Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis study explores the structure of advocacy coalitions and frames over time in South Korea's adversarial nuclear energy policy subsystem. It relies on the Advocacy Coalition Frameworks and Discourse Network Analysis to guide data collection from 1149 policy statements in 502 newspaper articles of South Korea spanning four years. Using E‐I Index, modularity index, and coalition polarization for data analysis, it finds an alignment of advocacy coalitions with increasing polarization through external events and the ongoing adaptation of frames to these events. The findings contribute insights into the characteristics of distinct, stable, and polarized coalitions and their frames in the high‐conflicted policy areas in tumultuous times in the context of non‐Western countries.

This Special Issue makes a statement about the study of policy and politics, where it has been, how it is done, what it is, and where it is going. When addressing the question 'who gets to speak for our discipline?' we respond emphatically – many people, from many places, working in many ways. It comprises scholarship that has rarely been combined to explore some cardinal challenges about our scholarship: (1) How do we conceive of policy and political studies? (2) To what extent should our science be 'normative' or 'objective' or 'positive'? (3) Who are our audiences, and how do we engage them? (4) Whose knowledge matters, and how does it accumulate? (5) How should we advance the study of policy and politics? We conclude charging the field to consider different ways of thinking about what we can discover and construct in the world and how we can conduct our science.

AbstractEnergy infrastructure is the foundation of any modern society, yet decisions on where and how to site this infrastructure can be contentious. This article argues that energy infrastructure siting is illustrative of policy scenarios involving instigators of a proposed policy and defenders of the status quo. Through analyzing natural gas pipelines, electricity transmission lines, solar power plants, and wind power plants, and leveraging a unique dataset of over 1000 newspaper articles on 16 selected cases, we extract discourse over the project life cycle across infrastructure types and conflict intensities. This article delineates policy scenarios involving two primary sets of actors—the proposal instigator (e.g., an energy corporation) and the defender of the status quo (e.g., a community). When higher levels of conflict exist, defenders represent more actors than instigators, as defenders have the advantage of mobilizing and recruiting around the status quo. The frames used by defenders are also more diverse than those used by instigators. Additionally, the balance of discourse is associated with the characteristics of the proposal and conflict intensity, as well as who wins or loses.Related ArticlesAsh, John. 2010. "New Nuclear Energy, Risk, and Justice: Regulatory Strategies for an Era of Limited Trust." Politics & Policy 38(2): 255–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2010.00237.xKhodr, Hiba, and Isabella Ruble. 2013. "Energy Policies and Domestic Politics in the MENA Region in the Aftermath of the Arab Upheavals: The Cases of Lebanon, Libya, and KSA." Politics & Policy 41(5): 656–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12033Kilinç‐Pala, Pinar Buket. 2021. "Approaches in Energy Exclusive Security: Theories of Energy Security and the Dominance of Realism." Politics & Policy 49(3): 771–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12411

All politics and policy issues involve the accumulation of data about problems and solutions in context of social interactions. Drawing on these data, policy actors acquire, translate, and disseminate new information and knowledge toward achieving political endeavors and for revising or strengthening their policy-related beliefs over time. 'Policy learning' is a concept that refers to this cognitive and social dynamic. Articles in this special issue examine the relationship between policy learning and policy change from different theoretical perspectives. In this introduction to the special issue, we describe the current approaches that structure the field and gaps in knowledge separating policy learning and policy change. We introduce a refined conceptual framework to outline and compare the articles in the issue. These articles point to several facets of the learning phenomenon. First, the articles focus on the nature and consequences of learning by specific groups of society, such as advocacy coalitions, epistemic communities, citizens, street-level bureaucrats, and policy brokers. Second, they present learning processes in which information and experience are used to acquire new knowledge on policy objectives to substantiate and legitimize them or to change or form beliefs. Third, they identify several cognitive and social processes to strengthen the connection between policy learning and policy change. Finally, the articles point to several psychological, social, and institutional factors fostering or impeding these cognitive and social processes. This introduction concludes with avenues for future research.

AbstractWhy people collaborate to achieve their political objectives is one enduring question in public policy. Although studies have explored this question in low-intensity policy conflicts, a few have examined collaboration in high-intensity policy conflicts. This study asks two questions: What are the rationales motivating policy actors to collaborate with each other in high-intensity policy conflicts? What policy actor attributes are associated with these rationales? This study uses questionnaire data collected in 2013 and 2014 of policy actors from New York, Colorado and Texas who are actively involved with hydraulic fracturing policy debates. The results show that professional competence is the most important rationale for collaborating, whereas shared beliefs are moderately important, and financial resources are not important. Policy actor attributes that are associated with different rationales include organisational affiliation and extreme policy positions. This article concludes with a discussion on advancing theoretical explanations of collaboration in high-intensity policy conflicts.

This article offers an analysis of the national level news media coverage of the risks and benefits surrounding hydraulic fracturing, using two different content analysis methods. First, we complete a manual content analysis on 150 articles by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. We examine differences across these newspapers in reporting on environmental, public health, and economic risks and benefits, including the actors who the newspapers cite and whether these actors convey risks and benefits with certainty or uncertainty. Second, we use a semi‐automated coding technique to examine coverage of environmental, environmental damage, public health, and economic topics in 15 nationally distributed newspapers. Overall, we conclude that the two approaches to studying national media content offer some similar insights into how the political leaning of newspapers may result in different coverage of hydraulic fracturing, but manual and automated codings each present distinct strengths and weaknesses in understanding media coverage of this contentious issue.

AbstractWhat is the relationship between the design of regulations and levels of individual compliance? To answer this question, Crawford and Ostrom's institutional grammar tool is used to deconstruct regulations governing the aquaculture industry in Colorado, USA. Compliance with the deconstructed regulatory components is then assessed based on the perceptions of the appropriateness of the regulations, involvement in designing the regulations, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The findings suggest that levels of compliance with regulations vary across and within individuals regarding various aspects of the regulatory components. As expected, the level of compliance is affected by the perceived appropriateness of regulations, participation in designing the regulations, and feelings of guilt and fear of social disapproval. Furthermore, there is a strong degree of interdependence among the written components, as identified by the institutional grammar tool, in affecting compliance levels. The paper contributes to the regulation and compliance literature by illustrating the utility of the institutional grammar tool in understanding regulatory content, applying a new Q‐Sort technique for measuring individual levels of compliance, and providing a rare exploration into feelings of guilt and fear outside of the laboratory setting.

A policy process framework that has been developed to simplify the complexity of public policy is the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). This essay reports on an analysis of 80 applications of the ACF spanning nearly 20 years. The review shows that the ACF is applicable to various substantive topics, across various geographical areas, and with other policy process theories and frameworks, including the stages heuristic. The most commonly tested hypotheses involve policy change, learning, and coalition stability. Although the hypotheses tend to be confirmed, questions remain about the membership, stability, and defection of coalition members; about the causal mechanisms linking external events and policy change; and about the conditions that facilitate cross‐coalition learning. Emerging areas of research include policy subsystem interdependencies and coordination within, and between, coalitions.

AbstractAlthough the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) emerged in Western democratic contexts, scholars increasingly apply it in other parts of the world to analyze diverse policy topics. These cross-country comparisons have provided a means for advancing comparative research, drawing lessons about policy processes, and offering opportunities to refine the framework. In this paper, we provide an overview of the ACF and its use as an analytical tool for comparative research. Through a systematic literature review, we identified 27 applications in 15 African countries, including democracies, authoritarian governments, and hybrid systems. Based on these applications published in peer-reviewed journals, we explore this illustrated collection of case studies to see how the ACF has been applied outside of Western democracies and to identify strengths and weaknesses of the ACF as a portable framework. These applications confirm the basic postulations of the ACF, but we also identify a few nuances and expectations. Based on these insights, we finally lay out a research agenda and a new generation of questions for applying the ACF in the African context as well as globally.

AbstractPolicy processes are ongoing phenomena without beginning or end. Accordingly, a major focus of research has been on questions of stability and change. This paper continues in this tradition by examining advocacy coalition stability, belief change, and learning. This paper draws on three waves of policy actor surveys that compare panel and non‐panel samples. The data were collected in 2013, 2015, and 2017 in the context of oil and gas development in Colorado, USA. The findings mostly confirm that coalitions and beliefs tend to be stable and that learning leans toward reinforcement rather than change in beliefs. However, although rare, some instances of belief change, change in coalition membership, and changing policy positions occur. This paper makes theoretical and empirical contributions to the study of stability, change, and reinforcement of advocacy coalitions and their beliefs and charges policy scholars to look more at the exceptions to the evidence rather than the confirmations.

AbstractResearchers struggle to understand the relationship between science and policy positions, especially the complicated interplay among the various factors that might affect the acceptance or rejection of scientific information. This article presents a typology that simplifies and guides research linking scientific information to policy positions. We use the typology to examine how characteristics of both scientific information and policy actors' existing policy positions affect the likelihood of changing, maintaining or reinforcing those policy positions. We analyse data from surveys conducted in 2015 and 2017 of policy actors engaged in contested policy debates over shale oil and gas development in Colorado, US. Our findings confirm expectations that policy actors will most likely maintain and reinforce their policy positions in response to scientific information. Our data also show that changes in policy positions depend on policy actors' risk perceptions, perceived issue contentiousness, networks and experience with science.