Suchergebnisse

The concept of "advocacy coalitions" is the bedrock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), one of the most established and successful approaches for understanding policy processes across the globe. This article revisits and sharpens the conceptual definition of advocacy coalitions. We summarize the lessons from its theoretical emphases under the ACF and specify its five attributes (policy actors, shared beliefs, coordination, resources, and stability). Through this specification, we identify the ideal coalition type and several coalition subtypes. We then clarify and make a distinction between how we think about coalitions as a concept and how we approach coalitions empirically. This article sharpens the lens for describing and explaining coalitions toward better observations, theorizing, and measurements. It ends with next steps for further deepening and broadening knowledge about advocacy coalitions.

AbstractPolicy scholars have increasingly focused on collaborative and competitive relationships between stakeholder coalitions. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in particular has directed scholarly attention toward such relationships. The ACF defines advocacy coalitions as groups of actors who share beliefs and coordinate their action. However, previous research has been inconsistent in defining and measuring coalitions, which has hampered comparative research and theory building. We present a method called the Advocacy Coalition Index, which measures belief similarity and the coordination of action in a manner that makes it possible to assess the extent to which advocacy coalitions are found in policy subsystems, whether subgroups resemble coalitions, and how individual actors contribute to coalition formation. The index provides a standardized method for identifying coalitions that can be applied to comparative research. To illustrate the effectiveness of the index, we analyze two climate change policy subsystems, namely Finland and Sweden, which have been shown to differ in terms of the association of belief similarity with coordination. We demonstrate that the index performs well in identifying the different types of subsystems, coalitions, and actors that contribute the most to coalition formation, as well as those involved in cross‐coalition brokerage.

"Advocacy Coalitions in Foreign Policy" published on by Oxford University Press.

Abstract
Conceptually, advocacy coalitions are referenced in several policy process theories and frameworks to describe groups of actors that share beliefs and coordinate efforts to influence public policy. In the past decades, advocacy coalitions have received increased attention as a concept and a theoretical approach to understanding collective action in the policy process. In this study, we argue that despite its growing popularity, past empirical research has mainly focused on identifying and describing advocacy coalitions while largely overlooking their role and impact as political organizations. Many of the core premises and assumptions about advocacy coalitions hereby remain understudied and untested. Here, we depart from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to discuss the political organization of advocacy coalitions by focusing on four dimensions: (1) a basis for engagement in joint strategies, (2) capacity to mobilize political resources, (3) ability to gain influence in policy processes, and (4) perceptions of advocacy coalitions as a political entity. We briefly review the theory and evidence of each dimension and conclude that several core assumptions about advocacy coalitions yet remain to be empirically tested to enable further conceptual specification and theory development within the ACF and beyond. To this end, we propose a research agenda with suggested research questions, designs, and methodological considerations for advancing empirical research on the role and impact of advocacy coalitions in different cases and contexts.

This article applies a modified conceptual framework derived from Sabatier's advocacy coalition framework and Haas' epistemic communities' framework to analyze climate advocacy coalitions in Guangzhou, China, a largely unexplored area of study. Our analysis reveals several key features of the climate policy advocacy groups working to promote policy change within the policy subsystem of a nonpluralistic regime: (a) mutual interdependence (consensus building) in the creation of an advocacy coalition system, (b) government recognition and endorsement of newly established or professionally oriented coalition organizations, (c) coalition formation in a top-down manner rather than by accumulative bottom-up demands, and (d) bottom-up motivators, such as changing societal values and the external environment, which contribute to and accelerate the reform of policy orientation and the administrative structure of coalition formation.

AbstractThe Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) posits that policy actors, including elected officials and bureaucrats, aggregate into coalitions based on shared beliefs and coordinate to achieve policy objectives. Yet, bureaucrats are often subject to political control mechanisms understood within a principal‐agent framework. Combining insights from principal‐agent theory and the ACF, we explore the nature of principal‐agent relationships within and across advocacy coalitions in the United States using case studies of nuclear waste management and fair housing policy. Specifically, we develop three propositions regarding principals and agents as members of advocacy coalitions and examine those propositions by comparing the two case studies. We find that powerful elected officials and expert bureaucrats are important resources for coalitions; bureaucrats are in coalitions but face cross‐pressure from principals in opposing coalitions; and control mechanisms embedded in policy designs by principals can limit bureaucratic discretion in a way that aligns with coalition goals.Related ArticlesNeill, Katharine A., and John C. Morris. 2012. "A Tangled Web of Principals and Agents: Examining the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill through a Principal–Agent Lens." Politics & Policy 40(4): 629–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2012.00371.xPeterson, Holly L., Mark K. McBeth, and Michael D. Jones. 2020. "Policy Process Theory for Rural Studies: Navigating Context and Generalization in Rural Policy." Politics & Policy 48(4): 576–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12366Swigger, Alexandra, and Bruce Timothy Heinmiller. 2014. "Advocacy Coalitions and Mental Health Policy: The Adoption of Community Treatment Orders in Ontario." Politics & Policy 42(2): 246–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12066

ABSTRACTThe Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was developed to provide a causal theory of the policy process which would serve as one of several alternatives to the familiar stages heuristic, with its recognized limitations. This paper first summarizes the central features of the ACF, including a set of underlying assumptions and specific hypotheses. We next review the implications for the framework of six case studies by various authors dealing with Canadian education and with American transportation, telecommunications, water, environmental, and energy policy. While generally supportive of the ACF, the case studies also suggest several revisions.

Summarizes the central features of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) -- developed to provide a causal theory of the policy process -- including a set of underlying assumptions & specific hypotheses. Reviewed are the implications for the framework of 6 case studies dealing with Canadian education & US transportation, telecommunications, water, environmental, & energy policy. While generally supportive of the ACF, the case studies also suggest several revisions. 2 Tables, 1 Figure, 99 References. Adapted from the source document.

This article examines one of the causal concepts in the second advocacy coalition framework (ACF) policy change hypothesis: the notion that major policy change will not occur as long as the advocacy coalition that instated the policy status quo remains 'in power' in a jurisdiction. It examines the role of this causal concept in ACF theory. It then reviews existing scholarship on the causal concept, identifying relevant empirical evidence and critically examining how the concept has been operationalised. A standard operationalisation is proposed, defining status quo advocacy coalitions as 'in power' if they control a veto player in a jurisdiction's policy process. Changes in Canadian firearms policy between 1976 and 2012 are used to illustrate the operationalisation and explore its potential.