Advocacy Coalitions, Power and Opportunities: Policy Change in Germany’s Dual Citizenship Policy Subsystem

This year has ushered in many changes, including for the PSJ. As of September 2020, the PSJ is now housed within the University of Tennessee, Knoxville's Political Science Program, who, along with the Howard Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy, is generously providing much needed support for journal operations. With no home institutional support forthcoming during 2019–20, we want to acknowledge and thank the University of Arkansas and the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, which both stepped in to fill our resource gap by providing essential support for the PSJ in the year prior to our relocation to Knoxville. Coupled with the assistance and continued support of the Policy Studies Organization, the PSJ has not only been able to function at previous levels, but has also been able to significantly expand operations and offerings during what proved to be a hectic transition. To our benefactors, we tip our hat. This year has seen a high volume of top-quality submissions. We were able to increase the speed at which those manuscripts have traditionally been processed. The PSJ has also published two virtual special issues this year, in addition to our quarterly regular issues—one on COVID-19 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1111/(ISSN)1541-0072.covid-19-crisis-2020) and a second on Racial Justice, edited by Dr. Jamila Michener (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1111/(ISSN)1541-0072.racial-justice). We have also launched an energetic social media campaign that spans Facebook (PSJ Live, https://www.facebook.com/psjlv/), LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/policy-studies-journal-psj-5989441a6/), and Twitter (https://twitter.com/PSJ_Editor).This expanded online presence is the result of a strategic decision to increase and diversify the PSJ's approach to drawing attention to the cutting edge research featured in the pages of the journal. We think it is working. The final issue of the Policy Studies Journal for the year 2020 contains ten articles that address three broad themes—Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET), the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), and state and local governance. The articles that focus on punctuated equilibrium include an examination of the effect of the fiscal management of a government on punctuations in budgetary output and the influence of bureaucratic autonomy on punctuations in budgetary outputs. In the first of these articles, Xiao, Wang, and Liu (2020) build on the literature which suggests fiscal management plays an important role in shaping policymaking and, in turn, budgetary outputs (e.g., Epp & Baumgartner, 2017) by examining how the strategic fiscal choices that a government makes shape punctuations in budgetary output patterns. Focusing on the context of Hong Kong, the authors test three hypotheses regarding punctuations in budgetary spending, finding that budgetary spending is more punctuated in (i) capital funds as compared to operating funds, (ii) restricted funds as compared to non-restricted funds, and (iii) discretionary spending as compared to entitlement spending. The authors further examine legislative filibuster cases in Hong Kong, demonstrating that institutional friction was associated with the democratization process in Hong Kong, which, in turn, led to greater punctuations in budgetary outputs. Furthering recent work finding that individual agency and institutional constraints work together to affect change (e.g., Deslatte, 2020), Park and Sapotichne (2020) utilize PET to examine how the institutional design of city management influences the likelihood of punctuated budget changes. Specifically, the authors examine whether the degree of discretion held by Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs) or city managers impacts the likelihood of experiencing a punctuated distribution of budgetary outputs. Utilizing a sample of cities in Michigan, the authors find that having higher levels of managerial autonomy decreases the likelihood of large budgetary changes for both city managers and CAOs. Broadly, the authors argue that these results indicate that providing city managers and CAOs with an appropriate level of autonomy is likely to be beneficial by increasing rationality in decision-making and reducing the occurrence of sudden and abrupt budget changes, thus helping stabilize municipal spending. The next four articles address the theme of state and local governance. The first article serves as a bridge from our first theme of punctuated equilibrium by analyzing state budgets and the factors that shape punctuated policy changes. The next three articles explore our second theme by examining the influence of stakeholder participation on state-level rulemaking, exploring the role of interest group resources in policy change, and elaborating on the environmental impact of local sustainability programs. Given the current political climate and the upcoming U.S. presidential election, state and local government policymaking is commonly overshadowed by the spectacle that often characterizes national politics. However, in keeping with the longstanding emphasis in PSJ on understanding the role of state and local governments in the policy process, the current issue continues this tradition. Tianfang Li et al. (2020) examine the factors that shape punctuated policy changes by analyzing the influence of the disproportionate allocation of government attention. Focusing specifically on the role of electoral incentives, political institutions, and policy transparency in shaping policy outcomes, the authors utilize a two-level hierarchical random intercept logit model to generate the probability of budget punctuations in policy data from all 50 U.S. states from 1988 to 2008. Their most significant findings include a lower probability of policy punctuations when greater policy transparency is present and a higher probability of these punctuations with increased electoral competition in the legislative and executive branches. The next two articles in our theme of state and local governance examine the role of stakeholder participation in state-level rulemaking (Crow, Albright, & Koebele, 2020) and examine the role of interest group resources in explaining policy change (Marianno, 2020). Crow et al. (2020) build on previous work in PSJ on state-level policy and stakeholder influence (Collingwood, El-Khatib, & Gonzalez O'Brien, 2019; Teodoro, Zhang, & Switzer, 2020) in attempting to determine stakeholder influence on rulemaking outputs. In seeking to discern when and how stakeholders participate in state-level rulemaking processes, they use a comparative case study research design to extract insights on whether common patterns of stakeholder influence exist across both state's and issue areas. The results suggest that opportunities exist for stakeholders to make significant impacts on the rulemaking process, and make a special note that even non-industry stakeholders, often considered less influential in the process, can still be consequential. Marianno's (2020) article connects interest group theories related to policy change with empirical studies that analyze this role (e.g., Finger, 2018) by considering the significance of political context in conditioning how interest groups translate their resources into policy influence. This research chronicles proposed and enacted teacher policies across five legislative cycles from 2011 to 2015 in all 50 U.S. states. Deploying a within-state fixed effects model and introducing a proportional interest group resource variable, Marianno finds empirical evidence to support the theory that interest group resources matter for explaining policy change. More unfavorable teacher policies and fewer favorable teacher policies were shown to be proposed and enacted in states where opposition groups expended more resources relative to teachers' unions over time. Importantly, this research helps illuminate potential gains to be had in other policy areas from the further examination of changes in interest group resources and influence, relative to one another and over multiple periods of time. In the final state and local government themed article, Hyunjung Ji (2020) looks at the efficacy of local-level government sustainability programs. She bridges the gap between the stated intent of local-level sustainability programs and their actual environmental performance outcomes. Her research follows in the footsteps of previous PSJ work combining these ever-more-critical topic areas (Deslatte, 2018; Hughes, Yordi, & Besco, 2020; Madariaga, 2020) by comparing over a hundred local-level government sustainability programs to measures of ozone quality to determine the environmental efficacy of the programs. Encouragingly, the results indicate that not only are local sustainability programs related to improved environmental outcomes, but also that more comprehensive policies are often more efficacious than their more narrowly focused counterparts. Moving to the last theme, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) originally posited that shared beliefs of policy actors' were central to coordinating efforts of policy coalitions to influence policy outcomes. In recent years, the role of belief systems has been further specified, informing our current understanding of how beliefs shape organizational and coalitional structure (Rietig, 2018). At the same time, evidence suggests that the structure of collaborative networks produce certain types of policy outcomes (Bodin, Sandström, & Crona, 2017). The final four articles of this issue focus on the ACF, refining the concept of advocacy coalition, examining the drivers of social tie formation in collaborative networks, explaining the changes in advocacy coalitions with policy feedback, and applying the ACF to low salience policy subsystems. Two ACF articles attempt to refine key theoretical concepts that explain collaboration at the individual and coalitional levels while improving the empirical measurement of those concepts. Weible, Ingold, Nohrstedt, Henry, and Jenkins-Smith (2020) article uses broad lens to identify subtle but important variations in coalition types, while Nohrstedt and Bodin's (2020) targeted perspective systematically examines the drivers of social tie formation among policy actors. Both articles contribute to a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of collaboration networks. Weible et al. (2020) refine the concept of advocacy coalitions by clarifying some of the attributes central to the original definition. Informed by a meta-analysis, they examine concepts related to policy actors, shared beliefs, coordination, resources, and stability. In doing so, they articulate subtypes of an ideal coalition: disconnected, ephemeral, dominant, minority, and cooperative coalitions. The authors refine policy actors based on actor motivations and the nature of their coordination activities, thereby introducing six new typologies of policy actors. Regarding the ACF's emphasis on beliefs as key to creating and maintaining a coalition, the authors identify why it is important to empirically ascertain the motivation for these beliefs, while also accounting for their existence within a subsystem. This is particularly the case when the research is concerned with distinguishing between different levels of beliefs. For example, the number of policy subsystems an actor is involved in, or their level of awareness of their own belief system across issues could produce inconsistencies in measuring beliefs. Finally, the measure of deep core beliefs may be aided by incorporating cultural theory, as it has found success operationalizing such beliefs across various policy subsystems. Coordination within and between coalitions, the competitive use of coalition resources, and the stability within a subsystem over time are all important for identifying the theoretical subtypes of coalitions. While the refined conceptualizations are inherently related to measurement, Weible et al. (2020) carefully distinguish qualities of conceptualization from measurement and recommend that researchers embrace a plurality of methods to operationalize concepts and advance theory. Nohrstedt and Bodin (2020) examine the collaborative network formed around wildfire management in Sweden. Building on previous theories that focus on the actor and relational attributes to explain collaboration among policy actors, the authors argue that social network structures form not only in response to endogenous factors but also to exogenous factors attributable to the nature of collective action problems. More specifically, Nohrstedt and Bodin (2020) incorporate the effects of task engagement and interdependency into the traditional model. To disentangle the effects of actor and relational factors on social tie formation relative to task engagement and interdependency, they apply exponential random graph modeling (ERGM). This approach allows for the characterization of the collaborative network through the identification of various social processes. Multilevel network modeling reveals that policy actors select collaborators based on actor and relational factors as well as the nature of the collective action problem. Policy actors who share certain attributes are more likely to form social ties. Shared task environments within specified organizational models demonstrated higher levels of collaboration. This article illustrates how the task environment in collective action problems can be empirically mapped. The environment can be represented as a set of interdependent tasks among actors that function to define the structure of the network. This has the effect of facilitating future investigations through more robust models, moving us closer to understanding social tie formation around collective action problems. Continuing with the ACF theme, the third article focuses on theory building and strengthening the previous PSJ research that elaborates the concept of “contingent coalitions” in incremental policy change (Madariaga and Allain, 2020). Schmid, Sewerin, and Schmidt (2020) provide new and interesting theoretical arguments using policy feedback mechanisms to explain changes in advocacy coalitions, which ultimately result in policy changes. The authors illustrate their theoretical points empirically by a longitudinal single-case study on policy-induced technological change in the German energy subsystem (1983–2013) using discourse network analysis and process tracing. With this inductive mixed-methods approach, they conceptualize a complete feedback loop among policy, policy outcomes, and subsequent politics. Through this article, the authors develop propositions on how coalition change and feedback mechanisms explain the trajectories of policy change. In the final article in this issue, Giordano (2020) contributes to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and social policy literature by applying the ACF to low salience policy subsystems. Unlike previous research, which looked at the applications of ACF in high salience or nascent subsystems (Ingold, Fischer, & Cairney, 2017; Pierce, Peterson, & Hicks, 2020), this article focuses on those who engage and seek to influence policies in Day Habilitation and Employment services for working-age adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities—a low salience policy area. Using a mixed-methods approach, coalitions were verified in two U.S. states, Washington and Pennsylvania, both of which experienced distinct state-level policy changes during the last two decades despite low levels of public attention and conflict. This research identifies the presence of two advocacy coalitions (Employment First and Choice) with distinct belief systems who undergo struggles to influence policy. The study concludes that there is sufficient evidence to apply ACF to low salience subsystems and offers theoretical and practical implications for scholars and policymakers interested in applying the ACF to similar settings. Taken together, each of these articles in our final issue of 2020 makes a significant contribution to advancing policy theory and our scholarly knowledge of numerous public policy issue areas. Those contributions would not have been possible if not for the authors and their research teams. We are grateful to all of them for submitting their best work and affording us the opportunity to evaluate and scrutinize their research. However, as the final issue of the Policy Studies Journal for 2020, we also wanted to be sure to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances that we are all dealing with: the anxiety, uncertainty, and discord that characterize the state of our politics, economies, and societies. Given these circumstances, we feel compelled to also acknowledge the extraordinary contributions of our reviewers, who have managed (somehow) to find the time and energy to continue providing high-quality and timely reviews for manuscripts submitted to the PSJ. The policy community is incredibly fortunate to have such commitment among its members and we want to be sure to extend our profound appreciation to them for all they do. And sometimes—we know—we ask a lot. Until next year, we hope that everyone stays safe, healthy, and happy; and, finds a spare hour here and there to send us your best new research or read a PSJ article or two. Sincerely, Michael “the Dungeon Master”1 Jones and the PSJ Editorial Team.

Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith introduced the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in the late 1980s to refine the theoretical and methodological tools available for the study of the policy process. Since the late 1990s, the use of the framework has grown in use outside the United States and it is now applied to study a broad range of policy arenas in all continents. ACF scholars have created a core community that regularly synthetizes findings from applications of the framework, giving the ACF the form of a true research program. The ACF has three principal theoretical domains: advocacy coalitions, policy subsystems, and policy change. The ACF posits that advocacy coalitions and policy subsystems are the most efficient ways to organize actors interested in the policy process for empirical research. The policy subsystem is the main unit of analysis in the ACF, and there are four paths leading to policy change. Expectations about the interactions between and within the three theoretical domains are contained in 15 main hypotheses which have received different degrees of confirmation since the late 1980s. The aspect that has received more attention in existing applications is the effect that external events have on policy change. The development of the ACF is supported by an active community of scholars that constantly reviews venerable as well as emerging criticisms, introducing adjustments that expand the heuristic power of the ACF in a controlled way. However, some areas in need of further refinement relate to: policy-oriented learning, interactions across subsystems, the theoretical foundations to identification of belief systems, and how the interactions between beliefs and interests affect coalition behavior.

Case studies in wildlife management and its policy often lack a unified analytical framework, there are few studies that have systematically investigated policy processes and pathways of policy change. This paper examines Japan’s ungulate (deer, wild boar) management policy as a case study, applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to the study of wildlife management to elucidate the mechanisms driving policy changes in ungulate management while evaluating the framework’s effectiveness. Insights into policy subsystems, policy beliefs, policy-oriented learning, and both external and internal perturbations in the advocacy coalition framework may be useful in understanding the policy change in wildlife management. Data were collected through diet records, official documents, newspaper articles, and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. Using this data, discourse network analysis was employed to identify coalition structures, resources and policy-oriented learning of two advocacy coalitions—the Hunting Coalition and the Protection Coalition—and events leading to policy change were identified. The analysis revealed that between the 1990s, when ungulate damage became severe, and 2014, the core attributes of Japan’s government program transitioned from a centralized protection-focused policy to a decentralized policy promoting hunting. This shift was driven by four pathways proposed in the ACF’s bottom-up policy change hypothesis: policy-oriented learning, internal perturbations, external perturbations, and negotiated agreements. These findings highlight the utility of the ACF as an analytical framework. This study suggests that the ACF is a valuable tool for understanding the complex dynamics of wildlife management.

Case studies in wildlife management and its policy often lack a unified analytical framework, there are few studies that have systematically investigated policy processes and pathways of policy change. This paper examines Japan's ungulate (deer, wild boar) management policy as a case study, applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to the study of wildlife management to elucidate the mechanisms driving policy changes in ungulate management while evaluating the framework's effectiveness. Insights into policy subsystems, policy beliefs, policy-oriented learning, and both external and internal perturbations in the advocacy coalition framework may be useful in understanding the policy change in wildlife management. Data were collected through diet records, official documents, newspaper articles, and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. Using this data, discourse network analysis was employed to identify coalition structures, resources and policy-oriented learning of two advocacy coalitions-the Hunting Coalition and the Protection Coalition-and events leading to policy change were identified. The analysis revealed that between the 1990s, when ungulate damage became severe, and 2014, the core attributes of Japan's government program transitioned from a centralized protection-focused policy to a decentralized policy promoting hunting. This shift was driven by four pathways proposed in the ACF's bottom-up policy change hypothesis: policy-oriented learning, internal perturbations, external perturbations, and negotiated agreements. These findings highlight the utility of the ACF as an analytical framework. This study suggests that the ACF is a valuable tool for understanding the complex dynamics of wildlife management.

Over the past few decades, cyber warfare has become what the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) calls a ‘policy subsystem’. This article asks: how far can ACF explain the policy dynamics of cyber warfare? The article argues that understanding key camps in global cybersecurity negotiations as advocacy coalitions has three theoretical benefits for scholarship on cyber warfare. First, the ACF’s detailed account of coalition formation helps explain the interplay between normative and strategic considerations on cyber warfare at different levels of coalition commitment. Second, the ACF’s emphasis on internal and external ‘subsystem shocks’ as catalysts for policy change helps to identify key events in each coalition’s narrative of cyber warfare and the framing power of these events on negotiations over policy. Third, the ACF stresses the role of coalition building as a necessary step to achieve policy change, and thus sheds a fresh light on recent diplomatic initiatives related to cyber warfare, from commercial spyware regulation to counter-ransomware campaigns. Finally, we highlight some conceptual challenges posed by cyber warfare to the ACF, as cyberspace offers wider – and more effective – possibilities for coalition action beyond advocacy.

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.

BackgroundThe unacceptably high rate of maternal and child mortality in Nigeria prompted the government to introduce a free maternal and child health (MCH) programme, which was stopped abruptly following a change in government. This triggered increased advocacy for sustaining MCH as a political priority in the country and led to the formation of advocacy coalitions. This study set out to explain the process involved in the formation of advocacy coalition groups and how they work to bring about sustained political prioritization for MCH in Nigeria. It will contribute to the understanding of the Nigerian MCH sector subsystem and will be beneficial to health policy advocates and public health researchers in Nigeria.MethodsThis study employed a qualitative case study approach. Data were collected using a pretested interview guide to conduct 22 in-depth interviews, while advocacy events were reviewed pro forma. The document review was analysed using the manual content analysis method, while qualitative data audiotapes were transcribed verbatim, anonymized, double-coded in MS Word using colour-coded highlights and analysed using manual thematic and framework analysis guided by the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). The ACF was used to identify the policy subsystem including the actors, their belief, coordination and resources, as well as the effects of advocacy groups on policy change. Ethics and consent approval were obtained for the study.ResultsThe policy subsystem identified the actors and characterized the coalitions, and described their group formation processes and resources/strategies for engagement. The perceived deep core belief driving the MCH agenda is the right of an individual to health. The effects of advocacy groups on policy change were identified, along with the factors that enabled effectiveness, as well as constraints to coalition formation. External factors and triggers of coalition formation were identified to include high maternal mortality and withdrawal of the free MCH programme, while the contextual issues were the health system issues and the socioeconomic factors affecting the country.ConclusionOur findings add to an increasing body of evidence that the use of ACF is beneficial in exploring how advocacy coalitions are formed and in identifying the effects of advocacy groups on policy change.

This study evaluated the extent to which changes in UK sport policy have impacted on three selected small to mid-sized national governing bodies (SMNGBs) of Olympic sports in England, considered to be competitive-community-grassroots sports rather than elite (by virtue of their loss of elite funding), and the strategies utilised by them to adapt to changing policy and operational environments, to determine their position as primarily ‘policy shapers’ or ‘policy takers.’ The analysis was informed by the advocacy coalition framework (ACF).The extent to which sport policy has impacted on SMNGBs, the strategies used to adapt to changes in policy, the changing nature of their relationship with government and governmental agencies, and their role in sport policy, have seldom been addressed directly in academic literature. While community sport policy has received some interest from scholars, there has been far less analysis on the significance of SMNGBs at the community level. The research adopted a qualitative approach within a multiple case-study design. The cases selected were England Handball, Volleyball England, and Table Tennis England. Primary data collection methods were document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key actors. A thematic analysis of the data revealed a sport policy subsystem constructed or substantially shaped by government and agency-led coalitions, engineered on the basis of shared-beliefs (which are partly common to SMNGBs and Sport England [SE] and partly imposed by SE), and a culture of contract-compliance, shared-interests, financial inducements/sanctions and organisational interdependencies, to deliver on the shifting priorities of government’s pro-social agenda. The research identified SMNGBs as primarily ‘policy takers’, based on: i) a largely unopposed acceptance of policy change by SMNGBs; ii) a willingness to adapt to change and comply with contractual obligations; and iii) the utilisation of various opportunistic and pragmatic strategies to align with the ‘core beliefs’ of government and SE, achieve policy outcomes, and maintain membership of the SE-led coalition. The impact of which has significantly shaped SMNGBs, both organisationally and operationally, heightened levels of resource-dependency and tensions within SMNGBs, predominantly attributable to a compliance versus autonomy dichotomy, and exposed their weakness and vulnerability to policy change, as well as a lack of understanding of the policy environment. Application of the ACF illuminated a number of key points relevant to the fundamental assumptions of the framework, particularly in relation to the formation, composition, and boundaries of advocacy coalitions and policy subsystems, the ACF’s hierarchical belief system, and the ACF’s capacity to explain both policy change and stability, which contribute to debates on the utility of the ACF as an analytical framework. The evaluation of the ACF highlighted its usefulness as an analytical framework, but also potential weaknesses, particularly in regard to the limited insight given to government-constructed agency-led coalitions.

This was an instrumental case study that examined the extent to which the politics of education in Tennessee that resulted in the passage of the Education Improvement Act of 1992 and related tax increases conformed to the assumptions of the Advocacy Coalition Framework as articulated by Sabatier. The framework viewed education policy change as the result of the interaction of (a) competing advocacy coalitions within a policy subsystem over a decade or more, (b) changes that are external to the policy subsystem, and the (c) effects of stable system parameters. The researcher used a snowballing technique to identify 12 key education and political leaders in Tennessee, who were interviewed using a protocol developed specifically for this study. Data about the policy subsystem over the previous two decades were collected using formal research studies. Interview and document data were aggregated by predetermined categories and analyzed systematically. Findings were presented chronologically and according to research question. The study found two competing advocacy coalitions that had interacted in the education policy subsystem throughout the past two decades. The coalition of education groups valued quality and advocated increased spending for education to improve the quality of education and, in turn, their quality of life. Coalition members advocated measures such as, teacher pay increases, statewide kindergarten programs, improved curriculum materials, a career ladder and reduced class sizes for teachers, and equitable funding to improve education for all students. Over time, coalition members disagreed on specific strategies but consistently agreed on the policy core of quality. The other coalition, whose members were primarily business and tax payer groups valued efficient delivery of government services. They opposed tax increases and advocated centralized control, regulation, and scientific management to increase efficiency of the delivery of education. Members of both coalitions published studies and held conferences to bolster their arguments, but the studies did not lead to policy change. Consistent with the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the skillful exploitation of dynamic external events appeared to have been the impetus of policy change in 1972, 1984, and 1992.

Editorial Introduction: Contributing to the policy process literatures

Pill testing is regarded as a controversial harm reduction intervention and provides an ideal case study for examining how policy change comes about. Two Australian jurisdictions were analysed to explore factors that may account for policy change by comparing the ACT which allowed a pill testing trial, and NSW where pill testing has not been permitted. The analysis was conducted using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Data sources were first coded to establish the subsystem actors beliefs and advocacy coalitions; then coded using a deductive approach and classified against core dimensions of the ACF. An inductive approach was then applied to generate and link themes in the data. A dominant and minority coalition was identified in each jurisdictions' policy subsystem. The results show how in the ACT a dominant 'harm reduction' coalition shifted their secondary beliefs and introduced a pill testing policy. Whereas in NSW, a shift in both the secondary and policy core beliefs of the dominant 'law enforcement' coalition was required, something which rarely occurs according to the ACF. The analysis supports the ACF's assertion that advocacy coalitions will respond to pressures for change by restricting change to secondary beliefs, while keeping policy core beliefs intact. It also demonstrates that secondary and policy core beliefs matter in the context of minority and dominant coalitions. Further research is needed to explore whether a minority coalition's strategic re-framing of an issue to align with the policy core beliefs of their opponents would have more success than advocating from their own belief paradigm.

Noise exposure has harmful effects on human health. Despite policy on the prevention and reduction of noise, the environmental burden is increasing, specifically due to road traffic noise. Noise policy in the Netherlands is organised in a rather complex way, with different legal frameworks for the various sources of noise. Whereas noise limits have frequently been adjusted in the traffic noise policy subsystem, the industrial and aviation noise policy subsystems are characterised by stability in norm setting. This paper aims to explain the differences in dynamics within the noise policy subsystems, by applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). We conclude that the dynamics in the traffic noise policy subsystem is mainly due to two adversary coalitions advocating legislative arrangements to accommodate respective spatial claims. The stability in industrial and aircraft noise policy subsystems is explained by ‘balanced’ coalitions and a dominant economy coalition, respectively. We identified the (only) path to policy change in Dutch noise policy to be cross-coalition learning in which ‘policy brokerage’ might be crucial. We conclude with some reflections on the use of ACF in empirical research and the role of professional forums and institutional arrangements in stability and/or change in policy subsystems.

This research explores the influence of discourse power on policy change in the Mexican electricity sector, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Drawing on Discourse Network Analysis, it examines the discursive dynamics and power relations between competing advocacy coalitions from 1994 to 2018. This 24-year period encompasses three significant reform proposals that aimed to liberalise Mexico’s electricity generation sector, representing major potential policy changes. Specifically, the study tests the second policy change hypothesis proposed by the ACF, which suggests that major policy change is unlikely as long as the advocacy coalition defending the status quo remains in power. To operationalise the notion of which coalition is in power, the study employs Discourse Network Analysis to examine the discursive power of each coalition. This allows an exploration of how the interplay between coalition discursive power and the extent of belief differences shape policy outcomes. The findings align with the ACF’s second hypothesis on policy change. They also suggest the potential for enhancing the ACF by incorporating a nuanced understanding of the multiple dimensions of power, with a particular emphasis on the discursive influence of advocacy coalitions.

In 2005, the Ontario government passed the Places to Grow Act and the Greenbelt Act, both major changes in land use policy designed to preserve greenspaces and combat urban sprawl in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Canada's largest conurbation. This article examines the actors, actor beliefs, and inter‐actor alliances in the southern Ontario land use policy subsystem from the perspective of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Specifically, this paper undertakes an empirical examination of the ACF's Belief Homophily Hypothesis, which holds that inter‐actor alliances form on the basis of shared policy‐relevant beliefs, creating advocacy coalitions. The analysis finds strong evidence of three advocacy coalitions in the policy subsystem—an agricultural coalition, an environmentalist coalition, and a developers' coalition—as predicted by the hypothesis. However, it also finds equally strong evidence of a cross‐coalition coordination network of peak organizations, something not predicted by the Belief Homophily Hypothesis, and in need of explanation within the ACF.

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.