How are resource mobilization theories of contention different from rational choice theories of contention

Resource mobilization theory focuses on the assets and capacities of aggrieved groups to explain the rise, development and outcome of social movements. Drawing on a rational choice approach, resources are defined broadly to include tangible resources, such as money and facilities, and intangible resources, such as the solidarities, cultural commitments, and identity networks of groups that facilitate their pooling of resources. To reduce free riding, organizers create selective and collective incentives and perceptions of large numbers of participants and a high likelihood of success. Most movements are indigenous, drawing on contributions from direct beneficiaries, but cheaper communications, institutional patronage, and political reactions to indigenous protest have also allowed political entrepreneurs to create professional social movement organizations. The rise and outcome of movements are shaped by the interaction of strategies with political opportunities. Movements that ‘think small,’ in terms of narrow incremental goals, avoid schisms, use unruliness and selective incentives, and have allies that are more successful. Political opportunities in terms of institutional permeability, favorable public opinion, elite divisions, and the availability of allies and patrons facilitate success.

Explanation: hope this helps

a secular government seeks to separate its decisions and policies from religious influences. good luck

explanation:

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )