See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297737982

Financing Social Activism: Crowdfunding and

Advocatory Social Movements in Spain in Times
of Crisis

Article · March 2016

DOI: 10.1145/12345.67891

CITATIONS READS

0 476

2 authors:

Javier Ramos Bruno González Cacheda

Complutense University of Madrid Complutense University of Madrid
46 PUBLICATIONS 97 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social Innovation and Collaborative Economy View project

Quo Vadis Europa: the future of the EU in the 21th Century View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Javier Ramos on 14 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Financing Social Activism: Crowdfunding and Advocatory
Social Movement in Spain in Times of Crisis
Javier Ramos Díaz
Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales
Finca Mas Ferré, Edificio A
Campus de Somosaguas
34607188718
javira02@ucm.es
ABSTRACT
Crowdfunding is already a tangible alternative source of financing
that help advocatory movements to cope with the dilemmas and
bottlenecks currently affecting social movements, namely
obtaining “money or obtaining time”, and get resources from
“many or few donors”.
Crowdfunding is also a political instrument in the hands of
advocatory movements that efficiently disseminate ideas, concepts
and information in ways never explore before through “traditional”
information and communication channels. Crowdfunding is also
becoming a channel of activating social capital. Besides the
crowdfunding allows people to participate in the design, the
improvement, the dissemination and the financing of the political
and social campaigns, increasing hence the social capital of
advocacy movements.
The significant higher rate of success of those projects launched by
advocatory movements, as compared to the general success rate of
crowdfunding observed, suggest that the high level of engagement
and involvement generated by social movements are crucial to
understand success in Crowdfunding practices in general, and
especially among social movements.
Spain constitutes a conspicuous case study to explore the
Crowdfudning-Advocatory movement nexus given the strong
social-economic effects of the economic crisis and the quick and
efficient reaction on the part of civil society movements.
CCS Concepts
• Applied computing~E-government
Keywords
Crowdfunding; Advocatory Movements; e-Democracy; Financing
and Politics
1. INTRODUCTION
The expansion of ICTs and the financial crisis are becoming key
incentives for advocatory social movements to disseminate ideas,
organise actions and claim significant political, institutional and
economic transformations. This is observable in Southern Europe,
particularly in Spain, where the effects of the crisis are more
SAMPLE: Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this
work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that
copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and
that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
ICEGOV2016, March 1–3, 2016, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Copyright 2016 ACM 1-58113-000-0/00/0010…$15.00.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/12345.67890
Bruno González Cacheda
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología
Campus Somosaguas
34667950456
brungonz@ucm.es
apparent and protests are significantly influencing the
reconfiguration of the political system.
We differentiate these social movements from other civil society
organizations such as NGOs, civil associations or philanthropic
foundations devoted to the provision of welfare assistance,
development or cultural development–what most people identify
with third sector society-.
Although the third sector is not “apolitical” at all, they are not
frequently identified with a politically defined content. By contrast,
advocatory movements are highly politicized groups that occupy
anti or against hegemonic power positions, expressing preferences
for alternative forms of socio-economic relations.
A key element in explaining the expansion and consolidation of
social movements is financing. The need to choose between an
organizational model focused on obtaining money or obtaining
time, but rarely both, have been the dilemma that “traditional”
social movements have faced to (Oliver & Marwell, 1992).
According to this author, once the "protest cycle" is activated, the
keys to success are highly related to the choices about the type of
campaigns, the target groups and the repertoire and forms of
protest. This election usually determines the need of money or time
through volunteer work.
The aim is to achieve specific goals through the creation of weak
organizations. This weakness is mainly due to the heterogeneous
identity of its members that confers organizations a sense of
inclusiveness to reach the maximum number of citizens.
Membership is therefore vital to increasing human and financial
resources (Kriesi, 1999).
Money can be obtained through small donations of many donors,
which tend to be more expensive and risky because a collection
system needs to be set up and develop, although the donors can
hardly control and condition the organization (McCarthy & Zald,
1977). Yet, the organization can opt for much larger donations from
few donors, which reduce the costs of setting up a collection
system, but increase the risk of control by the donors (Oliver &
Marwell, 1992).
Kriesi (1999) identifies three main sources of funding: a) through
membership, b) through state subsidies, c) through affiliates. Thus,
the lower the financial contribution by the affiliates, the lower the
influence they can exercise in relation to the decisions taken by the
organization. As contribution through state subsidies increases,
the probability that the actions and objectives become more
pragmatic increases as well.
With the emergence of Crowdfunding platforms the dilemma
“money or time” “few or many” is easier to solve. Crowdfunding
allow social movements to obtain financial resources from many
people providing small amount of money in a short period of time
with a minimal organizational structure and involved personnel.
This translates into more autonomy, more capacity of actions and
more efficient uses of crowdfunding networks to spread messages
and proposals (cyber-activism). In this regard, we know that the
main web platforms such as Lánzanos or Verkami
receive approximately 15,000 visits per day. The main media used
in the campaigns carried out by social movements are essentially
electronic (digital media and social networks such as Facebook or
Twitter) in such a way that the combination of online media, social
networks and platforms web 2.0 are part of a spider web with a
significant potential regarding the possibilities of dissemination of
fundable projects.
Yet, we know very little about the Crowdfunding-Advocatory
Movements nexus, namely how Crowdfunding really operate
providing funds and channels of publicity. In order to shed light on
this nexus, we set out to quantify the actual (measurable)
practicality of crowdfunding in relation to advocatory movements
in Spain in the three years period 2012-2014.
In section 2 we put forward the effects of the crisis and the level of
triggered effects. Spain as a case study is analysed in this section.
The political dimension of ICTs and their connection with social
movement is examined in section 3. The general effects of
Crowdfunding on Advocatory movements are discussed in section
4. Section 5 presents the methodology used to approach the
Crowdfunding-Advocatory movements nexus. Results are
provided in section 6. Section seven concludes.
2. THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AS AN
ACTIVATOR OF PROTEST IN SPAIN
During the last seven years the Monetary Union has stood on the
brink of collapse several times. Keynesian fiscal stimulus programs
suggested by international organisation in late 2008 were adopted
by few countries for a rather short-period of time. Since then,
practically all European economies have opted for the same
strategy of austerity and budgetary discipline to put their finances
back on track.
This strategy is bringing about a spiral of damaging economic
effects. Deficit cutting is reducing growth, which leads to reduced
revenues and encourage additional pressure to cut deficits and so
on. With all EU economies consolidating deficits simultaneously,
this spillover effect is likely to continuous in the years to come
This coordinated austerity in depression is being self-defeating, as
debt-to-GDP ratios have not been reduced, unemployment is hitting
a new record of 16.5 million (10.4%) in 2013, becoming more
structural, and therefore more difficult to eradicate. Moreover, for
those holding a job, employment is more unstable and precarious.
(Eurostat 2015).
For an increasing number of citizens, especially in South Europe,
the bottom-line of this strategy of austerity is fraud. After
generously spending trillion of Euro in bailing out banks at
taxpayer expense, the incremental control that financial elites exert
on intergovernmental affairs spreads and strengths the idea that
“there is no alternative”.
In Spain, after severely cutting spending -mainly on social
expenditures and public services- increasing taxes – mainly on
consumption- and deregulatory labour market reforms that increase
the risks of labour precariousness and working poor, the idea of
“there is not alternative” is increasingly seen as a ploy of bankers.
Austerity is considered not an alternative but a tramp, not only for
the most affected stratum of population, but also for an increasing
number of citizens.
Spain represents that moment of grievances caused by socio-
economic blockades that produce the conditions for large-scale
protests and institutional changes observed by Tilly (2005). In the
last five years that moment of grievance has given way to new
forms of political protests that have consolidated new advocatory
movements such as “15-M”, “Juventud Sin Futuro” or “Mareas”,
unified in “Podemos” under the demands of more democracy.
The international economic crisis originated in 2008 has had a
depth effect in Spain. The growth of the Spanish economy
originated in the early twenty-first century was largely based on the
construction boom and house-selling and easy access to bank loans
at low interest rates.
In this period the unemployment estimated labour force came to
around 8% in 2005, 2006 and 2007 (INE, 2015). In 2008 this
growth model came to an end due to the international crisis and
bank credit stopped flowing to businesses thereby, the housing
bubble burst out (Ramos and Valera, 2012)
The austerity measures adopted mainly from 2010 onward, together
with two business reforms in which workers lost power in
collective bargaining and see increasing risk of labour
precariousness. GDP fell in Spain in 2009 (-3.8%), 2010 (-0.2%),
2012 (-1.6%) and 2013 (-1.2%) experiencing only a mild growth in
the years 2011 (0.1%) and 2014 (1.4%) (Eurostat, 2015).
The social consequences have been an increased in unemployment
to 23.4% in 2014, which affects 51.8% of young people aged 16 to
24 (EPA, 2015). Furthermore disposable income of households has
fallen in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 by 2.9%, 3.4% and 3.8%
respectively, and poverty has continued to increase, as he number
of households with no income have increased from just over
300,000 in 2007 to over 700,000 by the end of 2013 (Foessa, 2014).
These measures failed to accomplish stabilization objective of
public debt, which has increased from 36.3% in 2007 to 97.6% in
2014) (Eurostat, 2015). Despite a significant increase in deficit and
public debt, public spending in health and education have fallen in
recent years. If in 2009 government expenditure in health
represented 6.8% of GDP, whereas in 2013 this percentage
amounted to 6% (9.933 million euros). In education the decrease in
public spending between 2009 and 2013 reached 0.6% of GDP (-
7.299 million euros) to remain at 4% of GDP (IGAE, 2014).
Concurrently to the economic crisis, increasing awareness emerge
about the magnitude of corruption that grips public institutions at
state, regional and municipal level and brings about a multi-fold
crisis of legitimation in a Harbermasian manner. Economic crisis
(lack of efficiency and business cycle) trigger a crisis of rationality
(crisis of administrative-political system and welfare state
provision), which also cause a legitimation crisis (mass withdrawal
of support from democracy) and motivational crisis (erosion of
work ethic and rejection of normative principles) (see Monedero,
2009; 2013 for a detailed analysis on the crisis of legitimation in
Spain).
The perception about the political situation moved from 44,8% of
citizens that qualified the situation as bad or very bad in March
2007, to 78,8% in September 2014. The perception about
corruption and fraud also increased. Before the crisis, only 1.2% of
responders reported corruption as a main concern (March 2007).
Last year almost half of responders reported corruption (46.7%.
September 2014) (CIS barometers (2015)
Moreover, the territorial state model is also under scrutiny,
particularly in Catalonia where the demand for independency has
significantly increased. Before the crisis the option for secession
reached 17% of respondents in Catalonia in 2007, whereas it
reached 45% in 2014 (CEO barometer, 2015)
This social unrest has resulted in greater participation in collective
actions of vindictive type. The number of responders attending
demonstrations or signed a petition was below 20% in 2007. The
same issues rose to 30.6% in 2014 (CIS, 2014). Besides the social
perception about new social and protest movements is certainly
positive. Movimiento 15-M (More Democracy), the PAH (anti-
evictions), Las Marea blanca, verde etc. (pro- public services) have
been supported by 67%, 75%, and 65% of survey respondents
respectively (Mikroscopia, 2013).
3. ICTs EXPANSION AND ADVOCATORY
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
The expansion of ICTs is not only changing the way citizens
participate and interact socially but also the foundations of social
participation and the functioning of some social movements. The
digital context opens windows of opportunity for transforming the
modes of organisation, and the ultimate actions that are breaking
down the oligopoly of traditional parties and social movements
(Pickerill, 2004).
ICTs’ most transformative potential is connecting human social
proclivities to increase efficiency and cooperation on scales as it
was never before (Rheingold, 2002). This transformative power
facilitates new organizational forms that exceed the traditional-
hierarchical organisational model typical of the industrial society
by proving incentives for decentralization and horizontality not for
an elite few, but for an increasing number of citizens (Juris, 2006).
Although these attributes are prior to the emergence of ICTS as it
is appreciable in the feminists or environmentalists movements in
the 2nd half of the 20th century (Cohen, 1985), ICTs are making
easier the consolidation of these decentralized and horizontal
organizations (Castells, 2009; Haro,Sampedro & Sanchez, 2011).
There are several reasons in explaining this new ICTs-organization
relationship. For Castells (2009) what really differentiate the role
of ICTs in influencing organisation are the ability to build networks
and programing/reprograming processes depending on the
objectives and the ability to connect different networks
cooperatively, sharing objectives and resources.
Just right from the start, Internet has created a new area of public
space (Mitchell, 1995), in which organizations and individuals
interact, debate and establish partnerships and communities of
interest (Calhoun, 1998; Kavanaugh, 2005), whereas conflicts and
counter dynamics find an appropriate space for action (Haro,
Sampedro & Sánchez, 2011).
The public sphere adopts a central-periphery structure in
continuous interactions: the power elite and the formal
establishment and civil society groups that configure alternative
public spheres (in Internet basically) to face the central sphere
(Sampedro (2000).
Civil society groups constitutes a kind of multiple activism made
up of abundant nodes and ties that interact with protest platforms,
organizations and social causes, which could not be easily managed
without ICTs tools (Van Laer, 2007; Walgrave, Bennett, Van Laer
& Breuning, 2011).
Participation through on-line actions enable strong ties between
activists that increases and also facilitate the exchange of
information and experiences between groups (Walgrave &
Klandermans, 2011).
ICTs avoids barriers in establishing local linkages asynchronously,
that is, one to one and one to many persons, and eliminates the costs
for organising events or activities based on interaction door to door
(Hampton, 2006). These technologies also favour sociability scales
by acting as communication tools in global spaces that enable the
coordination and collaboration of activists and organizations
through transnational networks (Juris, 2006).
This is partially due to “ICTs’ power of organising without
organisation”, namely the possibility of forming groups effortlessly
in a way that we would not have known about otherwise (Shirky,
2008). Not only the world famous Facebook or Linkedin, but also
small blogs specialised in minority issues such as 18th-century
ship-in a bottle designs produce highly flexible and horizontal
association, shared knowledge and cooperation without formal
organisation.
This new “weak formal organisation context” facilitate interactions
where groups of individuals independently make certain decisions
and predictions that are often better than could have been made by
any single individual. It is the “Wisdom of the Crowd” where the
Many are smarter than the Few (Surowiecki, 2004)
For this author, the circumstances under which crowds are smarter
are highly conditioned by Cognition, coordination of behaviour,
Common understanding and Cooperation. These attributes make
thinking and information faster and more reliable than the
deliberation of expert committees.
Yet, crowd intelligence is also subjected to failures and sometime
systematic flaw, such as rational bubbles that produce bad
judgments or high emulation of the opinions of others increasing
tendencies to conform (Surowiecki, 2004).
4. CROWDFUNDING AND ADVOCATORY
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
One of the most recent and innovative use of ICTs is
Crowdfunding. The new public sphere that has been configured
with the emergence of internet (Sampedro, 2000) takes the concrete
form of crowdfunding to support specific projects and
simultaneously propose ideas, discuss and interact with promoters.
This is an alternative way of finance and exchange, where those
seeking funding and those looking to invest or donate can be
matched. Creators and entrepreneurs can make use of these online
platforms to expand the numbers of potential investors and donors,
who finance their online project via the Internet (Ramos, 2014).
Crowdfunding increases the opportunity for investment by
attracting the interest of a wide range of people in ways beyond
conventional lending channels (“the crowd”). Therefore social
networking is central in crowdfunding. Success in raising money
for a project, highly depends on the ability of creators and
promoters to mobilize their social networks (Hemer, 2011).
Crowdfunding encourages participation through basically three
mechanisms 1) reducing the costs of participation, 2) the creation
of a collective identity based on a series of common complaints and
goals, 3) the creation of a community (in this case crowdfunders)
strengthening its network through common experiences and
exchange of information (Garret, 2006).
Yet, crowdfunding is not just about raising money, but also about
market testing, engaging potential customers and target groups and
exploiting the advantages of community, proximity, innovation and
disintermediation (Kleemann et al. 2008). In fact, investors in
crowdfunding do not look much at collaterals or business plans, but
at values and opinions associated with the project or the firm, which
allows entrepreneurs to alleviate the imperative of fast profits, thus
increasing the viability of medium-long term economic projects
(Ramos & González, 2015)
There are four main models of crowdfunding (Rewards, Donation,
Equity and Lending) based on the return to donors and in their
participation. We will focus only on two of them because they are
the ones used the most to finance social projects. Reward-based:
in this model the donor receives a non-financial reward for his
contribution. In Donation-based the donor receives nothing in
return for their contribution, and this is the most used type in
financing social projects.
Most crowdfunding platforms operate under an "all or nothing rule"
(Giudici et al. 2013), that is, if the project does not reach the amount
proposed, the initiators get nothing. Otherwise receives the amount
collected on the closing day.
Table 1
5.1 Projects Size:
We have classified projects based on the amount of money
requested:
5.1.1 small projects are those project requesting less
than 10,000 euros,
5.1.2 medium are those requesting between 10,000
and 30,000 euros
5.1.3 large project are those exceeding the threshold
of 30,000 euros.
5.2 Scope of Sectoral Objectives
We have grouped and quantified the different projects depending
on the specific objective of their claim (see Table 2).
5.3 Area of Collective Action
We distinguish between those e-projects and non e-projects. The
former are those using ICTs to influence the processes of decision
making or to gain followers for political change (Hick & McNutt,
2002) versus those projects whose actions are developed outside
the electronic space.

Verkami www.verkami.com
5.4 Level of Protest
Reward-Based
Divided into four levels (Dalton, 1988):
Lanzanos www.lanzanos.com
Goteo www.goteo.org 5.4.1 Regulated Action

Projeggt www.projeggt.com Those actions that are framed within the accepted legal limits, such
as collecting signatures or legal demonstrations.
CoopFunding www.coopfunding.net
5.4.2 Direct Action:
Namlebee www.namlebee.com
These are activities that are not included in the legal frameworks
TotSuma www.totsuma.cat Donation-based
but they do not surpass them either, for example boycotts.
Many protest organizations and social movements have adopted 5.4.3 Illegal Action:
bureaucratic and professionalized models over time, and have come
to rely on government or corporate funding, with the dependence They are acts performed outside the law but not involving violence,
and political clientelism risks involved (Jerez & Revilla, 2012). such as peaceful occupations or illegal strikes.

Success in achieving the goals of any organization depends largely 5.4.4 Violent Action:
on their social capital, which consists basically of three elements: Those involving acts outside the legality and involving physical
trust, reciprocity and networks of civic engagement (Putnam, violence.
1993). Several studies have indicated the importance of these
factors in the success of eligible projects in Crowdfunding 5.5 Territorial Scope
(Agrawal et al. 2010; Giudici et al. 2013; Colombo et al. 2014). Referring to local, regional, state and transnational political-
territorial space that seeks collective action performed.
5. METHODOLOGY
Since evidence on the Crowdfunding-Advocatory Movement nexus Table 2
are very scare we need a method where the analyst first provides o Self- o Taxation o Historical
basic descriptions of the topic at stake in order to produce a Management o Corruption & Memory
conceptual ordering of core and related categories. Subsequently, o Employment Transparency o Urban
the analyst engages in inspecting the coded data for identifying o Poverty o Racism Planning
properties, tendencies etc. through an analytical procedure of o Education, o National Self- o Animal
constant comparison, to produce a proposition. Therefore we use o Health determination Protection
Grounded Theory methods to deal with the “nexus” (Walker & Services & o Minority
Myrick, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Nicholas, 2013). Grounded o Food Independency Languages
Theory methods are appropriate for those research areas where Sovereignty o Citizen rights and
there is very little information. It is an inductive approach that o Repression participation promotion
generates knowledge from observation and data collection (Glaser o Sexual Rights o Popular
& Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). events
We have categorized a set of indicators that are expected to provide o Housing
a detailed account of the CF-advocatory movements nexus:
5.6 Ideology
Divided into the following explanatory frameworks:
5.6.1 Left
Within our classification we will integrate the concept of left inside
two traditions. On the one hand, we will classify here those projects
with a strong egalitarian claim based on three fundamental
variables that lead to different degrees of the same (Bobbio, 2014):
subjects including the distribution of assets and/or taxes, property
or taxes to be distributed and the criteria by which they will be
distributed. The defense of the pillars of the welfare state and public
policies of redistribution would fall within this idea of the left. On
the other hand, those projects based on the ideas and values of the
new social movements, global justice or anti-globalization
movement (Pastor, 2007; Sanmartín, 2007) that emphasize aspects
such as self-management, citizen participation or local production
and trade.
5.6.2 Right
Considering the classification of Bobbio (2014) this concept would
stand in opposition to left assuming unequality as the central idea.
Out of this central contrast, materialized in the economic field
through the extension of global neoliberalism and through which
he has broken the social contract of postwar (Harvey, 2007), we
identify also within this concept, projects linked to the conservative
and traditional Catholic ideology, moral and values present in the
political tradition of the Spanish right wing.
5.6.3 Nationalism
To categorize the projects included in the platforms within this
label we will used a concept of agreed nationalism among most of
the researchers in this field, based on three features (Maiz, 2001):
5.6.3.1 Nationalism is a modern phenomenon linked to the
existence of the state, this can be used within the political-
institutional battle for its impeachment and the creation of a new
state.
5.6.3.2 There is a contingent product of social and political
construction in certain institutional and social contexts.
5.6.3.3 This is a practical category that deals with a common
perception in the consciousness of the political actors of a
collective identity
5.6.4 Cross-Ideology
As a result of the enlargement of economic and public safety
experienced in the West in the postwar era certain post-materialist
values have become increasingly important (Inglehart, 1977). The
projects focused on environmental and animal protection, or
cultural activities are those framed within this category.
5.7 Language
The languages used to issue the body of the text in which the
projects are presented. We will classify them as follows:
5.7.1. National: Castilian/Spanish
5.7.2. Regional: Basque, Galician and Catalonian
5.7.3. International:
5.7.4. Both, national and international
5.7.5. Both, national and regional
5.7.6. International, National and Regional
5.8 Date
We will refer to the annuity in which the project has been funded.
The collected data is from 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Success versus non Success projects: Successful project refers to
those projects that reach the amount of requested money, being
unsuccessful projects those not achieving their requested targets.
6. RESULTS
The number of Webs of crowdfunding has not stopped growing
since the pioneer Verkami and Lánzanos were launched in 2010
and Goteo and Projeggt in 2011. These sites are not exclusively
specialised in financing political social movements, but also a wide
range of different types of projects, with special attention to cultural
and social issues.
Yet the first platform specialized in financing social and political
projects name Totsuma was launched in Catalonia in 2013. It
describes itself as a funding platform that is committed to the
Catalan nation building, to achieve its sovereignty and progress.
It is important to emphasize that 3 out 7 platforms analysed
(Namlebee, Totsuma and Coopfunding) present themselves as
progressive and / or nationalist, openly committed with social-
economic and nationalistic change
In Spain there are a total of 7 crowdfunding platforms, with
different degrees of specialization, that host and finance social and
political projects. Two specialized platforms were launched in the
social and political scope in 2014 namely Namlebee and
CoopFunding.
The former is specialised in financing projects in areas such as
gender equality, indigenous struggles, historical memory recovery,
environmentalism and alternative-cooperative economy. The other
web, CoopFunding, was born as an initiative of the Social Self-
financing Cooperative Network (CASX) and the Integral Catalan
Cooperative (CIC) with the aim of promoting self-management and
cooperation in 2014.
According to the information provided in the crowdfunding
platforms’ website, the number of projects funded (success
projects) between 2012 and 2014 reached to 157 from a total of 186
submitted, which represents a success rate of 84%.
This is certainly a very high rate of success compare with other
sectors. The projects hosted on Spanish crowdfunding websites
reached the following success rate (by sectors): cultural projects
(64%), social projects (21%), entrepreneurship projects (7%),
innovation projects (4%), educational projects (3%) and internet
projects (1%). In 2013 the data were: cultural projects (68%), social
projects (25%), entrepreneurship projects (3%), innovation projects
(2%), educational projects (1%) and internet projects (1%) (Ramos
& González, 2015)
The following table shows a steady growth in the number of 21-Animal Protection 4 2
advocatory projects. In 2012, there were a total of 43 projects, 23%
22-Minority Languages 15 8
of the total. In 2013 increased to 64, which represent 34% of the
total of the projects summited. Finally, in 2014 advocatory projects 23-Popular Events 4 24 13
accounted 79, that is, 43% of the total (see Figure 1). Total 186 100

100
The most abundant projects are oriented to activated (see Table 2):
79 Citizen participation (13%); popular events (13%): events like
80 concerts or popular parties through which the protest movements
64
achieve self-financing and create or strengthen collective group
60 identity; self-determination and independence (11%), mainly in
43 Catalonia; alternative information (11%); a groups of campaign in
40 favour of social welfare issues are also abundant (Education, anti-
poverty and anti-repression).
20 Table 4: Money raised by crowdfunding sites 2012-2014
Success rate
0 Crowdfunding Total target (total target budget
Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Webs budget raised)
Verkami 838.650 747.586
Figure 1: Crowd-projects launched by years
Goteo 315.631 311.406
Table 3: Crowd projects fundable by sectors 2012-2014
Lanzanos 39.995 35.770
Sectoral Field of Collective
Action Total % TotSuma 122.199 122.199
1-Self-Management 3 2 Projeggt 2.207 2.207
2-Employment 1 1 CoopFunding 34.107 25.390
3-Anti-Poverty 6 3 Namlebee 3.106 2.150
4-Education 10 5
Total 1.358.437 1.246.708
5-Health Service 5 3
6-Food Sovereignty 4 2
7-Anti-Repression 12 6 With regard to the total amount collected in the seven
crowdfunding sites, the overall money raised amounted to
8-Housing 2 1 1,358,437 euros in three years period analysed. , of which
9-Taxation 1 1 1,246,708 have financed different projects. Only 111,729 euros
10-Corruption&Transparency 6 3 have been lost by not achieving the objectives. This represents a
11-Racism 1 1 success rates of 91,7%, very high compared with other funded
12-Self- crowdfunding campaigns.
Determing&Independence 22 11 As for web sites, “Verkami” has been the platform that has funded
13-Citizen Participation 1 24 13 a top amount with 747,586 euros, more than half of the total
14-Sexual Rights 3 2 collected. Second was “Goteo” with 311,406 euros and “Totsuma”
with 122,199 raised (see Table 3). The monetary amount of
15-Environment 8 4
fundable projects hosted on websites is less than 10,000 euros in
16-Parallel Information 2 21 11 most cases, namely 80.6% of the total (150 projects), whereas target
17-Public Property 3 2 budget between 10,000 to 30,000 euros present 15% and projects
18-Feminism 3 2 above 30,000 euros represent 4,3% of the total.
19-Historical Memory 3 6 3
20-Urban Planning 2 1

1 3 Historical Memory: Monte Estepar, promoted by the Association

Citizen Participation: a representative example is
Multireferendum, promoted by various grassroots associations and
organizations. The project consisted in direct consultation to the
citizenship on various topics such as democratic control of energy,
the need for articulation of binding referendums or payment of
illegitimate debt. They managed to raise 35 412 euros in 2014
2 Parallel Information: Sin Permiso, created by a group of
intellectuals and activists is a good example of parallel information.
It is an electronic magazine with leftist ideas. They collected 20,195
euros in 2013.
for the Recovery of Historical Memory of Burgos. This group of
activists struggle to recover human remains buried in mass graves
in the Spanish Civil War during the period 1936-1939. They
managed to raise 15.350 euros in 2014
4 Popular events: Falles Populars i Combatives, organized by
grassroots groups from the city of Valencia. Combine leisure and
claiming activities (fight against gentrification, activities for
prisoners.). They managed to raise 13,760 euros in three years.

Transnatio
10% nal
National
42% 19%
Regional
29%
Local
Figure 2: Territorial area of collective action
Regarding the political-territorial area in which they would
undertake the actions we find that the local space is dominant with
42% of eligible projects (79), followed by regional projects with
29% of the total (53), state projects with 19% (35) and finally 10%
of projects in which their sphere of action goes beyond the political
and administrative borders of the nation-state (see figure 2).
National
8% Regional
3% 6%
34%
National&Int
ernational
National&Re
49% gional
National,Inte
rnational&Re
gional
Figure 3: Languages used by social movements
The language used in the submission eligible process is determined
by the nature of the host platform because some platforms offer the
option to access the text of their projects in various languages. New
platforms, such as Namlebee (English and Castilian, which is
synonymous of Spanish) or Coopfunding (Catalan, English and
Castilian) offer various possibilities.
In contrast, Verkami, Lánzanos, Goteo, Totsuma or Projeggt
expose their projects in the language determined by the project
promoters. After examining the projects we find that the language
used could be related to the territorial areas where there is a greater
collective action and about which we have spoken before.
So the regional language (Catalan, Basque, Galician) is the most
used, with a total of 91 projects (42%), followed by the Castilian
language only with 63 projects submitted (29%). The other projects
reviewed are presented by combining several languages: 12
projects (6%) are presented in Castilian and some regional
languages, 14% in Castilian, English and any of the regional
languages (8%), whereas only (3%) of them are presented
combining Castilian and English.
Left
28%
Right
51%
Cross
Ideology
21%
Nationalism
0%
Figure 4: Ideological axis
When ideology is considered we found that 51% of eligible projects
can be identified with progressive or leftist values, another 28%
focuses on nationalist or separatist issues, while 21% identified
their actions in relation to values that we could qualify as transverse
or postmaterialistic. There is no projects identified with right-wing
values, which suggests that leftist movements are predominantly
making use of crowdfunding services in Spain.
The loss of electoral strength that Left suffered during the Golden
Age of neo-liberalism made it possible for civil society to self-
organize to defend ideas and values abandoned by the Third Ways
socialdemocrat parties. This phenomenon has grown significantly
from the adoption of the austerity measures imposed by the troika
and implemented by the Spanish Social Democratic government in
May 2010.
The result of these changes in the sociopolitical scenario is the
emergence of new political parties that has established synergies
with self-organized citizen movements and has intensively
exploited ICTs and social networks. A new political party,
Podemos, has managed to finance various actions through the
crowdfunding, for a total amount of 263.940,75 euros in 2014.
Most of the social movements carried out legal forms of protest,
which represents 96% of the total. Only 4% of the 186 projects
reviewed planned their protest actions by mechanism of direct
action, without exceeding the limits of the law, perform actions we
might call as law loophole.
Finally we must point out that most of the projects have their sphere
of action outside the network. Only 13% of the total eligible
projects aim to carry out activities, protest actions and claims
online. The remaining 87% of the projects focus their activities
outside the network.
6. FINDINGS
Evidences obtained by analysing the information contained in the
various Spanish Web platforms at stake show that:
• The total amount of money raised by advocacy movements
reached 1,246,708 euros out of 1,358,437 euros total target
budget requested. This represents an awesome 91,7%. success
rate. It is huge as compared with the 1.61% and 2.57% success
 rate of the total target budget submitted in Crowdfunding
platforms in Spain in 2012 and 2013 (Ramos & González,
2015).
• Similar figures are observable regarding success rate by funded
projects (no target budget). 157 out 186 submitted projects have
been funded, representing a success rate of 84%.
• This result suggests that involvement and commitment are key
in explaining success in crowdfunding practices, especially in
those projects launched by advocacy movements.
• Another important conclusion to be drawn is that “the smaller
the better”. Most of the success-fundable campaigns (80.6%)
requested less than 10,000 euros.
• By areas of action, most projects submitted belong to culture
(13%) and social participation (13%) sector, although issues of
self-determination (11%), alternative information (11%),
Minority Languages (8%) and Anti-repression (6%) are also
rather widespread. This provides good insights on the objective
and modes of activation predominant among Spanish advocacy
movements.
• Independency and nation state building is a dominant issues in
the territorial area in which projects are launched (42% locally,
29% regional and 19% nationally), with coincide with the
dominant language used, which is (49% in regional languages
and 34% in Spanish).
• Ideologically 51% of the launched projects accrues to what we
have called “left values”. Nationalists issues represent 28% and
cross ideology projects 21%.
• None of the submitted project has a right-wing orientation,
which reinforce the idea that leftist movements are
predominantly making use of crowdfunding services. This is
because most of the launched and funded projects are related to
issues generally identified with progressive demands, which is
also a featured issue identified in this article.
8. CONCLUSIONS
The digital and young nature of the collective action deploy by
advocatory movements in Spain is the most remarkable aspect of
the new logic of political action. This is the first time in
contemporary Spanish history that civil society movements, mainly
advocatory ones, are playing a key role in articulating a political
respond with a serious chance of becoming socially and politically
hegemonic.
This is partly due to the increasing important of digital tools.
Among these digital tools, Crowdfunding practices are a very
important and unexplored one. The possibility of getting physical
and economic resources independently of both public and private
interest’s sources constitutes a unique opportunity for advocacy
movements to reformulate and consolidate their position in the
political arena.
This is why Crowdfunding practices are becoming an increasingly
crucial aspect of social actions nowadays and the catalyst for new
modes of articulation and political action.
Crowdfunding practices allow advocatory social movements to
overcome some of the traditional dilemmas they have being dealing
with, namely obtaining “money or obtaining time”, and get
resources from “many or few donors”. Thanks to crowdfunding
platforms advocacy movements can get both at the same time at a
very low cost.
Additionally crowdfunding platforms are getting increasingly
important as channels of communication and propaganda to spread
ideas and involve more people into the funding campaigns, the
protest actions and political and social demands.
This makes crowdfunding a real tool that improves efficiency in
collective action strategies, procurement of material resources and
ability to obtain non-monetary resources such as time, involvement
and public support.
This is the main potential of crowdfunding, its capacity to articulate
a multi-level space for social movements that provide efficient
channels of finance, divulgation and involvement. Crowdfunding
is creating a new public space through which any organization
emits a certain message, which can be amplified through the
economic support of the community in social networks, while
crowdfunders can interact with promoters to spread social
movements’ claims and grievance.
The legitimacy crisis suffered by the Spanish political system,
largely due to the booming economic crisis and corruption, have
caused an increasing number of protests channelled through more
efficient advocacy movements.
This new protests model, alongside the rapid development of the
digital society is becoming an increasing opportunity for policy and
collective action, mainly in the younger age cohorts, that has
resulted in an increasing number of actions largely conducted and
finance over the Internet.
9. REFERENCES
[1] Agrawal, A. K., Catalini, C., and Goldfarb, A. 2011. The
geography of crowdfunding. National Bureau of Economic
Research.
[2] Benkler, Y. 2006 . The Wealth of Networks How Social
Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale
University Press.
[3] Benkler, Y. 2011. The Penguin and the Leviathan: How
Cooperation Triumphs over Self-Interest. Random House,
New York.
[4] Bobbio, N. 2014. Derecha e izquierda. Taurus.
[5] Calhoun, C. 1998. Community without propinquity revisited:
Communications technology and the transformation of the
urban public sphere. Sociological inquiry, 68(3), 373-397.
[6] Castells M. 2009. Comunicación y poder. Barcelona,
Alianza.
[7] CEO( 2007). Baròmetre d'Opinió Política (BOP). 4a onada.
Barcelona.
[8] CEO (2014). Baròmetre d'Opinió Política (BOP). 2a onada.
Barcelona.
[9] CIS (1998). Tecnologías de la Información y la
Comunicación. Madrid.
[10] CIS (2007). Internet y Participación Política. Madrid
[11] CIS (2014). Barometro de Septiembre. Madrid.
[12] Cohen, J. (1985). Strategy and Identity: New Theoretical
Paradigms and Contemporary Social Movements. Social
Research, 52, 663-716.
[13] Colombo, M. G., Franzoni, C., & Lamastra, C. (2015).
Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions
in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 39(1), 75-100.
[14] Dalton, R. J. (1988). Citizen politics in Western democracies.
Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
[15] European Union (2015). Eurostat Database. Statistic
Explained.
[16] Fundación Foessa (2014). VII Informe sobre exclusión y
desarrollo social en España 2014. Caritas Española.
[17] Gansky, L. (2010). The Mesh: Why the Future of Business is
Sharing. Penguin (eds) New York.
[18] Garrett, R. (2006). Protest in an information society: A
review of literature on social movements and new
ICTs. Information, communication & society,9(02), 202-224.
[19] Giudici, G., Guerini, M., & Lamastra, C. (2013). Why
crowdfunding projects can succeed: the role of proponents’
individual and territorial social capital. Available at SSRN
2255944.
[20] Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967).The Discovery of Grounded
Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
[21] Hampton, K. N. (2007). Neighborhoods in the Network
Society the e-Neighbors study. Information, Communication
& Society, 10(5), 714-748.
[22] Haro, C., & Sampedro, V. (2011). Activismo político en
Red: del Movimiento por la Vivienda Digna al
15M. Teknokultura. Revista de Cultura Digital y
Movimientos Sociales, 8(2), 157-175.
[23] Hemer, J (2011) A Snapshot on Crowdfunding, Working
Paper R2/2011 Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and
Innovation Research ISI
[24] Harvey, D. (2007). Breve historia del neoliberalismo (Vol.
49). Ediciones Akal.
[25] Hick, S. & McNutt, J., Eds. (2002). Advocacy, Activism, and
the Internet: Community Organization and Social Policy.
Chicago: Lyceum Press.
[26] IGAE (2015). Avance de la actuación económica y
financiera de las administraciones públicas. Ministerio de
Hacienda y Administraciones Públicas. Retrieved from
http://www.igae.pap.minhap.gob.es/sitios/igae/es-
ES/ContabilidadNacional/infadmPublicas/Documents/Inform
es%20Anuales/Avance_AAPP_2013.pdf
[27] INE (2015). Encuesta de Población Activa. Statistic
Explained.
[28] Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution (Vol. 8).
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[29] Jerez, A., & Revilla, M. (2012). El tercer sector. Una
revisión introductoria a un concepto polémico. Sociedade em
Debate, 4(2), 3-22.
[30] Juris, J. (2006). Movimientos sociales en red: movimientos
globales por una justicia global en Castells, M. (ed.), La
sociedad red: una visión global, Madrid, Alianza, 415-439.
[31] Kavanaugh, A. L., Reese, D. D., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson,
M. B. (2005). Weak ties in networked communities. The
Information Society, 21(2), 119-131.
[32] Kleemann, F., Voß, G.G., and Rieder, K. (2008).
Un(der)paid Innovators: The Commercial Utilization of
Consumer Work through Crowdsourcing. Science,
Technology & Innovation Studies, 4 (1), July: 5-26
[33] Kriesi, H.P. (1999). La estructura organizacional de los
nuevos movimientos sociales en McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.
y Zald, M. (Eds.), Movimientos Sociales: Perspectivas
comparadas, Itsmo.
[34] Máiz, R. (2002). Nacionalismo y movilización política: hacia
un análisis pluridimensional de la construcción de las
naciones. Santiago de Compostela, Universidad de Santiago
de Compostela.
[35] McCarthy, J. , & Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and
social movements: A partial theory. American journal of
sociology, 1212-1241.
[36] Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space? People's Park,
definitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the
association of american geographers,85(1), 108-133.
[37] Monedero, J.C. (2009) El gobierno de las palabras: politica
para tiempos de confusión. Fondo de Cultura Economica de
España, 2009.
[38] Monedero, J.C. (2013) Curso urgente de politica para gente
decente, Seix Barral
[39] MyWord (2013). Estudio sobre protesta social y legitimidad
del sistema político y económico. El ObSERvatorio de la
Cadena Ser. Madrid.
[40] Nicholas, J. (2013). Sharing, Collaborative consumption and
Web 2.0. Media@LSE Electronic Working Paper No. 26.
Retrieved from
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/mediaWorkingPap
ers/pdf/EWP26-FINAL.pdf
[41] Oliver, P. E., & Marwell, G. (1992). Mobilizing technologies
for collective action. Frontiers in social movement theory,
251-72.
[42] Pastor, J. (2007). El movimiento “Antiglobalización” y sus
particularidades en el caso español. Revista de Estudios de
Juventud, 76, 39-52.
[43] Pickerill, J. (2004). 9 Rethinking political
participation. Electronic democracy: Mobilisation,
organisation and participation via new ICTs, 170.
[44] Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making democracy work: civic
traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
[45] Ramos, J. (2014). Crowdfunding and the Role of Managers
in Ensuring the Sustainability of Crowdfunding Companies.
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS),
European Commission. Retrieved from
http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC85752.pdf
[46] Ramos, J., & González, B. (2015). Crowdfunding and
Employment: An analysis of the employment effects of
Crowdfunding in Spain in Brüntje, D., & Gajda, O. (Eds.),
Crowdfunding in Europe–State of The Art in Theory and
Practice, FGF Studies in Small Business and
Entrepreneurship: Vol. 1.: Springer Science & business
media.
[47] Ramos, J., & Valera, A. (2012). From Opportunity to
Austerity: crisis and social policy in Spain. In M. Kilkey &
G. Ramia (Eds.), Social Policy Review 24: Analysis and
Debate in Social Policy, 2012. Policy Press.
[48] Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart Mobs: The Next Social
Revolution: Transforming Cultures and Communities in the
Age of Instant Access. Basic Books.
[49] Sampedro, V. (2000). Opinión pública y democracia
deliberativa. Medios, sondeos y urnas, Madrid, Istmo.
 [50] Sanmartín Barros, I. (2009). La
globalización/altermundialización como motores de las
"Guerras culturales". Historia Actual Online, (12), 165-181.
[51] Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of
Organizing Without Organizations. Penguin (eds), New York.
[52] Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative
Research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
[53] Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative
Research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
[54] Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the
Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective
Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations.
Random House.
View publication stats
[55] Tilly, C. (2006). Los movimientos sociales entran en el siglo
veintiuno. Política y sociedad, 42(2), 11-35.
[56] Van Laer, J. (2007). Internet Use and Protest Participation:
How do ICTs affect mobilization?, PSW Papers, 1: 1–24.
[57] Walgrave, S., & Klandermans, B. (2010). Open and closed
mobilization patterns: The role of channels and ties. The
World Says No to War, 169-192.
[58] Walgrave, S., Bennett, W. L., Van Laer, J., & Breunig, C.
(2011). Multiple Engagements and Network Bridging in
Contentious Politics: Digital Media Use of Protest
Participants. Mobilization, 16(3).
[59] Walker, D., & Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded Theory: An
Exploration of Process and Procedure. Qualitative Health
Research, 16(4), 547–59.