Suchergebnisse

"Since the first edition published in 1999 with editor Paul Sabatier, Theories of the Policy Process has served as the quintessential gateway to the field of policy process research for students, scholars and practitioners alike. This enduring and well-regarded volume provides a forum for the creators of, or scholars with deep expertise in, the most established and widely used theoretical frameworks to present the basic propositions, empirical evidence, latest updates, and promising directions for future research. This brief but comprehensive volume covers such classics as Multiple Streams (Zahariadis), Punctuated Equilibrium (Jones et al), Advocacy Coalition Framework (Jenkins-Smith et al.), Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (Ostrom et al.), Policy Diffusion (Berry & Berry), and Social Construction and Policy Design (Schneider et al). This thoroughly updated third edition, with new editor Christopher M. Weible, includes a new introduction on the trajectories and needs of public policy research and two new chapters-- Policy Feedback (Mettler and SoRelle) and Narrative Policy Framework (McBeth et al). A revised chapter presents a comparative analysis and evaluation of the frameworks included in this edition (Cairney & Heikkila), and a new conclusion looks at future directions and emerging areas in the field"--

AbstractIn disputes over public policy, public debates often hinge on the argument involving policy knowledge. One approach for studying policy knowledge is the Advocacy Coalition Framework, which theorizes that advocacy coalitions form around coherent beliefs partly about policy knowledge and invest in policy knowledge by working with expert allies. This article examines the role of academics, a type of expert, in discourse about South Korea's adversarial nuclear energy policy debates. Using Discourse Network Analyzer, we collect and analyze text from 502 South Korean newspaper articles from 2016 through 2019. We find that academics align with distinctive discourse involving policy knowledge in coalitions. However, we also show that there exist weak or inconsistent associations between some academics' centrality and the intensity of policy conflict. The findings contribute to understanding policy knowledge, the distinctive discourse of experts, and a systematic study of controversial policy making in a non‐Western country.Related ArticlesHeo, Inhye. 2022. "Energy Democratization Policy without Democratization of Policy Governance in South Korea: A Participatory Democracy Perspective." Politics & Policy 50(4): 834–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12480.Lantis, Jeffrey S. 2019. "'Winning' and 'Losing' the Iran Nuclear Deal: How Advocacy Coalitions and Competition Shape U.S. Foreign Policy." Politics & Policy 47(3): 464–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12299.Nowlin, Matthew C., Maren Trochmann, and Thomas M. Rabovsky. 2022. "Advocacy Coalitions and Political Control." Politics & Policy 50(2): 201–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12458.

This review of 81 applications of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in China between 2006 and 2017 finds that the ACF's hypotheses about the existence and stability of competing advocacy coalitions in policy subsystems, the occurrence of change across its three‐tiered belief system, and the credence of its four pathways to policy change, which have been developed and mostly tested in Western democratic contexts, can be confirmed in China's authoritarian political system and transitional context. This review also finds some unexpected results, which have implications for studying China's policy processes and for future applications of the ACF. Adopting common vocabulary and theoretical foci, ACF applications have captured some of the complexity and evolving features of policy processes in China. Applications of the ACF to China have also enriched the discussions about how authoritarian governments, through interacting with other policy actors, adapt to external changes in transitional context.

Traditional scholarship on political engagement has emphasised political parties, interest groups and social movements as ways to influence public policy. This paper highlights the particular role of advocacy coalitions as another conduit for political engagement. Drawing from scholarship associated with the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we offer a way to think about political contexts through coalitions, policy subsystems and political systems, and the attributes of politically engaged actors. It is one of the first attempts to draw practical lessons about the theory of coalitions and, thus, to facilitate better governance and politics as well as the advancement of scholarship.

We challenge policy theory scholars to change the way we produce and communicate research: translate our research to a wider audience to gauge the quality of our findings. Explain state of the art knowledge to others to aid communication among ourselves. If we succeed, we can proceed with confidence. If not, we should reconsider the state of our field. Our aim is to show leadership by subjecting ourselves to this challenge. We introduce a special issue that represents the state of knowledge in eight theories and combine their insights to produce theoretical tenets across the field of policy processes.

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to analyze perceptions and activities of policy actors, who are actively involved in or knowledgeable about the politics of hydraulic fracturing in New York, Colorado, and Texas. The analysis is guided by research questions drawn from the Advocacy Coalition Framework that focus on policy actors' policy positions, problem perceptions, political capacity, activities, and interactions. In doing so, we examine the differences between those policy actors who are opposed to hydraulic fracturing relative to those who support hydraulic fracturing across the three states using data from online surveys administered in 2013 and 2014. The results show polarization between opponents and proponents in their policy positions on hydraulic fracturing, which are associated with problem perceptions. Proponents and opponents of hydraulic fracturing also have different capacities, activities, and interactions. The results are similar across states but not without nuanced differences, including greater polarization in New York, higher levels of government support for proponents of hydraulic fracturing in Texas, and more frequent coalition building in Colorado.