The transnational advocacy campaign against the construction of a second oil-transporting pipeline, the Oleoducto de Crudo Pesado, in Ecuador had no discernible impact on the decision of that state to endorse the pipeline project and only a weak influence on the crafting of related social and environmental policies. This outcome is at odds with the theoretical formulation advanced by Keck and Sikkink which holds that certain transnational advocacy campaigns can act as agents of state-level policy change. While Keck and Sikkink locate causal variables of campaign outcome on the levels of the campaign and the state, the Oleoducto de Crudo Pesado case signals the need to further incorporate international-level analysis and to investigate the implications of this third dimension for transnational advocacy campaign outcome. The case study presented herein suggests that theories of transnational advocacy sacrifice predictive power by ignoring the extent to which international economic and political structures can shape the preferences of states.
