Search

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]

When advocating for policy change, coalitions rely on various elements and strategies of policy narratives, including emotions. However, past research on the Narrative Policy Framework, and more broadly on the policy process, has largely ignored the role of emotions. This paper argues that emotions, such as anger and fear, are central to how coalitions advocate for policy change. It explores the role of anger and fear in policy narratives by examining the oral testimony (n = 474) given over four legislative committee hearings in March 2019 concerning Colorado Senate Bill 19‐181. This bill changed the mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to prioritize protecting the environment and public health over oil and gas development. This research finds the coalition that successfully supported the bill used anger towards the oil and gas industry, while those that opposed the bill relied more on fear of the uncertain consequences of the bill. It also finds the coalition that opposed the bill relied on self‐characterization as heroes and victims, which was a failed strategy. The implications for this research on the Narrative Policy Framework and, more broadly, for the policy process and advocacy are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. KEY WORDS: belief systems, interest groups, external events, content analysis, Tabu search cluster analysis, Zionism, Palestine, Introduction The study of belief systems has long been a central focus within sociology (Marx & Engels, [1845-46] 1976; Weber, [1915] 1946), social psychology (Festinger, 1957), political science (Axelrod, 1976; [...]

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a theoretical framework widely applied by public policy scholars to study advocacy. Since its inception in 1986 by Paul Sabatier, the framework has been applied hundreds of times across the globe to various policy issues. One side effect of this growth and diversification is a lack of common methodological approaches. Inspired by historic calls to balance generalizable knowledge-of-policy process with contextualized knowledge-in-policy, as well as more recent calls for comprehensive accounting of trends in studies with such a diversity of application, this research supports social science dialogue and knowledge-building by offering a better understanding of the methods used in ACF applications and by highlighting model approaches. We used content analysis to categorize data sources and analytic methods of 161 English language peer-reviewed journal articles applying the ACF published between 2007 and 2014. We found that most ACF applications relied on qualitative analysis of interviews and documents, and analytic method varied according to theoretical focus. Multiple ACF applications modeled clear, compelling and varied data collection and analytic approaches consistent with theoretical conceptualization. Overall, this research provides a more detailed accounting and understanding of what methods social science scholars around the world use to study public advocacy and discusses some exemplary methods for theory testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study uses content analysis of recent Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) research to determine the scope of MSA applications, examining the consistency, and coherence with which concepts of MSA are applied. Our analysis examines peer-reviewed articles testing MSA concepts available in English published from 2000 through 2013 ( N = 311). Among other findings, we observe that MSA is applied to study 65 different countries, at multiple levels of governance, across 22 different policy areas, and by researchers spanning the globe. Our findings suggest that while MSA is prolific, consistency across applications-in terms of operationalization of MSA core concepts-is needed to facilitate theoretical development of the approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]