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.     

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.     

A Comparison of a Collaborative and Top-Down Approach to the Use of Science in Policy: Establishing Marine Protected Areas in California

The National Research Council has proposed two distinct approaches over the past 20 years for guiding decision making about risk. These two approaches are widely applicable to environmental decision-making and are exemplified by two attempts to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in California with the implementation of the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act. The first attempt, which parallels the NRC's 1983 linear scientific approach, was a top-down process that involved a Master Plan Team of scientists who created a proposal before gathering public input. The second attempt, which parallels the NRC's 1996 analytic and deliberative approach, involved a diverse set of stakeholders, including scientists, who worked in a collaborative process to provide a range of recommendations. We apply a three-tiered model of elite belief systems drawn from the Advocacy Coalition Framework to show that stakeholder preferences for either of these approaches is a function of their deep core beliefs. Stakeholders with strong preferences for scientific management support empirical claims for the benefits of MPAs and are more optimistic about the linear scientific approach compared to the analytic and deliberative approach for protecting major habitats, avoiding adverse fishing effects, and avoiding unfair agency domination. In contrast, stakeholders with pro-collaborative beliefs respect local knowledge and are more optimistic about the analytic and deliberative approach compared to the linear scientific approach for avoiding adverse fishing effects and unfair agency domination.     

Non-destructive provenance study of chert using infrared reflectance microspectroscopy

In this paper we explore the potential of non-destructive Infrared reflectance microspectroscopy (IRRMS) for the characterization of chert samples from 10 different geological outcrops in North America with emphasis on the Midcontinent. A principle objective of the project is to determine whether IRRMS analysis can provide a mineral-based signature for bedrock sources of chert artifacts. The technique utilizes a Bio-Rad Digilab FTS-40 Infrared spectroscope and microscope attachment that reflects an infrared beam off a chert specimen. Our findings indicate that spectral features from the molecules constituting minor and trace minerals in chert may provide sufficient characterization for chert sourcing.