Search results

Following the reactor disaster of Fukushima in 2011, the Federal Council has developed the Energy Strategy 2050. With it, an energy regime that enables the progressive withdrawal from nuclear energy production and the expansion of renewable energy sources should emerge in Switzerland. However, every transformation of the energy system has implications for a significant number of stakeholders. On the one hand, the federal government, cantonal and municipal administrations are responsible for the implementation of political requirements and have potential to advance the transformation of the Swiss energy system. On the other hand, the energy companies play an important role in development, engineering and construction of the projects. At the same time, the population is also concerned by the energy system transformation and approves it on national, cantonal and communal referendums. Finally, in the acceptance of the energy projects, interest groups play an important role as well, especially during consultation procedures, parliamentary debates or referendum campaigns. When involved in a policy process, they face the important strategic choice between either joining forces with others or working alone. Therefore, this may have an impact on their effective influence on political decision-making. For instance, interest groups can form longterm coalitions with the same policy actors or collaborate with each other only on a particular decision. Moreover, active cooperation contributes to a share of resources and information between partners. Thus, it may potentially boost lobbying success of the weaker advocates by compensating for low financial and staff resources (Junk, 2020). In this Master's thesis, we examine whether the cooperation between interest groups and policy actors increases their lobbying success. Precisely, we analyse the interest groups' cooperation and their success in two acceptance processes of the wind energy projects in Switzerland. The research design of this Master's thesis is innovative for two reasons. First, previous studies used to focus on one type of the cooperation network. For instance, several researchers examined the influence of the advocacy coalition on the final policy outcome (Sabatier, 1998; Jordan, 1990), while others analysed the advocacy success of the interest groups as part of inter-organisational networks (Beyers and Braun, 2014) or ad-hoc issue coalitions (Mahoney, 2007). However, few studies looked into the connection between different types of the cooperation network. In the present Master thesis, we used two approaches to define a "lobbying coalition": a preference similarity approach and an organisational approach. The first approach focused on positional "camps" on an issue, while the second one identified the ties between organisations as general organisational characteristics (Junk, 2019c). Second, our project is innovative because we examined the correlation between the interest groups' strategies and their success in the wind energy promotion process in Switzerland, particularly in the canton of Neuchâtel. Previous researchers focused more on social acceptance of the wind energy projects in Switzerland. For instance, Ebers and Wüstenhagen (2017) examined the influence of procedural and distributional justice on social acceptance of wind parks in Switzerland. They determined that minimizing ecological impacts of the wind projects could significantly increase their social acceptance. Earlier, Götz (2014) explored the relationship between general attitudes toward wind energy, local acceptance of specific wind projects and respective intentions to act on those attitudes in Switzerland. However, Kriesi and Jegen (2001) conceptualized the actor constellation in the Swiss energy policy domain in 1998. They particularly focused on the configuration of power in a period of transition between two policy equilibra. In Switzerland, wind energy is perceived as green and renewable. Moreover, it has the backing of the Federal Council and Parliament, which in 2006 declared it to be in the country's interest. Nevertheless, it faces a strong opposition from several local and national environmental associations due to concerns about landscape preservation and negative effects on ecosystems. This is the reason why we find it interesting to analyse the strategies used by organisations to block or move forward the decision-making on wind energy projects. In the next section, the important key concepts are defined and the literature review on the relationship between the interest groups' cooperation and the advocacy success is presented. Moreover, this includes the formulation of four hypotheses. Then, the main variables, measurements and data sources for the empirical analysis are described. Thereafter, each hypothesis is tested using two different analyses: the Social Network Analysis and the documentary analysis. The comparison of the empirical results follows. Finally, the main findings are summarised and put into perspective in the conclusion.

Das vorliegende Buch mit seinen 13 Kapiteln erhebt nicht den Anspruch, eine Policy Learning Theorie aufzustellen. Es geht vielmehr darum, die Auslöser, die Mechanismen und die Resultate oder Konsequenzen von Policy Learning systematisch zu beleuchten, in Zusammenhang miteinander zu setzen, und in verschiedene institutionelle Kontexte zu übertragen, soweit das möglich ist. Es werden sowohl substantielle wie auch normative Outcomes von Learning diskutiert, nicht zuletzt was die demokratische Qualität von Learning anbelangt. Es ist ein Werk, das sowohl eine Übersicht der Learning-"Schulen" über die Zeit bietet, wie auch aufzeigt, wohin sich die Learning-Forschung in der öffentlichen Politik-Analyse entwickeln kann.

Die Demokratie hat sich in vielen Bereichen als stabiler erwiesen als andere Regierungsformen: Sie ist erfolgreich bei der Friedensförderung und sorgt für einen breiten Zugang zu Bildung. Doch wie verhält sich die Demokratie in Krisenzeiten? Und wie lassen sich in einer Demokratie drastische Änderungen und einen Wandel von Lebensstilen gestalten und durchsetzen? ; Cite as: Ingold, Karin (2020): Demokratie in Zeiten der Krise: Ist dieses Regime effizient, wirkungsvoll und nachhaltig?, in: Bulletin der Schweizerischen Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften 26,3, S. 29–32.

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a prominent approach to investigate the formation of coalition and their impact on policy outputs. Although the ACF combines both the network structures of a political process with actors' values and belief systems, most empirical tests focus mainly on beliefs rather than network structures. Considering a relational approach makes particular sense when one wants to investigate the structural patterns of a subsystem and to assess coalition formation and maintenance. The author therefore proceeds by taking two steps to study the existence of coalitions, power relations, and policy preferences: first, social network analysis frames the empirical study of network structures, based on the assumption that common beliefs are reflected in relations among actors involved in policy processes. Second, using a sophisticated mathematical algorithm, the multicriteria analysis furnishes a systematic evaluation of the elite's belief system. This methodological combination constitutes the added value of this research and allows for testing to establish if common beliefs are reflected in network structures.

This article contributes to the public policy analysis in Swiss political science. Applying a two-dimensional approach, it explains the current output of the Swiss climate policy, taking into account structures & preferences of the Swiss political elite. Following the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the author studies the existence of coalitions, power relations & policy preferences & proceeds in two steps: First, social network analysis frames the empirical study of structures & relations within the actors' network around the CO2 law decision making process. Second, using a sophisticated mathematical algorithm, the multicriteria analysis furnishes a systematic evaluation of elite's belief system. This methodological combination constitutes the added value of this research & allows complementary conclusions explaining current climate policy choice. The main goal of this contribution finally, is to outline what can be learnt for climate policy formulation after 2010/2012. Adapted from the source document.

Cet article constitue une contribution à l'analyse des politiques publiques en Suisse. Concrètement et en appliquant une approche bi‐dimensionnelle, il explique l'output actuel de la politique climatique suisse en tenant compte des structures et préférences au sein de l'élite politique. Sur la base de l'Advocacy Coalition Framework, l'article étudie l'existence de coalitions, les rapports de force et les préférences politiques. d'une part, l'analyse de réseau encadre l'étude empirique des structures et relations au sein du réseau d'acteurs du processus de décision autour de la loi sur le CO2. D'autre part, l'analyse multicritère fournit une évaluation des systèmes de croyances de l'élite en se basant sur un algorithme mathématique sophistiqué. Cette combinaison méthodologique constitue la valeur ajoutée de ce travail et permet une conclusion plus complémentaire pour expliquer le choix des instruments climatiques actuels. Le but principal de cette contribution est ensuite de tirer des leçons pertinentes pour la formulation d'une politique climatique future qui suivra après 2010/2012.

AbstractMany political actors lack the power or competencies to impact policy outputs and outcomes on their own. This is why they join forces to multiply their impact. Following the advocacy coalition framework, they do so based on joint beliefs and shared policy preferences. Therefore, to understand cooperation or conflict among political actors, including the potential for policy compromises or stalemates, it seems crucial to know the allies and opponents in a political subsystem. Although many studies have investigated advocacy coalitions of like‐minded actors in various political subsystems and policy fields around the globe, not much is known about the dynamics at the origin of joint belief or common preference building. In this context, we ask: How and when do actors develop similar beliefs and joint policy preferences with others in a political subsystem? To answer this question, we investigate the early stage of policy making—a so‐called nascent subsystem—when a new issue arrives on the political agenda. We argue that it is at this stage that actors start developing joint beliefs and identifying their allies. We use expert interviews and survey data to investigate pesticide regulation, a new topic on Uganda's political agenda. We conducted a three‐step approach and selected the types of beliefs and preferences that mattered in a nascent policy setting. We then presented an extensive list of possible regulatory instruments to the stakeholders and selected those evaluated as the most relevant or conflictive. Based on this selection, we calculated belief and preference similarity and clustering to identify groups of like‐minded actors. Finally, via regression analysis, we show that joint beliefs are the result of either trust or a similar problem perception, depending on whether the actor is part of a more or less developed belief cluster.

Policy discourses are important platforms for political actors to express their preferences on certain issues and are usually linked to a specific policy subsystem. From a research perspective, they have the potential to indicate ideological coalitions, policy change and learning. Using discourse network analysis, we identify core policy actors, issues, and coalitions in Switzerland's climate policy discourse and investigate how they have evolved over the past 15 years. In line with the policy process literature, we expected to see more stability than change in the discourse linked to the mature climate policy subsystem. However, our results have shown that policy discourses are more volatile than policy subsystems, and that national and international policy developments are able to trigger change, particularly in terms of the configuration of actor coalitions and the issues discussed.

Multiple actors across different institutional levels play a role in water governance. The coordination of these actors is important for effective water governance. However, the joining together of multiple actors can have several implications, such as a redistribution of power across actors, a change in democratic control and citizen influence as well as shifting accountability structures. These implications can involve different barriers and bridges that might impede or foster coordination. Through qualitative and quantitative methods, we assess the following barriers and bridges for coordination: (1) reputational power in terms of who is perceived as important for coordination in the water sector; (2) democratic legitimacy in terms of actors' value of local control of water services; and (3) accountability in terms of the regional actors' capacity to steer in the water sector. This article focuses on three cases in a Swiss region that has experienced water provision challenges due to its highly fragmented water supply structures. We find that reputational power serves as a bridge in our three cases: when the actors responsible for water supply regard potential coordination partners as important, then we observe coordination. In contrast, we do not find conclusive evidence to support the assumption that a fear of losing local control is a barrier for coordination. Instead, our results indicate that accountability, in the form of vertical steering by the regional actors, serves as a bridge for coordination, and that this could help mitigate some of the potentially negative effects of democratic legitimacy perceptions: through convening local actors or providing positive incentives to municipalities to work together, regional actors can foster coordination.