A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to Be Wrong?

Narratives are increasingly subject to empirical study in a wide variety of disciplines. However, in public policy, narratives are thought of almost exclusively as a poststructural concept outside the realm of empirical study. In this paper, after reviewing the major literature on narratives, we argue that policy narratives can be studied using systematic empirical approaches and introduce a “Narrative Policy Framework” (NPF) for elaboration and empirical testing. The NPF defines narrative structure and narrative content. We then discuss narrative at the micro level of analysis and examine how narratives impact individual attitudes and hence aggregate public opinion. Similarly, we examine strategies for the studying of group and elite behavior using the NPF. We conclude with seven hypotheses for researchers interested in elaborating the framework.     

Morphometric identification of bovid metapodials to genus and implications for taxon-free habitat reconstruction

Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of measurements on twelve metacarpal and ten metatarsal dimensions indicates that metapodials differ much more in size than in shape among the twenty-three genera of extant Sub-Saharan bovids. The only conspicuous shape variation is in metapodial length, which sometimes differs significantly among genera that are similar in all other dimensions. It follows that Discriminant Analysis (DA) intended to identify metapodials to genus will depend primarily on size, and except for the occasional like-sized genera that differ in metapodial length, DA will often confuse genera of similar size. DA of the same metapodials subjected to PCA supports this prediction. PCA further shows that bovid species that favor the same habitat often differ in metapodial size, shape, or both, and species that favor different habitats often overlap substantially in their metapodial morphometrics. DA intended to assign metapodials to habitat will thus produce different results depending on the species used to characterize each habitat type and on the number of specimens by which each species is represented. Habitat reconstruction founded in DA is therefore taxon dependent rather than taxon-free, and it cannot supplant reconstruction based on taxonomic identifications below the family level.     

Cultural Theory and the Measurement of Deep Core Beliefs Within the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Deep core beliefs represent an important yet theoretically underspecified concept within the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). This underspecification can (in part) be attributed to the ad hoc way in which ACF scholars have defined and measured the concept over time. To overcome this, we advocate the development and future use of a standardized metric for measuring deep core beliefs in ACF studies. Such a measure, we contend, should be multidimensional, generalizable, measurable using multiple techniques, and broad enough in scope to operate across virtually all policy domains. Using these criteria as our benchmark, we evaluate the viability of cultural theory (CT) as one such metric. In short, we find that CT meets all of these criteria, and therefore provides ACF scholars with a way to measure deep core beliefs across enduring public policy disputes that are demarcated by conflicting belief systems. Accordingly, we advocate its use in future studies.     

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.     

Shifting Resources and Venues Producing Policy Change in Contested Subsystems: A Case Study of Swedish Signals Intelligence Policy

In the last decade and across countries, changes in national intelligence policies have spurred widespread political opposition and public protest. Instances of intelligence policy change warrant close academic attention to cast light on the dynamics of policymaking in contested policy areas. In an effort to contribute to further development of a theory of policy change within the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), this article analyzes the adoption of legislation in Sweden to expand the mandate for signals intelligence gathering. Three explanatory variables are derived from the ACF to explain policy change in this case: shifts in advocacy coalition membership, distribution of coalition resources, and access to policy venues. Whereas shifts in coalition membership were unrelated to policy change in this case, the case‐study lends partial support to the role of resource distribution and policy venues. To promote the progress of an ACF theory of policy change, the study concludes by drawing two theoretical implications: (i) introducing hierarchical classification of coalition resources and (ii) identification of revised policy narratives and exploitative policy entrepreneurship as causal mechanisms linking external shocks to venue shifts and policy change.     

Pluralising Political Forests: Unpacking “the State” by Tracing Virunga's Charcoal Chain

Peering through the lens of illegal charcoal production in the forested areas of Virunga National Park in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, this paper makes a case for disaggregating the notion of “the state” to better capture “the political” in contemporary political forests. It argues that to identify the fluctuating importance of different dimensions of “stateness”, it is crucial to acknowledge the polymorphous socio-spatial relations that produce political forests. Thus, we draw on the notions of territory, place, scale and network (TPSN) to examine how “stateness” in Virunga has transformed under the particularisation, transnationalisation, and regionalisation of authority. This approach allows us to show how these processes do not only stem from neoliberalisation, but are also driven by, inter alia, regional warfare and non-state militarisation. The resulting complexity of the regulatory landscape turns Virunga into a space marked by a plurality of partly overlapping and partly conflicting political forests.     

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.     

Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy Subsystems

Arguments for collaborative rather than adversarial approaches to governance rest partly on two axioms: first, that collaborative approaches mitigate conflict to intermediate levels and second, that collaborative approaches help integrate science and values through various joint fact-finding strategies. Using questionnaire data in 1984 and 2001 of policy participants involved in Lake Tahoe water quality policy, this article investigates whether a shift from an adversarial to a collaborative policy subsystem is associated with (i) convergence in beliefs regarding water quality problems and policy proposals; and (ii) an increase in the use of science-based empirical beliefs and a decrease in the use of normative beliefs in supporting policy proposals. The findings send a mixed message to policymakers and researchers about science and collaboration. The analysis suggests that collaborative policy subsystems are associated with convergence in some beliefs between rival coalitions, but it also suggests that policy participants are no more likely to rely on science-based, empirical beliefs in collaborative than in adversarial policy subsystems.     

Resolving Water Conflicts: A Comparative Analysis of Interstate River Compacts

This paper examines compacts used by U.S. western states to engage in shared governance of interstate rivers. Compacts are viewed as inflexible, rigid governance structures incapable of responding to changing environmental and institutional settings because of the use of unanimity rules and the inability to directly regulate water users. Using data from a study of 14 western interstate river compacts we examine this claim. In particular, we explore the response of compacts to water conflicts. We find that members of compacts, closely related water agencies, and compact governments are capable of responding to conflicts. To better understand this finding, we identify the conditions under which compacts are likely to address conflicts, as well as the types of conflict solutions compact governments adopted.