State "advocacy structures" - agencies nominally designated to advance the status of collective social movements in public policy and society - must operate under conflicting criteria for "effectiveness." While government actors likely measure effectiveness as the ability to manage a policy issue - advancing policy influence by prioritizing and packaging demands - collective movements additionally or primarily emphasize structures' performance as representatives of the priorities and diversity of movements. This consequently leads to differing evaluations of agency "effectiveness." A case study of the Ontario Women's Directorate (OWD) analyzes the inherent conflicts and tensions between these two roles, particularly under repeated changes in government. The experiences of the OWD and other advocacy structures suggest that conflicting criteria are inherent and unavoidable in such institutions. * University of Toronto.

Malloy, J. (1999). What makes a state advocacy structure effective? Conflicts between bureaucratic and social movement criteria. Governance, 12(3), 267–288. doi:10.1111/0952-1895.00103