Temple University Press, 2020

For the past few decades, the U.S. anti-sweatshop movement was bolstered by actions from American college students. United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) effectively advanced the cause of workers’ rights in sweatshops around the world. Strategizing against Sweatshops chronicles the evolution of student activism and presents an innovative model of how college campuses are a critical site for the advancement of global social justice.

I show how USAS targeted apparel companies outsourcing production to sweatshop factories with weak or non-existent unions. USAS did so by developing a campaign that would support workers organizing by leveraging their college’s partnerships with global apparel firms like Nike and Adidas to abide by pro-labor codes of conduct.

Strategizing against Sweatshops exemplifies how organizations and actors cooperate across a movement to formulate a coherent strategy responsive to the conditions in their social environment. I also provide a model of political opportunity structure to show how social context shapes the chances of a movement’s success—and how movements can change that political opportunity structure in turn. Ultimately, I show why progressive student activism remains important.

Journal Articles

In my academic journal articles, I seek not only to engage in sociological analysis, but to do work that illuminates issues related to movement-building, movement strategy, policy-making, and other aspects of working for social change.

Because most academic journal articles are published behind paywalls, I have included links both to the official publication and publicly available preprint versions.

Other Publications

These publications are rooted in my scholarly research, but not academic journal publications as such.

  • Matthew S. Williams. 2022. “Global Justice as a Social Movement.” In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (2nd ed.). Edited by George Ritzer and Chris Rojek. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

  • John B. Williamson and Matthew S. Williams. 2003. “The Notional Defined Contribution Model: An Assessment of the Strengths and Limitations of a New Approach to the Provision of Old Age Security” (Working Paper, No. 2003-18). Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

    Most public old-age pension schemes around the world are based at least in part on the pay-as-you-go defined benefit (PAYGO DB) model. As these schemes have matured and the limitations of this approach have become more salient, pension experts have begun considering alternative models. The Notional Defined Contribution (NDC) model, which is also financed on a PAYGO basis, has emerged as one of the major new approaches. In the years ahead it may be combined with or possibly displace the funded defined contribution model as the major alternative to the PAYGO DB model. Drawing primarily on evidence from NDC schemes in 6 countries (Sweden, Italy, Poland, Latvia, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Mongolia), the goal of this paper is to describe the NDC model and to review its strengths and limitations relative to the major alternatives. A four pillar pension scheme is proposed to illustrate how a NDC pillar might be integrated into a multi-pillar scheme. One strength (relative to the PAYGO DB model) is that it makes a more explicit link between contributions and eventual pension benefits; however, the flip-side of this strength is that it provides less adequate pension benefits to low-wage workers due to the lack of income redistribution. The fiscal burden of the transition is less than that associated with a shift to a funded defined contribution scheme, but NDC schemes lack many of the potential economic benefits associated with funded defined contribution schemes, such as contributing to economic growth. The NDC model may become common among the nations in the process of making the transition from centrally planned to market economies, among Western European nations, and among developing nations. It is less likely to be adopted in nations that currently have fully or partially privatized schemes in place. In the United States, the model will probably get relatively little attention in the debate over Social Security reform, at least for the foreseeable future. However, it is a model that would put workers with low wages and irregular work histories at less risk than the funded defined contribution alternative being actively considered in current debates about Social Security reform in the United States.