Search

This article explores the evolution of federal arts policy in urban design by examining the Design Program of the National Endowment for the Arts through the Advocacy Coalition Framework. It traces major policy shifts and examines how policy coalitions influenced the U.S. arts-based urban design policy subsystem. The study utilizes a historical research approach and secondary data analysis to analyze the NEA's policy interventions from their early stages to the present Creative Placemaking movement. The analysis reveals how external events, policy beliefs, and coalition dynamics have shaped policy changes. Findings demonstrate the complex interplay between policy actors and their environments, highlighting the critical role of advocacy coalitions in developing and evolving arts policies in urban contexts. This research underscores the dynamic nature of policymaking and the significant impact of arts-led policy advocacy on shaping urban design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research employs the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) to examine two coalitions of U.S. foreign policy during the early part of Barack Obama's presidency when U.S. policy shifted from leading multilateral security operations with European allies to catalyzing others to lead. It identifies the primary members of two coalitions, the Democratic Interventionists and the Pragmatic Realists, who held differing beliefs about U.S. foreign policy. I investigate the beliefs of the members of these coalitions regarding the U.S. role in multilateral security operations, the policy preferences that emerge from those beliefs, the many strategies employed to ensure the adoption of their policy preferences, and the impact of the implemented policy. The ACF facilitates consideration of the strategy, means, and settings that the Pragmatic Realist coalition used to win the policy debate in the Obama administration. This article further provides a greater understanding of the circumstances that support U.S. multilateralism. Related Articles: Dolan, Chris J. 2008. "The Shape of Elite Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy, 1992 to 2004." Politics & Policy 36(4): 542–85. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2007.00121.x/abstract. Haar, Roberta N., and Lutz F. Krebs. 2021. "The Failure of Foreign Policy Entrepreneurs in the Trump Administration." Politics & Policy 49(2): 446–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12399. Lasher, Kevin J., and Christine Sixta Rinehart. 2016. "The Shadowboxer: The Obama Administration and Foreign Policy Grand Strategy." Politics & Policy 44(5): 850–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12175. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the narrative framework in European Union (EU) research and innovation projects, focusing on symbolic practices and terminology. The analysis includes over five years of ethnographic research, and 20 European projects funded by Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe, and Erasmus+ programs. It explores different ways project actors internalize and reproduce the EU's symbolic power through its policies, particularly the ambiguous concept of "innovation." Using Bourdieu's theory of practice, the research highlights the way social structures within the "project field" influence dynamics and outcomes, often resulting in a gap between rhetoric and reality. The study also uncovers broader political and social implications of these practices, calling for critical reflection of their impact. In its conclusion, the authors discuss the challenges of maintaining genuine innovation amidst bureaucratic requirements and the EU's symbolic power, advocating for more nuanced and context‐aware project practices. Related Articles: Kanol, Direnç. 2022. "Narrative Strategies for Emerging Disruptive Technologies: A Case Study of Blockchain for Europe." Politics & Policy 50(5): 952–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12492. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The editorial in the Journal of European Public Policy pays tribute to Jeremy, the founder of the journal, upon his retirement after over 30 years. Jeremy's mission was to make a difference, and his impact on the journal and its contributors was profound. The journal, known as JEPP, has evolved over the years to cover a broad range of topics in European public policy, attracting high-quality scholarship and establishing itself as a top journal in the field. Jeremy's editorial style was characterized by entrepreneurship, partnership with authors, and a commitment to excellence. The editorial reflects on JEPP's growth under Jeremy's leadership and the challenges and uncertainties facing academic publishing in the digital age. The legacy of Jeremy's contributions to the journal will be honored through the renaming of the annual Best Paper Prize and recognition of his role as the Founding Editor. [Extracted from the article]

Due to the life-span of infrastructure, the complexity of components and the tendency of institutional structures to reproduce themselves, infrastructural systems as a whole are seldom reimagined. In addition, strategic thinking about possible system innovations is mainly done by the generations with extensive work experience. This whilst challenges such as climate change trigger the need for system innovation and are inherently intergenerational. This paper examines a method for “intergenerational reimagination”, facilitating reflexive learning within a generationally diverse subgroup of actors. This was done to explore paradigms for future system design. Building on the Advocacy Coalition Framework, descriptive, normative and explorative steps are developed. These steps include an intergenerational dialogue and carefully designed workshops, involving both young and senior professionals. The methodology was applied to reimagine the Dutch public water system, a design process which involved over 50 young professionals and resulted in three reimaginations. This process shows the potential for intergenerational development of possible paradigms for future system design. Moreover, throughout the process, policy-oriented learning was given substance. Finally, the study provided young professionals with a means to join strategic thinking at the semi-public level of water companies; a potential source of inspiration for other sectors and issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, there has been a revival of free tuition policies around the world. Understanding the current revival of these policies is particularly important as it positions higher education as a social right or public good challenging the predominant discourse that situates higher education as a private good. Chile, a country often characterized as a neoliberal laboratory, implemented a free-tuition policy in 2016 and offers a case study to understand the policy formation and the political dynamics behind it. Based on the advocacy coalition framework and using discourse network analysis and in-depth interviews, this paper focuses on identifying the main actors involved in the policy discussion, their beliefs about free college in Chile, and how they interact during the policy development. Findings show that the Chilean free tuition policy was the result of the joint actions of actors who shared similar beliefs and formed coalitions to try to influence the policy design. Findings also highlight the formation of two opposite coalitions that were able to introduce their beliefs into the policy design at political and technical levels. Implications for policymakers and researchers are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The policy process frameworks and theories that are currently considered mainstream were originally developed in the United States, before traveling to other countries. Despite their roots in democratic values, these frameworks and theories are increasingly applied to autocracies. Given important differences between democracies and autocracies, this raises questions about the desirability, limitations, and future directions of this development. In response, this article synthesizes findings from studies that apply existing policy process frameworks and theories to autocracies with the aim of assessing the extent to which the theories are, can, and should be used to explain key aspects of the policy process in autocracies. Based on qualitative content analysis of 146 English‐language peer‐reviewed journal articles that apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, the Narrative Policy Framework, and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory to 39 autocracies, we show that these theories help identify influential institutions, actors, networks, ideas, beliefs, and events. The analysis reveals important differences in policy processes between autocracies and democracies. Future research ought to bring existing literature on authoritarianism and authoritarian politics into policy process research to test existing and new hypotheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the limited research on policy processes in authoritarian settings compared to Western democracies, highlighting the importance of understanding how policies are formulated, implemented, and contested in autocracies. It emphasizes the need to study policy processes in autocracies to explain how these regimes sustain themselves, deliver public services, and respond to crises. The article presents case studies from various countries to deepen the understanding of policy processes in authoritarian settings and suggests future research priorities to explore the conditions under which authoritarian regimes respond to new policy problems. [Extracted from the article]

This paper investigates the positions of state and non-state actors during the ban of Twitter by the Nigerian government between June 4, 2021 and January 13, 2022. It answers questions about whether non-state actors resisted the ban due to Twitter's contributions to democratic, civic space, and economic growth, and whether state actors considered the medium a threat to the country's unity and sovereignty with supportive evidence. Conflict theory and the Advocacy Coalition Framework are used as theoretical and analytical frameworks to explore the different beliefs and interests of the actors involved. The study found that the ban generated a series of reactions from these actors, leading to the development of three forms of narratives: dominant, alternative and metanarrative from the policy and advocacy coalition beliefs. The study concludes that examining the views of state and non-state actors during the ban period provides insights into the different interests, beliefs, and values that shape policy conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Policy Analysis is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Crises, shocks, and perturbations are frequently considered turning points in public policy literature. The Advocacy Coalition Framework has become one of the most employed policy process frameworks, focusing on policy subsystems, belief systems and shocks as one of the drivers of policy change. Relying on a network approach, this article aims at analysing the EU asylum policy by exploring the prioritisation of policy core beliefs before, during and after the so‐called refugee crisis. From a methodological perspective, discourse network analysis (DNA) is employed. The results show that the system of policy core beliefs has not stabilised in the aftermath of the crisis, implying a 'conservative' crisis response approach and short‐term effects on the policy subsystem. The innovation of this article stands on the theoretical–analytical elaborations of some crisis management and public policy literature core concepts and the empirical testing of said concepts through an original dataset with DNA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sanctions are increasingly prominent foreign policy tools, but research on the policy process that leads to specific sanction design is limited. Sanctions can have unintended effects on the provision of humanitarian aid in sanctioned countries, which has led to calls for humanitarian exceptions in sanction design. This study focuses on non‐governmental organizations' (NGOs) advocacy for a humanitarian perspective on European Union (EU) sanctions in the period 2020–2021. Building on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the triangulation of qualitative data sources including interviews and document analysis, this study describes an advocacy coalition of humanitarian NGOs in Brussels, their advocacy strategies and the effectiveness of these strategies. The analysis highlights the coalition's common policy beliefs and documents three advocacy strategies: coalition building, knowledge leadership and lobbying. The analysis then traces the link between these strategies and recent policy changes, namely, clearer European Commission guidelines on the implementation of humanitarian derogations. This policy change was further facilitated by policy brokers and an external shock, the Covid‐19 pandemic. The findings shed light on an understudied design feature of sanctions, i.e., humanitarian exceptions, and on the role of non‐governmental actors in shaping sanction designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractIn 2019, Japan’s Ministry of Environment (MoE), led by Koizumi Shinjirō, embarked on a quest to end the country’s ‘coal addiction’ against the coal industry’s interests, as represented by the powerful Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). Against all expectations, Prime Minister Abe Shinzō sided with MoE and implemented restrictions. It initiated the end of Japan’s government support for ‘unabated’ coal-fired power plant exports despite their continued high demand from overseas. This article uses the Advocacy Coalition Framework to explain the importance of the MoE and Environment Minister Koizumi Shinjirō in shifting Abe’s posture towards the global energy transition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the waste management chain, the most fragile actors remain the waste pickers. Being present in poor and rich economies, they are the result of social stratification and lack of employment opportunities. With the emergence of the first waste picker cooperatives in Latin America, the government and Brazilian society turned their attention to a group previously considered criminal. Through the Advocacy Coalition Framework model, this study aims to understand the role of the main coalitions involved in the development of an environmental plan, how it affects society and for future projects, how to insert the social part in political decisions that sometimes opt for technocratic ideas. The research analysed a policy-making process over an entire decade. Interviews were conducted with those involved in the waste management in one of the world's leading capitals when it comes to associativism and cooperativism: Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The economic crises in Brazil in the first two decades of the 21st century and the impeachment process that changed the transfer of funds from federal programs to waste pickers had a great influence on the process under analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For different currents in policy analysis as policy networks and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), identifying coalitions from policy beliefs and coordination between actors is crucial to a precise understanding of a policy process. Focusing particularly the relational dimension of ACF approaches linked with policy network analysis, determining policy subsystems from the actor collaborations and exchanges has recently begun offering fertile links with the network analysis. Studies in this way frequently apply Block Modeling and Community Detection (BMCD) strategies to define homogeneous political groups. However, the BMCD literature is growing quickly, using a wide variety of algorithms and interesting selection methods that are much more diverse than those used in the policy network analysis and particularly the ACF when this current focused on the collaboration networks before or after regarding the belief distance between actors. Identifying the best methodological option in a specific context can therefore be difficult and few ACF studies give an explicit justification. On the other hand, few BMCD publications offer a systematic comparison of real social networks and they are never applied to policy network datasets. This paper offers a new, relevant 5-Step selection method to reconcile advances in both the policy networks/ACF and BMCD. Using an application based on original African policy network data collected in Madagascar and Niger, we provide a useful set of practical recommendations for future ACF studies using policy network analysis: (i) the density and size of the policy network affect the identification process, (ii) the "best algorithm" can be rigorously determined by maximizing a novel indicator based on convergence and homogeneity between algorithm results, (iii) researchers need to be careful with missing data: they affect the results and imputation does not solve the problem. • Identifying policy coalitions is fundamental to understand a policy network. • Studies apply different strategies but identifying the best option can be difficult. • We offer a relevant and consistent 5-Step method by maximizing a novel indicator. • Further research need to be careful with missing data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Political & International Approaches / Faṣlnāmah-i Rahyāft/hā-yi Siyāsī va Biyn/almilalī is the property of Shahid Beheshti University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article explores the relationship between education policy change and policy transfer, focusing on Georgia's School Board of Trustees. It analyzes how Western practices have been implemented in the education policies of post-Soviet countries. To achieve this, the article utilizes instrumental case studies and in-depth interviews. It views policy transfer as a tool of education policy change while integrating it with an advocacy coalition framework. The study indicates that advocacy coalitions transform into transfer networks, and their approach is to replicate or emulate foreign experiences. The article also poses new research questions, enabling researchers to build on and scrutinize the proposed assumptions and concentrate on post-Soviet education policy transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Canada, in the early 2000s, the decriminalization of cannabis for recreational use seemed imminent. Between 2003 and 2005, three government decriminalization bills were introduced in the Canadian House of Commons, but none were adopted, and decriminalization efforts were abandoned. Subsequently, Canada went beyond decriminalization and legalized recreational cannabis in 2018. This paper examines why the Canadian decriminalization efforts failed, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and ACF policy change theory. Three ACF-based hypotheses to explain the failed reform attempts are developed and investigated, but none are empirically supported. A fourth hypothesis is developed using information processing insights from Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) but adapted to the ACF. This hypothesis is empirically supported showing that Canada's decriminalization efforts failed, despite a supportive advocacy coalition, favourable conditions in the cannabis policy subsystem and favourable conditions in the Canadian political system, because its systemic advocates did not give it priority relative to other issues from other subsystems. This finding has implications for ACF policy change theory, identifying a necessary condition for major policy change that has been potentially overlooked, and illustrates the potential for cross-fertilization between PET and ACF theories of policy change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although abortion policy is often discussed as a black-and-white conflict characterized by polarization and a lack of compromise, this study explores the validity of such a presupposition by asking how advocates articulate their belief systems about abortion policy and in what ways—if at all—are those beliefs shared within and across coalitions and create fissures within and between coalitions? Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we interviewed advocates, representing both pro-abortion-access and anti-abortion-access perspectives, about their beliefs, coalition allies, and opponents in Colorado. The result reveals nuanced belief systems that address competing conceptions of morality, gender, and life with a tendency toward deep core beliefs. This paper contributes to the ACF literature by highlighting a policy issue not often raised by ACF scholars, bridging morality policy and abortion policy literature with more mainstream policy process research, and surpassing simple "pro-life vs. pro-choice" dichotomies to reveal complex belief systems about abortion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to understand coalition building between national and international actors in the context of an emerging subsystem. In applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework to the case of Uruguay, where a new field of social policy – the National Care System – was introduced in 2015 after a process involving different national actors from academia, civil society, politics, and administration, but also United Nations agencies, the paper explores the role of these international organizations in coalition building, and examines how a dominant coalition of national and international actors shaped the development of the new system. Using interview data and documents, the findings suggest that the involvement of international organizations in the coalition was based on shared beliefs and personal and institutional relationships. While powerful opposing coalitions were absent due to the nascent nature of the subsystem, the dominant coalition was able to influence the policy's introduction based on their beliefs regarding gender equality and rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Grand sustainability challenges span multiple sectors and fields of policymaking. Novel technologies that respond to these challenges may trigger the emergence of new policy subsystems at the intersection of established sectors. We develop a framework that addresses the complexities of 'multi-system settings.' Empirically, we explore belief and coalition formation in the nascent policy subsystem around hydrogen technologies in Germany, which emerges at the intersection of electricity, transport, heating, and industry and is characterised by a broad range of actors from different sectoral backgrounds. We find two coalitions: a rather unusual coalition of actors from industry, NGOs, and research institutes as well as an expectable coalition of gas and heat sector actors. Actors disagree over production, application, and import standards for hydrogen. However, there is widespread support for hydrogen and for a strong role of the state across almost all actors. We explain our findings by combining insights from the advocacy coalition framework and politics of transitions: Belief and coalition formation in a nascent subsystem are influenced by sectoral backgrounds of actors, technology characteristics, as well as trust and former contacts. Our study contributes to a better understanding of early stages of coalition formation in a multi-system setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Policy Analysis is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Drawing 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 Articles: Nam, 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Educational Studies (1673-1298) is the property of Journal of Educational Studies Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective Issues related to public sector human resources management, particularly those concerning service compensation and annual salary increases for employees, are among the most critical decision-making areas for government managers and parliamentarians in the drafting and approval of annual budget laws. These concerns are also a continuous focus for government employees. Consequently, the mechanism and amount of salary increases for government employees, in a fair and proportionate manner, remain a challenging aspect of the interactions between the government, parliament, and other stakeholders. The current research aims to analyze the policy of increasing government employees' salaries within the framework of Kingdon's multiple streams model in the context of the 1401 budget law. Methods The research methodology is based on documentary studies and analysis within the framework of the advocacy coalition framework in policymaking. The necessary information for this study was collected from three primary sources: documents and archival sources, reports, and news and interviews. The documents and archival sources include legal and organizational documents. For data analysis, events related to this policy were interpreted and analyzed using Kingdon's multiple streams framework. Since the primary goal was to analyze this case within the context of the three streams and other focal events, the theoretical concepts of Kingdon's theory served as the main indicators guiding the analysis. Results The research, based on the multiple streams framework, explains that the reduction in taxes for government employees (excluding faculty members and judges) has disproportionately increased the percentage of salary and benefits for higher-income salary groups. A small portion of minimum wage earners were excluded from this statement due to the increase in the minimum wage. For example, employees earning 6 million Tomans in 1400 experienced a 12% net salary increase (after tax deductions), while those earning 32 million Tomans in 1400 saw about a 19% increase. The studies indicate that this unfair policy, which contradicts the prevailing discourse of the legislative and executive branches, was more influenced by the ignorance of policymakers in the government, parliament, and Guardian Council than by the economic and political interests of various stakeholders. Additionally, the findings reveal that although the Majlis Research Center's role as a policy entrepreneur in this area was not successful during the approval phase, its efforts led to the amendment of the policy in the revised 1401 budget law, thereby restoring the rights of national and military employees and retirees. Conclusion Based on the research findings, it is recommended that in future annual budget laws, when considering salary and benefits increases, attention should be paid to the impact of changes in the tax rate on net salary and benefits growth. To address the identified injustices, subsequent salary and benefits increases should combine a fixed percentage and a fixed amount to ensure that the overall percentage increase is higher for employees with lower salaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Australia, the policy priorities and processes of government and national governing bodies of sport impact how community sport organizations operate. This study explored the views of community sport club (CSC) officials (n = 53) in the Illawarra region in New South Wales, where there is a disparity in impact compared with their better‐resourced urban counterparts concerning sustainability, policy, and advocacy matters. Participants were surveyed for their views about the typically top‐down policy processes, inter‐organizational relationships, and advocacy for community sport. CSC officials participated in an online survey to assess opinions on resource issues and policy processes. The findings demonstrated that community sport is challenging to sustain and that CSC officials have little influence on policy. The outcome points to an appetite for advocacy from CSC officials in policy creation. Further, the Advocacy Coalition Framework is proffered as a platform for evaluating the viability of advocacy within community sport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a collection of articles that explore the role of emotions, narratives, and government strategies in political processes. The articles discuss topics such as the influence of fear and hope narratives on congressional attention to climate change, the emotional expressions of advocacy coalitions in highly contentious legislative sessions, and the use of cultural theory and the Narrative Policy Framework to understand public preferences and political narratives surrounding fracking. The articles highlight the importance of studying emotions and narratives in political conflicts and policy-making processes. Additionally, the document includes an article that provides a comprehensive review of scientific publications on farm animal welfare governance, emphasizing the need for more political and social science research in this area. Hårstad's study examines the influence of different actors on private governance, specifically in relation to animal welfare. The study identifies retailers and non-governmental organizations as significant influencers, while public entities and political parties are described as slower initiators of change, allowing private actors to take the lead. The study also highlights the growing public concern for animal welfare, which, although not directly changing public behavior, legitimizes advancements in research and market practices. The review emphasizes the need for further research in political and social sciences to understand the dynamics and effectiveness of various governance mechanisms in farm animal welfare. [Extracted from the article]

While emotions are an inherent component of the human experience that influence behavior, values, and beliefs, they have largely been left out of policy process studies theoretically and methodologically. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), with its focus on how individuals coalesce into coalitions around a set of common beliefs, we begin to situate emotions as a critical component of belief systems and discourse about public policies. This study analyzes legislative testimony from four policies debated during the 2021 Colorado Legislative Session using discourse analysis to identify the emotions and coalitional beliefs. We find that policy actors express emotions and beliefs similarly to other policy actors in the same coalition and differently from policy actors in the opposing coalition. We conclude this paper by discussing the theoretical and methodological contributions of including emotions in the ACF. The move to incorporate the analysis of emotional expressions, and hence the study of affect, into the ACF mirrors the ongoing incorporation of how people feel in politics and not just how they think. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, no empirical study has focused on understanding the evolution process of China's college admission policies and clarifying its hidden evolution logic. Based on the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), this study determines different advocacy coalitions and their belief systems during the evolution process of independent enrollment policy, as well as various driving forces that affect the process. The social network analysis methods are adopted to delineate alliance structures formed by actors with different policy beliefs in the policy subsystems which change over time. This study chooses news reports included in the China National knowledge infrastructure (CNKI) database as the data source, and identifies 328 related news reports to be coded in the analysis. This article not only provides the evolution logic of independent enrollment policy, but also bridges the research gap and therefore enriches the broad literature on the application of Advocacy Coalition Framework in Eastern countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Until ratified in 2019, non-transferable paternity leave was debated in the European Parliament (EP) for nearly 20 years. Despite evidence showing its benefits in reducing the gender pay gap and improving family life, many politicians opposed. This paper tests this assumption using process tracing and Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to analyze key events from 2000 to 2019 within the EP. A key theoretical contribution is the adaptation of ACF for EU-studies by introducing a new parameter: Internal normative developments. This enhancement allows for a deeper understanding of cultural and societal influences within advocacy coalitions. Findings reveal minimal disagreement within the European Parliament on paternity leave, although increased support as gender balance improved. From the analysis it was evident, that conflict emerged between EU institutions rather than within Parliament. This study highlights the importance of incorporating normative developments into ACF, enriching the analysis of policy dynamics in the European context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing availability of extensive governmental data, technological advancements, and a rising standard for government openness are encouraging global governments to implement open data initiatives. While some governments are actively adapting to these trends, others remain behind, despite the pressure. This research explores the political and administrative reasons behind these differences. By analyzing how local governments in South Korea handled requests for open data from citizens between 2007 and 2016, the study highlights the importance of political competition and administrative strength in fostering government transparency and effectively addressing citizen data requests. The study assesses open government data based on its scope, time, and quality, finding that higher levels of electoral competition and better administrative capabilities contribute to increased transparency and responsiveness. However, the study's use of a regression discontinuity design reveals that the political party controlling local governments had minimal influence on these factors. Related Articles: Heo, Inhye. 2013. "The Political Economy of Policy Gridlock in South Korea: The Case of the Lee Myung‐bak Government's Green Growth Policy." Politics & Policy 41(4): 509–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12029. Heo, 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. Nam, 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many theories and approaches to policy studies have recently begun to question and research how emotions interact with peoples' understanding and behaviors, especially in policy and politics. This paper builds on and contributes to studying emotions in policy and politics via the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). In applying Emotional‐Belief Analysis, this paper examines the legislative testimony on one of the US' first gender‐affirming care (GAC) bans. It shows that those testifying can be organized in competing advocacy coalitions with distinct emotion‐belief expressions in combination with deep core and policy core beliefs. Moreover, expressions of negative emotions and policy core beliefs display significant and the largest effects in explaining coalition affiliation and shared views of the bill banning GAC. The conclusion summarizes the paper's empirical themes with suggestions for incorporating emotions more into the ACF and the broader policy studies field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Policy Studies Journal's second issue for 2024 features 10 research articles covering a wide range of topics within policy theories and substantive policy areas. The articles explore the interplay between policy theories and substantive issues, including climate change policy, preemption, advocacy strategies, collaborative policymaking, polycentric governance, policy influence online and offline, emotional belief expressions in gender identity politics, narrative storytelling in critical race theory discourse, policy responses to environmental change, and the rapid spread of Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) laws in college athletics. These articles provide valuable insights into policy mechanisms and their effects, emphasizing the importance of theory-driven research in crafting effective public policy. The journal also shares updates about new article types, ongoing special issue initiatives, and recent events and meetings. [Extracted from the article]

One of the key objectives of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) is to clarify the role of science in policymaking. As such, scientists can help inform science and technology policy decisions by providing information on the risks and benefits of a technology. There is also high demand for scientists to take an active role in policy debates, and policymakers often rely on scientific experts to help them make decisions on regulations. However, few empirical studies have focused on the establishment of coalitions and their impact on policy outputs, or on the role of scientists in these coalitions. This paper explores how the ACF can be applied to a policy subsystem by examining two nanotechnology regulation policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as cases. Drawing on 21 interviews with people involved in nanotechnology subsystems, this paper finds that there are two opposing advocacy groups in the nanotechnology policy subsystem, each with their own shared beliefs. The qualitative interview analysis suggests that the lineup of coalition members is stable over time, but the EPA exhibits less consistent positions. The interview data also show that despite many policy actors being involved in the nanotechnology policy process, there is a significant role for scientific information in the subsystem. The paper concludes with discussions of the role of science within the nanotechnology policy subsystem and the applicability of the ACF in various settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study unveils a unique case in the Paralympic Games through investigating the negotiation between the International Paralympic Committee and the Beijing Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games for the change of the emblem of the 2022 Paralympic Winter Games two years after its official release. Qualitative data is collected through interviews with senior personnel and archival documents and is analysed through employing the Advocacy Coalition Framework to highlight the change in the belief system of the two parties and the interaction between the policy subsystem and the broader political and social economic system. The findings reveal the shift in the belief system of respective Coalitions and the change in the power dynamics. The paper concludes with a discussion concerning the ACF's four pathways of policy change and a response to one of the questions that is raised in the ACF literature for further researches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Only a few states have adopted a paid family leave (PFL) policy in the United States of America. Local media described the 2019 Oregon PFL legislation as "the most progressive" policy in the country, with coalitions as crucial policy advocates. This case study applies the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to examine policy learning and negotiated agreements as causal mechanisms to explain the adoption of the PFL. We identified three modes of policy learning: previous policy cycles, learning from other coalitions, and learning from community organizations. ACF explains the evolution of negotiated agreements based on the stability of coalition belief systems, including consensus on leave time, inclusivity, and cost-sharing contributions. ACF helps describe how coalitions adopted progressive ideas such as equity. However, ACF's elements that allow a deeper exploration of narratives were missing. Future studies should include interviews with coalition members and compare state policies to assess strategies. Future policy initiatives could integrate feedback from community organizations into policy strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines the policy-making system of Lake Urmia based on the advocacy coalition framework. So, active coalitions of the sub-system of policy-making of Lake Urmia, their beliefs and source of powers have been identified based on the qualitative approach in this research. The population of this research was experts who were familiar with the Urmia Lake policy-making system and documents in this field. Snowball sampling has been used as the method of sampling. Interviews and studying documents were the main instruments for gathering data. Content analysis has been used for analyzing data. The most important results of this research are the identification of three advocacy coalitions consisting of the supporter of local environmental management, the Supporter of the engineering approach, and the potential coalition of environmental NGOs. The results indicate that the type of activity of these three coalitions can be explained by the features of the adversarial subsystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food systems governance regimes have long been spaces of "thick legitimacy" (Montenegro de Wit & Iles, 2016), where embedded norms benefit productivist agricultural practices. Within governance regimes, the science-policy interface and the scientists who occupy this space are integral in today's public policy processes. Often treated as objective science, technical disciplines have become a powerful source of legitimatizing in decision-making. Without the contextualization of lived experience or diverse ways of knowing, these siloed spaces can lead policymakers towards an action bias (e.g., a rush to short-term solutions) that neglects the underlying causes and concerns of our current crises. Current governance arrangements in the science-policy interface demonstrate the bias toward technical science (e.g. economics) and short-term solutions. However, by challenging productivist agriculture norms reformed public policy processes may shift from a space of repression to one of possibility. This reform can happen through investigatiing dominant actor coalitions and identifying tools to reconfigure these power arrangements. Public policy theory, such as the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), helps organize relations within current agricultural policy arenas. The work of practitioners and other disciplines offer tools that can support transformative action by food systems advocates in the pursuit of changing the way public policy is made. In part, understanding how power is organized and who may influence policy processes is critical to change. This reflective essay ends with tools and strategies for those wishing to engage governments in this shift. The proposed tools and strategies focus on how people (e.g. policy champions), processes (e.g. policy leverage points), and partnerships (e.g. allyship) generate ways in which advocates can, and do, engage governments in transformative change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There has been increasing concern over opioid-related harms across the world. In Australia in 2018, codeine-containing products were up-scheduled from over-the-counter access at pharmacies, to requiring a prescription. The drug regulator’s decision to up-schedule was contentious and widely debated, due to the potentially large impact on consumers and healthcare professionals. This study aimed to analyse influences on the codeine up-scheduling policy. Methods This retrospective policy analysis used the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to understand how policy actors with shared beliefs formed adversarial coalitions to shape policy. Data were drawn from documents (regulator policy documents, public submissions, news reports, organisational media releases and position statements) and semistructured interviews with 15 key policy actors. Codes were generated relating to policy processes and actor beliefs; broad themes included the role of health professionals, perceptions of opioids, impact on consumers, and the role of government in healthcare. Results Two coalitions in this policy subsystem were identified: (1) supportive [with respect to the up-scheduling], and (2) opposing. The key evident beliefs of the supportive coalition were that the harms of codeine outweighed the benefits, and that government regulation was the best pathway for protecting consumers. The opposing coalition believed that the benefits of codeine accessible through pharmacists outweighed any harms, and consumers should manage their health without any more intervention than necessary. The policy decision reflected the influence of the supportive coalition, and this analysis highlighted the importance of their public health framing of the issue, the acceptability of their experts and supporting evidence, and the perceived legitimacy of the up-scheduling process. Conclusion Understanding these coalitions, their beliefs, and how they are translated through existing policy processes and institutions provides insight for those interested in influencing future health policy. Specific lessons include the importance of strategic frames and advocacy, and engagement with formal policy processes.