Suchergebnisse

Emotions affect how we think and behave and should be better incorporated into theories and frameworks of the policy process. Most research on emotions in the policy process relies on a dimensional model of emotions. However, over the past 20 years, research has found that dimensional approaches are limited compared to using categories of emotions. This article discusses theories of emotion, focusing on the theory of constructed emotion, and how emotion is studied in politics and policy. It then discusses the characteristics of enthusiasm, anger and fear, as well as the effects these emotions have on attention and information processing, risk perception, judgement and persuasion, and political participation and group behaviour. The article concludes by exploring how these emotions can be used by theories and frameworks of the policy process to better understand how emotions have an impact on attention to public problems, judging target populations and characters, and mobilise advocacy coalitions.

AbstractThis article analyzes the process of how the Government of Saudi Arabia determines oil policy. It focuses on oil production because it accepts that the Saudis are "price takers" rather than "price setters." It applies economic and political explanations as determinants of how much oil is produced. Two periods of Saudi oil policy are compared—1987–1991 and 1997–2001—using open‐source data from various newspapers and newsletters. The article concludes that oil production in Saudi Arabia is, in large measure, a function of Saudi Arabian estimates of how its oil reserves may provide long‐term revenue and political stability at the risk of short‐term economic gains.

This study examines whether advocacy coalitions are stable over time by examining legislative hearings data concerning U.S. foreign policy and the creation of Israel. It uses content analysis of 19 different policy core and deep core belief components applied to testimonies given in 1922 and in 1944. These belief components are used to identify members of advocacy coalitions and to test the coalitions' relative stability of membership over time. In addition, this research examines the stability of the belief systems of these advocacy coalitions. It finds that the structures of the advocacy coalitions remained relatively stable, yet new components of policy core beliefs emerged among all three advocacy coalitions, and such components are converging toward the belief system of the coalition advocating for the creation of Israel.

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

Why does a state change its foreign policy objectives and who is responsible for instigating such change? According to Hermann, four primary change agents are central to this process: leaders, bureaucracies, changes in domestic constituencies, and external shocks. This paper argues that the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a complementary policy process framework that can explain foreign policy change (FPC) and that accounts for all four of these primary change agents. Additionally, it is a broader framework of the policy process that facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing FPC than traditional FPC research. The ACF has the potential to broaden our understanding of FPC by emphasizing the intersection of the international system with domestic politics and focusing on a myriad of policy actors coordinating their advocacy efforts to influence FPC. To support this argument, the paper discusses how FPC can benefit from the ACF and reviews past applications. It proposes a research agenda using the ACF to study FPC and draws conclusions about future challenges and directions.

Why does a state change its foreign policy objectives and who is responsible for instigating such change? According to Hermann, four primary change agents are central to this process: leaders, bureaucracies, changes in domestic constituencies, and external shocks. This paper argues that the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a complementary policy process framework that can explain foreign policy change (FPC) and that accounts for all four of these primary change agents. Additionally, it is a broader framework of the policy process that facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing FPC than traditional FPC research. The ACF has the potential to broaden our understanding of FPC by emphasizing the intersection of the international system with domestic politics and focusing on a myriad of policy actors coordinating their advocacy efforts to influence FPC. To support this argument, the paper discusses how FPC can benefit from the ACF and reviews past applications. It proposes a research agenda using the ACF to study FPC and draws conclusions about future challenges and directions.

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.

AbstractDrawing on a review of 112 Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) applications to China published during 2006–2022, this article finds that, consistent with ACF assumptions, policy processes in China are complex processes of top‐down decision making, horizontal negotiation, networked influence, and bottom‐up initiation. The review finds policy processes in many subsystems of China inconsistent with one implicit assumption of the framework: the difficulty of reconciling conflicting beliefs between warring coalitions. Compared with the results from a review of the English ACF applications to countries around the globe, policy‐oriented learning and imposition by a hierarchically superior jurisdiction were identified more frequently as pathways to policy change in reviewed applications to China. The Xi Jinping administration encourages between‐coalition learning and negotiation to pursue the ideal of building a well‐off and equitable society. At the same time, his top‐level reforms have changed the long‐time status quo in some subsystems by national policy reforms.Related ArticlesNam, Aerang, and Christopher M. Weible. 2023. "Examining Experts' Discourse in South Korea's Nuclear Power Policy Making: An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach to Policy Knowledge." Politics & Policy 51(2): 201–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12522.Nwalie, Martin Ike. 2019. "Advocacy Coalition Framework and Policy Changes in a Third‐World Country." Politics & Policy 47(3): 545–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12302.von Malmborg, Fredrik. 2023. "Combining the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Argumentative Discourse Analysis: The Case of the 'Energy Efficiency First' Principle in EU Energy and Climate Policy." Politics & Policy 51(2): 222–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12525.

One purpose of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is to explain policy change. Previous holistic reviews of the ACF by Weible, Sabatier, and McQueen (2009) and Pierce, Peterson, Jones, Garrard, and Vu (2017) of the framework have not explicitly analyzed all the concepts and their interactions in a systematic manner. To address this gap and inform scholars and practitioners about past findings, strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for future research, this article analyzes how the ACF's theory of policy change is applied to 148 policy processes among 67 journal articles from 2007 to 2014. Similar to Weible et al. (2009), this research finds the frequent use of multiple primary pathways to policy change, infrequent use of many of the ACF's concepts, a plurality of applications in the environment and energy domain, comparison of subsystems, and a need for greater clarity and transparency among applications. Unlike Weible et al. (2009), this article explores associations between primary pathways and policy domains, the frequency of associations between primary pathways and secondary components, policy change and stasis, and identifies threats to internal validity of key ACF concepts.