond to the challenges of the past years
by building alliances with and extending their solidarity relations towards
organisations and networks from a broad range of other sectors and
issue fields, including precarity and atypical working conditions, poverty,
migration, housing, rising nationalism, anti-neoliberalism, austerity or
women’s and ethnic minorities’ rights. They bridge differences, identify
common concerns and join forces in order to mobilise broader constituencies, enhance public and political attention and promote political
change (also Diani 2018; Gumbrell-McCormick 2011; Kirton and
Greene 2005; Marino et al. 2015). The latter also reflects the fact that
most organisations from the unemployment and migration fields pursue
a political mission and engage in political action. Indeed, observed differences in the type of cooperation and networking should not be attributed
to the field of activity alone. We also have to remember that the three
analysed fields differ in their degree of contentiousness. As described previously, disability TSOs tend to be more service-oriented and more moderate and consensus-oriented in their political activities (such as awareness
raising, lobbying and campaigning), while unemployment and migration
TSOs are often more politicised, critical, contentious and protestoriented. These variations in the level of contentiousness further translate
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
285
into the ways in which inter-organisational relations are coordinated and
organised.
If cooperation within national contexts prevails, what is the proper
role of transnational exchange and collaboration? In this regard, the findings of this book provide striking evidence that smaller scale, grassrootsoriented solidarity organisations are engaged in activities of transnational
solidarity, but it follows unique patterns that distinguish it from the more
salient transnationalism of larger and more formalised civil society organisations (Kohler-Koch and Buth 2013; Sanchez Salgado 2014). Indeed,
as we have already proposed elsewhere (Kousis et al. 2020; Lahusen
2020), the country studies at hand corroborate and illustrate in detail
that smaller, mostly informal and locally based citizen groups and organisations are more likely to pursue forms of soft transnational solidarity
that involve rather loosely coupled, horizontal forms of cooperation and
informal networking across different countries. Moreover, the locally
embedded and grassroots-centred action repertoires through which TSOs
respond to urgent needs and demands in their direct environment translate further into forms of transnational cooperation that have a decentralised structure and are immediately bound to specific local organisations
and/or constituencies in other countries. In other words, transnational
solidarity manifests itself primarily as cross-national cooperation between
different local groups (also Lahusen et al. 2018; Mattoni and della Porta
2014; Tarrow 1998). It consists typically of information exchange and
sharing ideas, learning about best practices and potential solutions to current challenges across borders. Furthermore, such loose forms of transnational cooperation comprise ad-hoc campaigning and collaboration of
different local groups or grassroots organisations in specific, nonformalised ad-hoc projects. In a small number of cases, cross-national
cooperation also involves direct service provision and financial support
for local (self-help) groups and people in need living in less developed
regions of the world. In comparison, forms of hard or strong transnational solidarity, where cross-national activities are coordinated in a more
formal and structured way, play only a secondary role. Cooperation is
seldom organised in formalised European or transnational platforms,
networks or campaigns. Some TSOs engage in joint transnational projects that are funded, for instance, by the EU or other international
286
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
funding sources, which can also be regarded as a form of stronger, more
systematic transnational cooperation.
In addition, the minority of the analysed solidarity organisations are
involved in forms of vertical Europeanisation, thus participating in a
“scale shift” (Tarrow and McAdam 2005) towards the EU (also KohlerKoch 2010; Kohler-Koch and Quittkat 2013; Monforte 2009; Sanchez
Salgado 2017; Taylor and Mathers 2004). Here, TSOs are organised as
members of a more formalised European or international umbrella organisation, platform or network—either directly or indirectly through their
national umbrella organisation. Through their membership, these TSOs
can benefit from the advocacy, lobbying and campaigning activities of
their umbrella organisations and thus gain access to legislative processes
and consultations at the supra- or transnational level.
Moving beyond the distinction between (soft or strong) horizontal
and vertical solidarity interlinkages, the country chapters of this book
evidence that both the prevalent type and the extent of transnational solidarity are pre-structured by a set of different factors. Firstly, and similar
to domestic forms of cooperation, the very field of activity and the degree
of contentiousness make a difference as to whether TSOs privilege soft or
hard transnational solidarity practices. Soft forms of transnational solidarity are predominant in the migration field and widely diffused among
TSOs from the unemployment field. TSOs pursuing soft transnationalism are also those that are often more politicised and critical and, in many
cases, also more contentious and protest-oriented. These types of transnational solidarity organisations opt for horizontal relations of reciprocity
and mutual exchange because they target the grassroots level of direct
demands and grievances. However, due to their critical and often contentious character, they also aim to avoid the adaptive pressures implied by
more formalised and vertical forms of Europeanisation (Kohler-Koch
and Buth 2013; Sanchez Salgado 2014). In comparison, stronger forms
of horizontal cooperation and vertical Europeanisation are more common among TSOs from the disability field, trade unions and some
employment-oriented TSOs. These interlinkages manifest themselves
mainly in the membership of a transnational network or European
umbrella organisation, or sometimes of structured projects or programmes on the basis of EU funds, such as Erasmus+ and the European
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
287
Social Fund. TSOs favouring harder, more formalised or fixed forms of
transnational solidarity and/or vertical Europeanisation tend to be more
service-oriented and apply a more consensus-oriented, mainstream
approach to their political activities.
Secondly, the extent and type of transnational solidarity relations are
decisively influenced by organisational capacities and the exploitation of
external opportunities. The extent, intensity and eventually also the question of loose and ad-hoc or more structured transnational cooperation are
to a significant degree conditional upon organisational resources. Many
respondents across the different countries reported that they could barely
afford to engage systematically in transnational cooperation and networking. What is more, existing transnational interlinkages often had to
be scaled back or given up in recent years due to the immense workload
they encounter in their direct environments at home. Relocating their
efforts from the European to the local (and national) level of cooperation
has clearly been prioritised in times of state retrenchment, austerity and
crises. This observation applies most strongly to the small, informal citizen groups and organisations operating exclusively with volunteers. In
comparison, organisations that are somewhat larger tend to be more
resourceful and are better prepared to engage more systematically and
strongly in transnational solidarity relations. In part, these organisations
are also more formalised and involve some paid staff. Thus, the question
of whether and how a solidarity organisation can afford to become active
transnationally is largely a matter of size and partly due to the degree of
formalisation (Durán Mogollón et al. 2020).
At the same time, size and formalisation have an influence on an
organisation’s readiness to seize external opportunities, such as access to
an additional arena of lobbying and influence-taking on political decisions and to new, alternative funding sources at the supra- and transnational level (also Kousis 1999; Císař and Vráblíková 2013; Sanchez
Salgado 2017). In this regard, once again the bigger and more formalised
solidarity organisations are able to utilise these opportunities. As discussed earlier, a higher degree of formalisation often goes hand in hand
with an organisation’s membership of formal European umbrella organisations or networks. Hence, through this membership, the more formal
TSOs may seek to impact on supranational policy-making in order to
288
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
compensate for insufficient influence-taking at home. In addition, country reports similarly point out that it is mostly the larger and often the
more formal TSOs that have the capacities to apply for funding from
European and transnational funding sources in order to make up for
reductions in and harsh competition over domestic funding and as a way
to respond to rising demands among their constituencies. In particular,
the financial opportunities offered by supra- and transnational funding
are a driving force for them to engage in structured joint European and
transnational projects and more long-lasting collaborations with partners
from abroad. In contrast, smaller, informal, low-resourced TSOs usually
do not have the capacity to apply for EU and transnational forms of
funding (with uncertain success), as they have to focus their resources on
the pressing demands in their immediate environments (also Lahusen
2014). Thus, what we see is that the already better-equipped TSOs are
the ones that are able to take advantage of supra- and transnational
opportunities to further secure their survival in hard times of state
retrenchment and crises, while those that are already struggling to make
ends meet are in a disadvantaged position. At the same time, though, we
need to remember that higher degrees of contentiousness may also lead
them to distance themselves more overtly from the EU as a system of
governance.
Social Learning and Innovation
A third major finding is that the solidarity work of the analysed groups
and organisations is considerably shaped by collective learning processes.
Respondents from the different countries widely agree that they have
developed and employed new approaches and practices in recent years in
order to respond to changing social realities and new challenges in times
of austerity, state retrenchment and crises. Indeed, they report that poor
resources and insufficient or transformed political frameworks, on the
one hand, and a surge of people in need of support as well as a rise of new
grievances and demands, on the other, have urged them to adapt their
strategies, concepts and activities to these new circumstances. In addition, new practices have emerged because of TSOs making use of new
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
289
opportunities and adapting to new routines of constituencies and stakeholders, particularly with regard to the latest communication technologies. Overall, these revised and altered approaches and practices are not,
per se, completely new. Nevertheless, they involve innovative elements
because of the ways in which these solidarity groups and organisations
experiment with new activities and instruments or adjust existing ones in
order to respond to new needs and cope with transformed circumstances
(also Kousis and Paschou 2017; Papadaki and Kalogeraki 2017; Zamponi
and Bosi 2018).
Across the different country chapters, a number of similar patterns
have emerged. First of all, interviewees from various countries reported
that their group or organisation extended the scope of solidarity towards
new target groups that usually did not belong to their core constituency.
In practical terms, this meant an expansion and adaptation of the TSOs’
repertoire of action in order to be more inclusive, reach out to more
diverse beneficiaries and target multiple and partly intersectional needs.
On the one hand, this broadening of solidarity action is a means to cope
with upcoming urgent needs and to adapt to changing grievances and
demands (for instance, due to an increase of migrants and refugees, the
flexibilisation and precarisation of employment conditions); on the other,
it is a strategy to safeguard an organisation’s survival in the face of multiple crises, restructuring of the welfare state and austerity. While this
trend emerged in most of the countries under review, there are notable
differences as regards the fields of vulnerability. Indeed, broadening the
scope of solidarity action and opening up to new target groups is most
prominent among unemployment organisations and trade unions (also
Diani 2018; Gumbrell-McCormick 2011; Kirton and Greene 2005;
Marino et al. 2015), while it is almost absent among organisations from
the highly fragmented disability field. In addition, there are also exceptions to the general observation of an expansion of solidarity. Interviews
with TSOs from Switzerland, for example, showed that both migration
and (un)employment organisations work for closely defined and almost
mutually exclusive circles of beneficiaries, reflecting distinct policy traditions and frameworks and a related functionalist approach towards target
groups. Indeed, according to the interviews, fragmentation and specialisation are so far-reaching that there are hardly any interlinkages, save for
290
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
opposition, between Swiss unemployment organisations, on the one
hand, and trade unions and other labour-related organisations, on
the other.
Secondly, and resonating well with the broadening of target groups,
several TSOs across different countries led enhanced efforts to engage in
new forms of alliance building with a broad range of organisations, networks and movements from other areas and fields. Bridging differences,
identifying common concerns and aims, and joining forces on behalf of
them is a strategy that has gained momentum in recent years in order to
reinforce public and political attention, renew organisational legitimacy
foundations and increase the policy impact (also Borland 2010; Diani
2018). Again, this approach was reported in particular by organisations
from the unemployment field (including trade unions) (also Milner and
Mathers 2013), while it was only marginally addressed by TSOs from the
other two fields.
Thirdly, establishing new solidarity groups and organisations is another
salient form of response to crises, changed circumstances and resultant
new grievances and needs. Many respondents underlined that their group
or organisation was created during and due to the recent economic and/
or migration policy crisis because the state and existing civil society
organisations appeared to be insufficiently prepared to cope with the
pressing direct needs at the grassroots level. While new unemployment
TSOs were mainly founded in countries with a shorter history of civic
participation, like Greece, new migration and refugee help groups and
organisations emerged in a larger number of countries that were directly
or indirectly affected by the recent rise in the arrival of migrants and refugees in Europe (also Baumgarten 2017; della Porta 2018; Kousis and
Paschou 2017; Sotiropoulos and Bourikos 2014; Vathakou 2016;
Zamponi 2017). Given that this organisational field is comparably
young, diversification and emancipation from the established large charity organisations is just a recent development, providing momentum for
the emergence of new and alternative collective actors in the field. Yet,
the economic and refugee crises were not the only circumstances that
encouraged the establishment of new TSOs. To some extent, it was also
the redesign of welfare systems, state retrenchment and austerity that
triggered the creation of solidarity organisations seeking to respond to
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
291
newly arising concerns and grievances and to meet the needs of new vulnerable groups (also White 2015).
Moreover, the findings across various country chapters show that the
smaller, grassroots-oriented and often rather informal TSOs have developed a specific bottom-up understanding of solidarity. This bottom-up
approach privileges horizontal relations between providers and receivers of
solidarity action, building on ideas of reciprocity, mutualism, equality and
participation. It is opposed to a vertical, top-down solidarity approach
guided by philanthropic and humanitarian ideas. TSOs favouring a bottom-up conception of solidarity aim to overcome relations of charity and
care because they do not want to treat their beneficiaries as passive objects
of help (Fernández G. G. et al. 2020). Instead, empowerment, emancipation, self-initiative and self-representation, as well as the realisation of
human rights, are their important guiding principles. The bottom-up solidarity approach is not in itself new and was already practised among
smaller, locally based solidarity organisations in previous decades (Moulaert
and Ailenei 2005). However, the enhanced restructuration of welfare
states, harsh austerity policies and the impact of the economic and migration policy crisis as well as the growing importance of the human rights
discourse (e.g., with regard to the rights of disabled persons or refugees)
provided an important impetus for the proliferation of this concept. In
this respect, the findings suggest in particular that these circumstances
provided momentum for the diffusion of a bottom-up approach as they
opened a window of opportunity for the engagement of new individual
and collective actors from different backgrounds, and with alternative and
often critical and politicised visions and understandings.
At the same time, this bottom-up approach of solidarity appears to
shape the notion of inter-organisational relations and transnational solidarity. As mentioned earlier, the smaller, grassroots-oriented and mostly
locally embedded TSOs analysed tend to engage in horizontal, decentralised and more informal, loose forms of soft transnational cooperation
and networking with local-level partners, rather than vertical and more
formal forms of hard transnationalism. Similar to relations with beneficiaries, the principles of reciprocity and mutualism are valued highly.
And even when transnational cooperation involves a certain asymmetry
(mostly in cases with partners from outside the EU), TSOs are
292
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
committed to empowering local partners through capacity building,
responsibility sharing and leaving the implementation of solidarity activities to the local organisations. The importance of this bottom-up approach
of transnational solidarity is closely interlinked with the fact that the
smaller grassroots-based TSOs analysed in this book, apart from being
concerned with direct needs and grievances in their local environments,
are more critical, contentious and politicised in their missions and practices. Against this backdrop, they seem to favour and work towards the
establishment of an alternative concept of transnational solidarity that
builds an active and critical transnational civil society across borders from
below (Kousis et al. 2020).
Finally, collective learning processes widely involve the development
and use of new forms of communication and outreach. In this respect,
the transnational solidarity organisations analysed in this book contribute to a general development among social movement and civil society
groups and organisations towards digitalisation and internet activism
(Bennett and Segerberg 2013; Earl and Kimport 2013; Earl and Rohlinger
2018; Kousis et al. 2018). Websites, internet platforms and social media
have become important channels to engage more efficiently and interactively with target groups and stakeholders. A number of TSOs also led
considerable efforts to experiment with and create new online tools, platforms and mobile apps as a proper service instrument for their
constituencies.
While many of our interviewees reported having used the recent challenges in the face of austerity, state retrenchment and crises as an opportunity for learning and the development and usage of new approaches
and practices, there were also some voices that uttered scepticism in this
regard. Concerns were most explicitly expressed by representatives of
various service-oriented, small TSOs from France, which suffered the
harshest competition over funding in an efficiency-driven system where
performance is measured in pure numbers. Against this backdrop, these
TSOs had little margin to experiment with alternative approaches and
practices if they wanted to survive. As a result, several TSOs that used to
be creative in the past, lost their innovative and original character in order
to stay afloat in times of state retrenchment and austerity.
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
293
Outlook
Civic groups and organisations have testified their ability to support vulnerable groups in times of crisis. Most of these groups are committed to
a local scope of operation, thus mirroring a grassroots approach to solidarity that allows them to mobilise active citizens in support of emerging
needs in their immediate surroundings. This web of civic initiatives and
groups is part and parcel of a transnational arena of civic engagement
because these groups feature aims, activities, beneficiaries, contacts and
collaborations that transcend local and national physical and imagined
borders. The analysis of civic engagement in the fields of unemployment,
disabilities and migration has shown that this wide range of TSOs is confronting a growing challenge. Activists across our eight countries tend to
converge in the opinion that their capacity to work is being limited by a
social and political context exposed to regressive tendencies (for instance,
reduced public funding, restrictive social rights or counter-mobilisations),
while the range of needs they wish to meet and the issues they are committed to speaking out on is increasing. Overall, civic groups and organisations are currently Europe’s fire brigade, responding to societal
problems that await political solutions. This organised civic solidarity,
however, is exhibiting moments of fatigue and retreat, resulting from the
intensity of activities in the dual crisis period.
The experiences of civic solidarity groups thus highlight urgent challenges that need to be addressed. Public and private funding is often short
term and discontinued; moreover, funding schemes at local, national and
EU levels are poorly coordinated. Activists are also concerned about the
side effects of established policies, given that social policies limit the
engagement of welfare recipients as non-formal work experience is not
recognised or even prohibited. Additionally, legal and financial exigencies
encourage the professionalisation, formalisation and bureaucratisation of
their work, which means that formal, professionalised and larger organisations seem to benefit in the eyes of many activists, to the detriment of
newer and smaller citizen groups. Additionally, civic solidarity seems to
depend on a proactive welfare regime. It is true that several TSOs are
engaged in alternative forms of organisation and problem-solving beyond
294
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
the institutionalised welfare state. These activities involve alternative
forms of production and consumption (such as food banks, collective
purchasing groups, repair cafés, free legal advice or medical services),
which are often tied to political forms of contestation and protest. Many
of these initiatives and groups see their main aim as promoting empowerment; they do not see their role as auxiliaries of the established welfare
system but define themselves as instruments of social change. However,
most activists militate for a more proactive welfare state, because they
highlight the responsibility of the welfare state to promote and support
solidarity, for instance, by granting social rights that guarantee greater
equality, inclusion and integration.
Finally, most initiatives, groups and organisations described in our
chapters are engaged in solidarity work with a primarily local focus.
While most activists stress that their activism is marked by elements of
transnational solidarity, when taking into consideration the organisational goals, partners or beneficiaries, the range of organisations engaged
in a truly European scope of activities is more restrained and more diffused among TSOs with a higher proportion of formalised groups with
Europeanised organisational structures (Kousis et al. 2020). Most activists stress the merit and necessity of transnational cooperation, yet, in
practice, structured forms of transnational cooperation often play a rather
marginal role. This has to do with many practical challenges, for instance,
problems of language barriers, the high workload concerning the TSOs’
core activities and the little added-value of transnational cooperation for
their immediate activism. However, TSOs are legally and financially tied
to the nation-state when looking at funding opportunities, legal status or
taxation policies. Even though the European Charter of Fundamental
Rights grants freedom of assembly and association at all levels explicitly,
there is still no European legal framework encouraging and promoting
European associations. Overall, it needs underscoring that civic solidarity
is not an incessantly chugging resource, a horn of plenty, but a practice
that is exposed to situations of overburdening and is thus in need of concerted public care and concern.
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
295
References
Baglioni, S. (2001). Solidarity Movement Organizations: Toward an Active
Global Consciousness? In M. Giugni & F. Passy (Eds.), Political Altruism?
(pp. 219–234). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Baglioni, S., & Giugni, M. (2014). Civil Society, Unemployment and Precarity
in Europe: An Introduction. In S. Baglioni & M. Giugni (Eds.), Civil Society
Organizations, Unemployment, and Precarity in Europe. Between Service and
Policy (pp. 1–10). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baumgarten, B. (2017). Back to Solidarity-Based Living? The Economic Crisis
and the Development of Alternative Projects in Portugal. Partecipazione e
Conflitto, 10(1), 169–192.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital
Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bermeo, N., & Bartels, L. M. (Eds.). (2014). Mass Politics in Tough Times:
Opinions, Votes and Protest in the Great Recession. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Blyth, M. (2013). Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Borland, E. (2010). Crisis as a Catalyst for Cooperation? Women’s Organizing
in Buenos Aires. In N. van Dyke & H. J. McCammon (Eds.), Strategic
Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements (pp. 241–265). Minnesota:
University of Minnesota Press.
Císař, O., & Vráblíková, K. (2013). Transnational Activism of Social Movement
Organizations. The Effect of European Union Funding on Local Groups in
the Czech Republic. European Union Politics, 14(1), 140–160.
della Porta, D. (Ed.). (2018). Solidarity Mobilizations in the ‘Refugee Crisis’.
Contentious Moves. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Diani, M. (2018). Unions as Social Movements or Unions in Social Movements?
In J. Grote & C. Wagemann (Eds.), Social Movements Organized Labour.
Passions Interests (pp. 43–65). London: Routledge.
Durán Mogollón, L., Eisele, O., & Paschou, M. (2020). Applied Solidarity in
Times of Crisis: Exploring the Contexts of Civil Society Activities in Greece
and Germany. Acta Politica, online first: https://doi.org/10.1057/
s41269-020-00154-8.
Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2013). Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the
Internet Age. Cambridge: MIT Press.
296
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
Earl, J., & Rohlinger, D. A. (Eds.). (2018). Social Movements and Media.
Bingley: Emerald.
Fernández G. G., E., Kousis, M., & Lahusen, C. (2020, forthcoming). Does
Organization Matter? Solidarity Approaches of Transnational Organizations
Across Eight European Countries. Sociological Research Online.
Gumbrell-McCormick, R. (2011). European Trade Unions and ‘Atypical’
Workers. Industrial Relations Journal, 42(3), 293–310.
Kirton, G., & Greene, A.-M. (2005). Gender, Equality and Industrial Relations
in the ‘New Europe’: An Introduction. European Journal of Industrial
Relations, 11(2), 141–149.
Kohler-Koch, B. (2010). Civil Society and EU Democracy. ‘Astroturf ’
Representation? Journal of European Public Policy, 17(1), 100–116.
Kohler-Koch, B., & Buth, V. (2013). The Balancing Act of European Civil
Society: Between Professionalism and Grass Roots. In B. Kohler-Koch &
C. Quittkat (Eds.), De-mystification of Participatory Democracy. EU Governance
and Civil Society (pp. 114–148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kousis, M. (1999). Sustaining Local Environmental Mobilisations. Groups,
Actions and Claims in Southern Europe. Environmental politics,
8(1), 172–198.
Kousis, M., & Paschou, M. (2017). Alternative Forms of Resilience. A Typology
of Approaches for the Study of Citizen Collective Responses in Hard
Economic Times. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 10(1), 136–168.
Kousis, M., Giugni, M., & Lahusen, C. (2018). Action Organization Analysis:
Extending Protest Event Analysis Using Hubs-Retrieved Websites. American
Behavioral Scientist, 62(6), 739–757.
Kousis, M., Loukakis, A., Paschou, M., & Lahusen, C. (2020). Waves of
Transnational Solidarity Organisations in Times of Crises: Actions, Obstacles
and Opportunities in Europe. In C. Lahusen (Ed.), Citizens’ Solidarity in
Europe. Civic Engagement and Public Discourse in Times of Crisis (pp. 55–84).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lahusen, C. (2014). Mind the Gap: Local Civil Society Organizations and the
European Union. In S. Baglioni & M. Giugni (Eds.), Civil Society
Organizations, Unemployment, and Precarity in Europe. Between Service and
Policy (pp. 204–228). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lahusen, C. (2020). Conclusion: The Entangled Paths Towards European
Solidarity. In C. Lahusen (Ed.), Citizens’ Solidarity in Europe. Civic Engagement
and Public Discourse in Times of Crisis (pp. 177–191). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
10
Conclusions: Differing Contexts, Converging Experiences…
297
Lahusen, C., Kousis, M., Zschache, U., & Loukakis, A. (2018). European
Solidarity in Times of Crisis: Comparing Transnational Activism of Civic
Organisations in Germany and Greece. Österreichische Zeitschrift für
Soziologie, 43(1), 173–197.
Marino, S., Penninx, R., & Roosblad, J. (2015). Trade Union, Immigration and
Immigrants in Europe Revisited: Unions’ Attitudes and Actions Under New
Conditions. Comparative Migration Studies, 3(1), 1–16.
Mattoni, A., & della Porta, D. (2014). Adapting Theories on Diffusion and
Transnational Contention through Social Movements of the Crisis: Some
Concluding Remarks. In D. della Porta & A. Mattoni (Eds.), Spreading
Protests. Social Movements in Times of Crisis (pp. 277–292). Colchester:
ECPR Press.
Milner, S., & Mathers, A. (2013). Membership, Influence and Voice: A
Discussion of Trade Union Renewal in the French Context. Industrial
Relations Journal, 44(2), 122–138.
Minkoff, D. C. (2002). The Emergence of Hybrid Organizational Forms:
Combining Identity-Based Service Provision and Political Action. Non-profit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 377–401.
Monforte, P. (2009). Social Movements and Europeanization Processes. The
Case of the French Associations Mobilizing Around the Asylum Issue. Social
Movement Studies, 8(4), 409–425.
Moulaert, F., & Ailenei, O. (2005). Social Economy, Third Sector and Solidarity
Relations: A Conceptual Synthesis from History to Present. Urban Studies,
42(11), 2037–2053.
Papadaki, M., & Kalogeraki, S. (2017). Social Support Actions as Forms of
Building Community Resilience at the Onset of the Crisis in Urban Greece:
The Case of Chania. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 10(1), 193–220.
Sanchez Salgado, R. (2014). Europeanizing Civil Society. How the EU Shapes
Civil Society Organizations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sanchez Salgado, R. (2017). Europeanization of Civil Society Organizations in
Times of Crisis? Exploring the Evolution Grant-Seeking Strategies in the EU
Multi-Level System. European Politics and Society, 18(4), 511–528.
Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Reinterpreting the rules ‘by stealth’ in times of crisis: a
discursive institutionalist analysis of the European Central Bank and the
European Commission. West European Politics, 39(5), 1032–1052.
Sotiropoulos, D. A., & Bourikos, D. (2014). Economic Crisis, Social Solidarity
and the Voluntary Sector in Greece. Journal of Power, Politics and Governance,
2(2), 33–53.
298
U. Zschache and C. Lahusen
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tarrow, S., & McAdam, D. (2005). Scale Shift in Transnational Contention. In
D. Della Port & S. Tarrow (Eds.), Transnational Protest and Global Activism.
People, Passions and Power (pp. 121–150). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Taylor, G., & Mathers, A. (2004). The European Trade Union Confederation at
the Crossroads of Change? Traversing the Variable Geometry of European
Trade Unionism. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 10(3), 267–285.
Vathakou, E. (2016). Citizens’ Solidarity Initiatives in Greece During the
Financial Crisis. In J. Clarke, A. Huliaras, & D. A. Sotiropoulos (Eds.),
Austerity and the Third Sector in Greece: Civil Society at the European Frontline
(pp. 167–189). London: Routledge.
White, G. (2015). Social movements and social policies. Contention, 3(2), 17–32.
Zamponi, L. (2017). Practices of Solidarity: Direct Social Action, Politicisation
and Refugee Solidarity Activism in Italy. Mondo Migranti, 3, 97–117.
Zamponi, L. (2019). Direct social action, welfare retrenchment and political
identities. Coping with the crisis and pursuing change in Italy. Partecipazione
e Conflitto, 12(2), 382–409.
Zamponi, L., & Bosi, L. (2018). Politicizing Solidarity in Times of Crisis: The
Politics of Alternative Action Organizations in Greece, Italy, and Spain.
American Behavioral Scientist, 62(6), 796–815.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.