Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this essay is to analyze two theories. One is a relatively new approach called Instrument Constituencies. The other is an established approach called the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). This essay begins by comparing the two theories by an explicit set of criteria. It then lays out opportunities for refinement and advancement of Instrument Constituencies towards its better placement, usefulness, and longevity as a policy process theory. Research prospects at the intersection of Instrument Constituencies and the ACF are then presented with a set of research questions and hypotheses. This essay concludes with a summary of insights about the field of policy processes gained from this theoretical exploration. While there are opportunities for improvements and important caveats for consideration, this essay makes an optimistic argument for the potential of Instrument Constituencies to offer generalizable and context-specific knowledge in helping to advance policy process research.

This article reviews and synthesizes the uses of expert‐based information in policy subsystems. The review begins by summarizing the different uses of information in the multiple streams theory, the punctuated equilibrium theory, the social construction theory, and the advocacy coalition framework. Three uses of expert‐based information are identified as instrumental, learning, and political. The three uses of expert‐based information are then compared across unitary, collaborative, and adversarial policy subsystems. This article synthesizes the findings in a set of propositions about the use of expert‐based information in policy subsystems and about the factors that contribute to shifts from one policy subsystem to another.

What factors explain stakeholder benefit–cost expectations for participating in a collaborative institution? This article examines this question by applying a version of the collective interest model. The case study includes original data from a mail-in questionnaire and in-person interviews of stakeholders' expectations before the start of a collaborative process to establish marine-protected areas in California. The results provide little support for the traditional variables in the collective interest model with null results for group and personal efficacy. Selective incentives, especially putting in your own time versus company time, are important in explaining stakeholders' benefit–cost expectations. The results show that ally efficacy is an important factor, suggesting that perceptions of allies compared to opponents shape initial expectations for a collaborative process. This article adds to the research on political participation in environmental management by presenting a rare exploration of ex ante beliefs before the start of a collaborative planning institution.

There is a growing recognition that public policy controversies are driven more by value differences than by technical deficiencies. Unfortunately, we have yet to develop, test, and refine systematic approaches for understanding political systems. In this article I explain how the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) can be used as a theoretical basis for understanding political context via a stakeholder analysis. An ACF stakeholder analysis widens the attention of policy analysts toward subsystem-wide dynamics with multiple actors who are motivated by their beliefs, structure their relationships into advocacy coalitions, and try to influence policy through utilizing multiple resources and venues. I illustrate an ACF approach to stakeholder analysis in a scientifically contentious political conflict over the establishment of marine protected areas in California. I conclude with a summary of contributions to the ACF literature and the strengths and limitations of conducting an ACF stakeholder analysis. Adapted from the source document.

"The increasingly global study of policy processes faces challenges with scholars applying theories in radically different national and cultural contexts. Questions frequently arise about how to conduct policy process research comparatively and among this global community of scholars. Methods of the Policy Process is the first book to remedy this situation, not by establishing an orthodoxy or imposing upon the policy process community a rigid way of conducting research, but instead, by allowing the leading researchers in the different theoretical traditions a space to share the means by which they put their research into action. This edited volume serves as a companion volume and supplemental guide to the well-established Theories of the Policy Process, 4th Edition. Methods of the Policy Process acknowledges that growth and advancement in the study of the policy process is dependent not merely on conceptual and theoretical development, but also on developing and systematizing better methodological approaches to measurement and analysis. To maximize student engagement with the material, each chapter follows a similar framework: introduction of a given theory of the policy process, application of that theory (including best practices for research design, conceptualization, major data sources, data collection, and methodological approaches), critical assessment, future directions, and online resources (including datasets, survey instruments, and interview and coding protocols). While the structure and focus of each chapter varies slightly according to the theoretical tradition being discussed, each chapter's central aim is to prepare readers to confidently undertake common methodological strategies themselves. Methods of the Policy Process is especially beneficial to people new to the field, including students enrolled in policy process courses, as well as those without access to formal training. For scholars experienced in applying theories, this edited volume is a helpful reference to clarify best practices in research methods"--

"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.