Belief System Continuity and Change in Policy Advocacy Coalitions: Using Cultural Theory to Specify Belief Systems,Coalitions, and Sources of Change

This paper evaluates the prospects for application of the “grid/group” cultural theory (CT), as advanced by Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky, to the Advocacy Coalition Theory (ACF). CT would seem to be relevant to several key aspects of the ACF: the content of the core beliefs that provide the “glue” that binds coalitions; the resilience of core beliefs and associated implications for belief change and learning; and the structure of coalitions and the mechanisms for coordination and control within them. The paper considers the compatibility of the ACF's account of deep core beliefs and coalition structure with that of CT; surveys an array of empirical studies based on variations of CT; and extends accounts of change in cultural identities from CT to the ACF. In addition, we highlight some of the ways in which the ACF may offer important theoretical insights for scholars of CT, potentially clarifying hypotheses concerning the relationships among basic worldviews, more specific beliefs, and behaviors.     

Comparing Policy Networks: Marine Protected Areas in California

While most of the network literature focuses on information and advice networks, there is increasing interest—particularly among Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) scholars—on ally networks and coordination networks. This article asks two basic questions: First, do information, ally, and coordination networks overlap with each other? Second, and drawing from the ACF, do policy core beliefs structure the interactions in ally, coordination, and advice/information networks? We pursue these research questions in the context of the California Marine Life Protection Act process. We find that ally and coordination networks overlap slightly more than information/advice networks and that policy core beliefs do a better job of predicting ally and coordination networks than advice/information networks. Thus, we show that ally networks can provide a useful proxy for coordination networks to identify advocacy coalitions.     

The Rationale Determining Advocacy Coalitions: Examining Coordination Networks and Corresponding Beliefs

The contemporary trend within natural resource governance sees a strong increase in collaborative management. A successful turnout of these arrangements is, however, dependent upon the formation and characteristics of advocacy coalitions. Uncovering the rationale determining coalitions is therefore a key undertaking in policy analysis and the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) has been widely applied for this purpose. This article aspires to test several important hypotheses regarding the nature of coordination networks and the formation of coalitions, treating the ACF both as an inspiration and as a framework in need of further refinement. This is done in the context of a complex and conflict‐ridden policy subsystem: the Swedish carnivore‐management subsystem. The results indicate, firstly, that perceived belief correspondence, and not perceived influence, is the driving mechanism behind coordination; and, secondly, that the catalog of beliefs shared by actors within a coalition is composed by policy core beliefs, in particular, with a more normative content, while no connection between deep core beliefs and coordination is found.     

Sharpening Advocacy Coalitions

The concept of “advocacy coalitions” is the bedrock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), one of the most established and successful approaches for understanding policy processes across the globe. This article revisits and sharpens the conceptual definition of advocacy coalitions. We summarize the lessons from its theoretical emphases under the ACF and specify its five attributes (policy actors, shared beliefs, coordination, resources, and stability). Through this specification, we identify the ideal coalition type and several coalition subtypes. We then clarify and make a distinction between how we think about coalitions as a concept and how we approach coalitions empirically. This article sharpens the lens for describing and explaining coalitions toward better observations, theorizing, and measurements. It ends with next steps for further deepening and broadening knowledge about advocacy coalitions.     

Policy Narratives and Policy Processes

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has influenced a generation of policy scholars with its emphasis on causal drivers, testable hypotheses, and falsification. Until recently, the role of policy narratives has been largely neglected in ACF literature partially because much of that work has operated outside of traditional social science principles, such as falsification. Yet emerging literature under the rubric of Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) demonstrates how the role of policy narratives in policy processes is studied using the same rigorous social science standards initially set forth by Paul A. Sabatier. The NPF identifies theories specifying narrative elements and strategies that are likely useful to ACF researchers as classes of variables that have yet to be integrated. Examining this proposition, we provide seven hypotheses related to critical ACF concepts including advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs, policy learning, public opinion, and strategy. Our goal is to stay within the scientific, theoretical, and methodological tradition of the ACF and show how NPF's empirical, hypotheses, and causal driven work on policy narratives identifies theories applicable to ACF research while also offering an independent framework capable of explaining the policy process through the power of policy narratives. In doing so, we believe both ACF and NPF scholarship can contribute to the advancement of our understanding of the policy process.     

Advancing Policy Theory with Cultural Theory: An Introduction to the Special Issue

Cultural Theory (CT) is a constructivist theory, developed by Mary Douglas, Aaron Wildavsky, and others, that seeks to participate in the positivist project of discovering, explaining, and predicting regularities in human behavior. Special Issue contributions and this introduction suggest some ways in which this theory can help advance policy studies. One way CT can help is by further specifying other approaches to policy theory. Thus, Hank Jenkins‐Smith and his collaborators argue (and with respect to belief systems demonstrate) that the theory can be used to specify belief systems, coalitions, and causes of policy change in the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF); Rob Robinson uses CT to specify further both sources of resistance to policy change and sources of dramatic policy change in Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET); and Christopher Weare, Paul Lichterman, and Nicole Esparza use the theory to specify sources of collaboration in policy networks as well as sources of network dissolution. Other contributors argue and/or demonstrate that CT can help specify the culturally pluralized conditions for successful policy deliberation, the cultural sources of policy narratives, and how cultural biases are likely to interact with policy frames. This Special Issue invites policy scholars to consider how the theory might help advance their research interests and the field.     

Policy Knowledge, Policy Formulation, and Change: Revisiting a Foundational Question

Understanding the influence of policy knowledge (analysis, evaluation) on policy change represents a long-standing quest in the policy sciences. Despite attempts of Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) scholars, the first to embark systematically on this quest, utilization and policy process literatures still run parallel. Through a critique of ACF and utilization studies, we argue that the inability of policy theory to include how and which information decision makers use is the foundational issue hindering efforts to link process and substance in policy theory. Situating utilization studies in the policy design approach offers an improvement in conceptualizing relationships between policy knowledge, process, and change.     

Advocacy Coalitions in Low Salience Policy Subsystems: Struggles Under a Smooth Surface

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), a well-known framework used to understand policy changes at the subsystem level, is predicated on the idea that coalitions with distinct beliefs compete to influence policy subsystem decisions. The ACF is noted as being most appropriate for, and is typically applied to, high salience policy areas. However, scholars have noted the need to also apply the ACF to less typical application settings in the interest of theoretical refinement. This paper thus explores the applicability of the ACF to Day Habilitation and Employment services systems for working-age adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in two U.S. states, Washington and Pennsylvania, both of which have experienced distinct state-level policy changes during the last two decades despite low levels of public attention and conflict. Using a mixed-methods approach, the paper identifies the presence of two advocacy coalitions (Employment First and Choice) in both states. The study concludes that there is sufficient evidence to apply the ACF to these low salience subsystems, noting theoretical and practical implications for scholars and policymakers interested in applying the ACF to similar settings.     

Policy Change: An Advocacy Coalition Framework Perspective

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.     

Short-Term Versus Long-Term Coalitions in the Policy Process: Automotive Pollution Control, 1963–1989

Research on coalitions in the policy process has found evidence of both short-term and long-term coalitions. Two possible methodological reasons for the varied results are that (1) there has been little systematic longitudinal research on the topic, and (2) most scholars have not distinguished situations where fundamental versus secondary interests are at stake. This article addresses both points by first applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which distinguishes fundamental from secondary beliefs/interests, and then performing a quantitative analysis of the content of organizations' testimonies regarding automotive pollution control over 26 years. Consistent with the ACF, we find that coalitions of interest groups, legislators, local governments, and agencies are relatively stable over time, despite two potentially disruptive events—the 1973–74 Oil Embargo and the 1980 Elections. On the other hand, there is little support for the ACF's hypothesis that broader beliefs will be more stable than narrower secondary beliefs. Our systematic methodology also enables us to separate the general pattern of stability from interesting exceptions of instability.     

How racialized policy contact shapes the social constructions of policy targets

Policy feedback scholars argue the relationship between policy and politics is dynamic and reciprocal. For instance, policies “make citizens,” teaching the public who deserves positive government treatment and who does not. Furthermore, individual experiences with policy shape participation and beliefs about government, which shapes future policy. But few scholars have examined how experiences with a law shape attitudes toward those targeted by policy. We use a survey of 3000 respondents on MTurk (including an over-sample of people of color) to show how direct and indirect experience with policy shapes social constructions of politically relevant groups. Specifically, we examine how direct (personal) and indirect (via someone they know well) experience with two policy areas (criminal justice and social welfare) shape perceptions of the targets of criminal justice and welfare policy. We find the effect of policy contact is racialized; policy contact has a greater effect on white respondents compared to Black respondents. But despite this contact, whites' attitudes about groups' deservingness remain lower than those of their Black counterparts.     

Reconceptualizing the Policy Subsystem: Integration with Complexity Theory and Social Network Analysis

The concept of the policy subsystem is an essential building block for several of the basic frameworks of policy process studies. Over time issues have become more complex, crossing subsystem boundaries, and so subsystems have escalated in their complexity as well. It is increasingly insufficient to study just one policy subsystem and so scholars have turned to studying boundary‐spanning regimes or policy networks. In this essay, we review the major contributions to developing the concept of a policy subsystem and trace its evolution into broader conceptualizations like issue and policy networks. We argue that the future for theories of the policy process is in more explicit integration of complexity theory and more effective modeling of subsystems with the utilization of social network analysis. In closing, we discuss the enduring nature of the concept of policy subsystems and highlight studies that continue using it in innovative ways.     

The Advocacy Coalition Framework and Nascent Subsystems: Trade Union Disclosure Policy in Canada

This article examines the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in the context of a nascent policy subsystem with a longevity of less than 10 years. It evaluates key aspects of the model in a recent area of Canadian national policymaking, namely the attempt to impose greater reporting and disclosure requirements on trade unions through Bill C‐377. Following the ACF's prediction of a correspondence between policy belief systems and coordinated advocacy, the article identifies ideological groupings of advocates in this policy area—defined here as advocacy communities—and examines the level of coordination within and between them. The results show that advocacy coalitions emerged rapidly in this subsystem and corroborate the link between coordination and policy core beliefs. The article provides two qualifications. First, when there are multiple advocacy communities, rather than a simple dichotomy, the relationship between beliefs and coordination is weakened. Second, linkages across different advocacy communities were more prevalent with lower level forms of coordination, such as exchanges of information, than they were with higher level activities. The study is based on a content analysis of briefs and testimonies to two parliamentary committees and a mailed questionnaire to organizational representatives advocating on this issue.     

Ideology,Power, and the Structure of Policy Networks

This article investigates the role of power and ideology in the endogenous formation of policy networks. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), shared ideology (conceptualized as a system of policy‐relevant beliefs and values) is the primary driver of collaboration within policy subsystems. On the other hand, Resource Dependency Theory suggests that power‐seeking is an important rationale behind network structure, and that collaborative ties are formed primarily on the basis of perceived influence. Hypotheses are tested using a new method of egocentric network correlation, based on survey data of policy networks in five regional planning subsystems in California (N = 506). Results suggest that ideology is an important force behind network cohesion: Not only do policy elites systematically avoid networking with ideologically dissimilar actors but collaborative ties are also systematically formed among actors with shared beliefs. Power‐seeking does not operate on a network‐wide scale but may drive network formation among coalitions of ideologically similar agents.     

Advocacy Coalitions Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Globalization and Canadian Climate Change Policy

With its emphasis on shared beliefs and the advocacy use of knowledge within policy subsystems, the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) is ideally suited to the study of environmental policy. Yet the ACF has generally been applied in a domestic context. This article argues that the twin phenomena of economic globalization and the internationalization of environmental affairs are blurring the distinction between some policy subsystems and the international arena. Thus, advocacy coalitions should be understood as operating increasingly along "the domestic-foreign frontier." In the case of Canada's efforts to develop a coherent climate change policy, the boundaries between political levels have been blurred as local and provincial actors come to understand themselves as players in a global game. This dynamic is exacerbated by Canada's unique constitutional division of authority, which delegates significant autonomy to the provinces on natural resource and energy issues.     

On new forms of government

The article by Ganghof, Eppner and Pörschke discusses the concept of semi-parliamentarism. This concept is very useful and will be used in future empirical studies. This short commentary provides a constructive critique of the concept, noting that only two countries currently meet the definitional criteria for the concept, that normative criteria should be avoided when defining regimes, that the definition introduces new criteria for classifying regimes, and that when it is applied empirically scholars should be careful not to introduce subjective judgments about which countries should be classed as semi-parliamentary.     

The Advocacy Coalition Index: A new approach for identifying advocacy coalitions

Policy scholars have increasingly focused on collaborative and competitive relationships between stakeholder coalitions. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in particular has directed scholarly attention toward such relationships. The ACF defines advocacy coalitions as groups of actors who share beliefs and coordinate their action. However, previous research has been inconsistent in defining and measuring coalitions, which has hampered comparative research and theory building. We present a method called the Advocacy Coalition Index, which measures belief similarity and the coordination of action in a manner that makes it possible to assess the extent to which advocacy coalitions are found in policy subsystems, whether subgroups resemble coalitions, and how individual actors contribute to coalition formation. The index provides a standardized method for identifying coalitions that can be applied to comparative research. To illustrate the effectiveness of the index, we analyze two climate change policy subsystems, namely Finland and Sweden, which have been shown to differ in terms of the association of belief similarity with coordination. We demonstrate that the index performs well in identifying the different types of subsystems, coalitions, and actors that contribute the most to coalition formation, as well as those involved in cross-coalition brokerage.     

Coalition Stability and Belief Change: Advocacy Coalitions in U.S. Foreign Policy and the Creation of Israel, 1922–44

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.     

Network Structures within Policy Processes: Coalitions,Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a prominent approach to investigate the formation of coalition and their impact on policy outputs. Although the ACF combines both the network structures of a political process with actors' values and belief systems, most empirical tests focus mainly on beliefs rather than network structures. Considering a relational approach makes particular sense when one wants to investigate the structural patterns of a subsystem and to assess coalition formation and maintenance. The author therefore proceeds by taking two steps to study the existence of coalitions, power relations, and policy preferences: first, social network analysis frames the empirical study of network structures, based on the assumption that common beliefs are reflected in relations among actors involved in policy processes. Second, using a sophisticated mathematical algorithm, the multicriteria analysis furnishes a systematic evaluation of the elite's belief system. This methodological combination constitutes the added value of this research and allows for testing to establish if common beliefs are reflected in network structures.