Resource mobilization is the process of getting resources from the resource provider, using different mechanisms, to implement an organization's predetermined goals.^[1] It is a theory that is used in the study of social movements and argues that the success of social movements depends on resources (time, money, skills, etc.) and the ability to use them.^[2]

It deals in acquiring the needed resources in a timely, cost-effective manner. Resource mobilization advocates having the right type of resource at the right time at the right price by making the right use of acquired resources thus ensuring optimum usage of the same.

It is a major sociological theory in the study of social movements that emerged in the 1970s.^[3] It emphasizes the ability of a movement's members to acquire resources and to mobilize people towards accomplishing the movement's goals.^[4] In contrast to the traditional collective behaviour theory, which views social movements as deviant and irrational, resource mobilization sees them as rational social institutions that are created and populated by social actors with a goal of taking political action.^[5]

According to resource mobilization theory, a core, professional group in a social movement organization works towards bringing money, supporters, attention of the media, alliances with those in power, and refining the organizational structure. The theory revolves around the central notion of how messages of social change are spread from person to person and from group to group. The conditions needed for a social movement are the notion that grievances shared by multiple individuals and organizations, ideologies about social causes and how to go about reducing those grievances.^[6]

The theory assumes that individuals are rational: individuals weigh the costs and the benefits of movement participation and act only if the benefits outweigh the costs. When movement goals take the form of public goods, the free rider dilemma must be taken into consideration.^[4]

Social movements are goal-oriented, but organization is more important than resources. Organization means the interactions and relations between social movement organizations (SMOs) and other organizations (other SMOs, businesses, governments, etc.). The organization's infrastructure efficiency is a key resource in itself.^[4]

Resource mobilization theory can be divided into two camps: John D. McCarthy and Mayer Zald are the originators and major advocates of the classic entrepreneurial (economic) version of the theory, and Charles Tilly and Doug McAdam are proponents of the political version of resource mobilization called political process theory.^[4]

The entrepreneurial model explains collective action as a result of economics factors and organization theory. It argues that grievances are not sufficient to explain creation of social movements. Instead, access to and control over resources is the crucial factor. The laws of supply and demand explain the flow of resources to and from the movements and that individual actions or the lack thereof is accounted for by rational choice theory.^[4]

The political model focuses on the political struggle, instead of economic factors.^[4]

In the 1980s, other theories of social movements such as social constructionism and new social movement theory challenged the resource mobilization framework.^[5]

Edwards and McCarthy identified five types of resources available to social movement organizations:^[7]

• Moral: resources available, such as solidarity support, legitimacy and sympathetic support, which can be easily retracted, making them less accessible than other resources.
• Cultural: knowledge that likely has become widely but not necessarily universally known. Examples include how to accomplish specific tasks like enacting a protest event, holding a news conference, running a meeting, forming an organization, initiating a festival, or surfing the web.
• Social-organizational: resources that deal with spreading the message. They include intentional social organization, which is created to spread the movement's message, and appropriable social organization, which is created for reasons other than moving for social change. Examples include spreading flyers, holding community meetings, and recruiting volunteers.
• Material: includes financial and physical capital, like office space, money, equipment, and supplies.
• Human: resources such as labor, experience, skills and expertise in a certain field. More tangible than some of the others (moral, cultural and social-organizational) and easier to quantify.

Critics point out that resource mobilization theory fails to explain social movement communities, which are large networks of individuals and other groups surrounding social movement organizations and providing them with various services. Critics also argue that it fails to explain how groups with limited resources can succeed in bringing social change and that the theory does not assign sufficient weight to grievances, identity and culture as well as many macrosociological issues.^[4]

Resource mobilization theory has been studied in conjunction with other fields, such as framing theory. Evidence has been found of an evolving relationship between framing processes and social movements. The relationship has led to the identification of two frames used in social movement stories: diagnostic, which involves identifying the sources of causality or blame for the situation, and prognostic, which lays out a plan of attack on how to create social change.^[14]

• Mass mobilization
• Social movement organization