Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory
Tóm tắt
The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) has developed into a comprehensive theoretical approach to the policymaking process. Empirical findings have however posed challenges in understanding important questions about the identification of advocacy coalitions, explanations for possibilities and sources of shifting coalitions, and the role of exploitive coalitions in policy change. We argue that the integration of relevant aspects of cultural theory (CT) into the ACF provides answers to these open questions. First, the theoretical synthesis of both perspectives suggests an exhaustive typology of four distinct sets of policy actors’ cultural biases. In environmental and natural resource policy, they are mainly expressed by myths about physical nature that can be understood as deep core beliefs that entail, guide, and constrain policy core beliefs in the policy subsystem. Second, linking ACF and CT allows for the conceptualization of cognitive mechanisms for strategic cross-cultural alliances between different advocacy coalitions, which are enabled through specific shared or complementary core beliefs. Third, the synthesis provides an explanation for exploitive coalitions who take advantage of issues triggered by external and internal disruptive events through strategic issue (re-)framing and shifting coalitions that, together with ideological congruence related to veto and institutional players, make major policy change possible. To illustrate our theoretical arguments, we present a long-term analysis of policy change through forest sector reforms and forest certification in Germany and Bulgaria. We conclude by underlining the promising explanatory power of combining ACF and CT as a basis for developing a more comprehensive cognitive theory of policymaking in the context of environmental and natural resource management.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Arnold, F. E. (2003). Native forest policy in Chile: Understanding sectoral process dynamics in a country with an emerging economy. International Forestry Review, 5(4), 317–328.
Bar-Tal, D., & Teichman, Y. (2005). Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict: Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BDF. (2007). Bündnis für den Wald gegründet. Sicherung der Gemeinwohlfunktion des Waldes zentrales Anliegen. Press release from 20th of April 2007.
Boin, A., ‘t Hart, P., & McConell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: Political and Policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81–106.
Bukowski, J. (2007). Spanish water policy and the national hydrological plan: An advocacy coalition approach to policy change. South European Society and Politics, 12(1), 39–57.
Burnett, M., & Davis, C. (2002). Getting out the cut, politics and national forest timber harvests, 1960–1995. Administration and Society, 34, 202–228.
Burton, P. (2006). Modernising the policy process: Making policy research more significant? Policy Studies, 27(3), 173–195.
Capano, G. (2009). Understanding policy change as an epistemological and theoretical problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 7–31.
Coyle, D. (1994). This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land: Cultural Conflict in Environmental and Land-Use Regulation. In D. J. Coyle & R. J. Ellis (Eds.), Politics, policy, and culture (pp. 33–50). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Davidsen, C. (2006). Sources of change in community forestry—The roles of learning and beliefs in the policy process: A comparative analysis of Ecuador, Mexico and Canada. Doctoral dissertation 2006. Technische Universität Dresden, Germany: Dresden.
Davis, C., & Davis, S. (1988). Analyzing change in public lands policymaking: From subsystems to advocacy coalitions. Policy Studies Journal, 17(1), 3–24.
DFWR. (2007). Forst- und Holzwirtschaft gründen Plattform Forst und Holz. DFWR-Aktuell 07/2007. Press release from 10th of May 2007.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Elliot, C., & Schläpfer, R. (2001a). Understanding forest certification using the advocacy coalition framework. Forest Policy and Economics, 2(3–4), 257–266.
Elliot, C., & Schläpfer, R. (2001b). The advocacy coalition framework: Application to the policy process for the development of forest certification in Sweden. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 642–661.
Elliott, C. (2000). Forest certification: A policy perspective. CIFOR Thesis Series: Jakarta.
Fenger, M., & Klok, P.-J. (2001). Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: A contribution to the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 34(1), 157–170.
Fischbach-Einhoff, J. (2005). Die politische Positionierung der Forstverwaltungen in Deutschland. Freiburger Schriften zur Forst- und Umweltpolitik. Remagen-Oberwinter: Verlag Dr. Kessel.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2004). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Grendstad, G., & Selle, P. (2000). Cultural myths of human and physical nature: Integrated or Separated? Risk Analysis, 20(1), 27–40.
Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 239–255.
Hann, A. (1995). Sharpening up Sabatier: Belief systems and public policy. Politics, 15(1), 19–26.
Henry, A. D. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 361–383.
Henry, A. D., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. M. (2014). Policy change in comparative contexts: Applying the advocacy coalition framework outside of Western Europe and North America. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(4), 299–312.
Hoberg, G. (1996). Putting ideas in their place: A response to “Learning and Change in the British Columbia Forest Policy Sector”. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 29, 135–144.
Holling, C. S. (1979). Myths of ecological stability. In G. Smart & W. Stansbury (Eds.), Studies in crisis management. Montreal: Butterworth.
Hoppe, R. (2002). Cultures of public policy problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 4, 305–326.
Hoppe, R., & Grin, J. (1999). Pollution through traffic and transport: The praxis of cultural pluralism in parliamentary technology assessment. In M. Thompson, G. Grendstad, & P. Selle (Eds.), Cultural theory as political science (pp. 154–169). London and New York: Routledge/ECPR Studies in Political Science.
Hysing, E., & Olsson, J. (2008). Contextualising the advocacy coalition framework: Theorising change in Swedish forest policy. Environmental Politics, 17(5), 730–748.
Ingold, K. (2011). Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 435–459.
Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C. L., Gupta, K., & Ripberger, J. (2014). Belief system continuity and change in policy advocacy coalitions: Using cultural theory to specify belief systems, coalitions, and sources of change. The Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 484–508.
Kahan, D. M., & Braman, D. (2006). Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale and Law Policy Review, 24, 149–172.
Kim, S. (2003). Irresolvable cultural conflicts and conservation/development arguments: Analysis of Korea’s Saemangeum project. Policy Sciences, 36, 125–149.
Kröger, L. (2005). Development of the Finnish agri-environmental policy as a learning process. European Environment, 15, 13–26.
Layzer, J. (2006). Fish stories: Science, advocacy, and policy change in New England fishery management. The Policy Studies Journal, 34(1), 59–80.
Lockhart, C. (1999). Cultural contributions to explaining institutional form, political change, and rational decisions. Comparative Political Studies, 32(October), 862–893.
Mamadouh, V. (1999). Grid-group cultural theory: An introduction. GeoJournal, 47, 395–409.
Mann, S. (1998). Konflikte in der Forstwirtschaft. Konflikttheoretische Analyse der forstpolitischen Diskussion über die Krise der Forstwirtschaft. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Matti, S., & Sandström, A. (2011). The rationale determining advocacy coalitions: Examining coordination networks and corresponding beliefs. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 385–410.
Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (8th ed.). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.
Meijerink, S. (2005). Understanding policy stability and change: The interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945–2003. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 1060–1077.
Memmler, M., & Schraml, U. (2008). Waldzukünfte. Akteurslandkarte. Bericht über die Analyse relevanter Akteure der Waldpolitik in Deutschland. Freiburg: Institut für Forst- und Umweltpolitik, University of Freiburg. http://www.ioew.net/downloads/downloaddateien/Waldzukuenfte_Akteurslandkarte.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2013.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded resource book. Thousand oaks, CA, and London, UK: Sage publications.
Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434.
Möltgen, K., & Pippke, W. (2009). New Public Management und die Demokratisierung der öffentlichen Verwaltung. In E. Czerwick, W. H. Lorig, & E. Treutner (Eds.), Die öffentliche Verwaltung in der Demokratie der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 199–224). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Nohrstedt, D. (2005). External shocks and policy change: Three Mile Island and Swedish nuclear energy policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 1041–1059.
Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. M. (2010). The logic of policy change after crisis: Proximity and subsystem interaction. Risks, Hazards, and Crisis in Public Policy, 1(2), 1–32.
Nüßlein, S. (2005). Forstreformen in den Bundesländern. AFZ – Der Wald, 13, 679–683.
Ott, W. (1987). Forstpolitische Zielsetzung zwischen Ökonomie und Ökologie. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift, 37(34), 873–876.
Ott, W. (2003). Die Zerstörung der Landesforstverwaltung in Baden-Württemberg. AFZ-Der Wald, 58(18), 918–923.
Ripberger, J., Gupta, K., Silva, C., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (2014). Cultural theory and the measurement of deep core beliefs within the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 509–527.
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.
Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. PS. Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156.
Sabatier, P. A. (1999). The need for better theories. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 3–17). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sabatier, P., Hunter, S., & McLaughlin, S. (1987). The devil shift: Perceptions and misperceptions of opponents. The Western Political Quarterly, 40(3), 449–476.
Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sabatier, P. A., Loomis, J., & McCarthy, C. (1995). Hierarchical controls, professional norms, local constituencies, and budget maximization: An analysis of U.S. Forest Service planning decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 204–242.
Sabatier, P., & Weible, C. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189–220). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sabatier, P., & Zafonte, M. (1995). The views of Bay/Delta water policy activists on endangered species issues. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 2(Winter), 131–146.
Schanz, H. (1996). Forstliche Nachhaltigkeit. Sozialwissenschaftliche Analyse der Begriffsinhalte und -funktionen. Schriften aus dem Institut für Forstökonomie, 4. Freiburg: University of Freiburg.
Schlager, E. (1995). Policy making and collective action: Defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 28, 243–270.
Schlager, E. (1999). A comparison of frameworks, theories and models of policy processes. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 233–260). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Schlager, E. (2007). A comparison of frameworks, theories and models of the policy process. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy (2nd ed., pp. 293–319). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49, 651–672.
Schwarz, M., & Thompson, M. (1990). Divided we stand: Redefining politics, technology and social choice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sobeck, J. (2003). Comparing policy process frameworks: What do they tell us about group membership and participation for policy development? Administration and Society, 35, 350–374.
Sotirov, M. (2010). Waldpolitik im Wandel. Eine Politikfeldanalyse im Transformationsprozess Bulgariens. Freiburger Schriften zur Forst- und Umweltpolitik. Remagen-Oberwinter: Verlag Kessel.
Sotirov, M., & Memmler, M. (2012). The advocacy coalition framework in natural resource policy studies—Recent experiences and further prospects. Forest Policy and Economics, 16(2012), 51–64.
Stewart, J. (2006). Value conflict and policy change. Review of Policy Research, 23(1), 183–195.
Swaffield, S. (1998). Contextual meanings in policy discourse: A case study of language use concerning resource policy in the New Zealand high country. Policy Sciences, 31, 199–224.
Swedlow, B. (2002). Toward cultural analysis in policy analysis: Picking up where Aaron Wildavsky left off. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 4, 267–285.
Swedlow, B. (2011a). Editor’s introduction: Cultural theory’s contributions to political science. In Symposium: A cultural theory of politics. PS Political Science & Politics (October 2011, pp. 703–710).
Swedlow, B. (2011b). Cultural surprises as sources of sudden, big policy change. In Symposium: A cultural theory of politics. PS: Political Science & Politics (October 2011, pp. 736–739).
Swedlow, B. (2014). Advancing policy theory with cultural theory: An introduction to the special issue. The Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 465–483.
Tewari, D. D. (2001). Is commercial forestry sustainable in South Africa? The changing institutional and policy needs. Forest Policy and Economics, 2(2001), 333–353.
Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 289–325.
Villamor, G. B. (2006). The rise of protected area policy in the Philippine forest policy: An analysis from the perspective of advocacy coalition framework (ACF). Forest Policy and Economics, 9(2006), 162–178.
Volz, K.-R. (1997). Waldnutzungskonzepte und ihre forstpolitische Bewertung. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 116, 297–310.
Weber, N., Härdter, U., Rother, A., & Weisshaupt, M. (2000). Forstpolitische Aktivitäten von Umweltverbänden in Deutschland - eine vorläufige Bestandsaufnahme. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung, 171(8), 144–153.
Weible, C. M. (2005). Beliefs and policy influence: An advocacy coalition approach to policy networks. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 461–477.
Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), 181–204.
Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D., & deLeon, P. (2011). A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: An introduction to the special issue. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 349–360.
Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.
Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. The American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3–22.
Wildavsky, A. (2006). Cultural analysis: Politics, public law, and administration. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Winkel, G. (2007). Waldnaturschutzpolitik in Deutschland. Bestandsaufnahmen, Analysen und Entwurf einer Story-Line. Freiburger Schriften zur Forst- und Umweltpolitik, 13. Remagen-Oberwinter: Verlag Dr. Kessel.
Winkel, G., & Sotirov, M. (2011). An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of “new modes of governance” in Bulgaria and Germany. Forest Policy and Economics, 13, 143–154.
Zafonte, M., & Sabatier, P. (1998). Shared beliefs and imposed interdependencies as determinants of ally networks in overlapping subsystems. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(4), 473–505.
Zafonte, M., & Sabatier, P. (2004). Short-term versus long-term coalitions in the policy process: Automotive pollution control, 1963–1989. Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 75–107.