The Roles of Experts and Expert‐Based Information in the Advocacy Coalition Framework: Conceptual and Empirical Considerations Based on the Acid Mine Drainage Case Study in Gauteng, South Africa

Nikki Funke,Dave Huitema,Arthur Petersen,Shanna Nienaber

doi:10.1111/psj.12409

Abstract

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) remains one of the leading conceptual models in the policy sciences because it continues to be revised and updated as required. A focus area of the ACF that requires further theorization is the roles of experts and expert‐based information in influencing policy problem contexts. Our article takes a necessary step in this direction by (1) evaluating the usefulness of Weible’s expectations regarding the uses of expert‐based information in different types of policy subsystems and factors that contribute to shifts from one subsystem to another; and (2) making critical observations that result from this evaluation in the context of the controversial acid mine drainage policy case study in South Africa. The findings of our case study analysis indicate that Weible’s framework performed reasonably well but also revealed opportunities for further improvement. We therefore suggest adding awareness raising as a use of expert‐based information, developing a typology of different types of experts who participate in policy subsystems, and including a focus on the use of expert‐based information in policy subsystem shifts. We also reflect upon the relevance and importance of continuing to expand ACF applications to countries outside of North America and Western Europe.

Highlights

One of the founding aims of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) was to study the roles of experts- and expert-based information in analyzing the scale, causes, probable impacts, and possible solutions to specific policy problems, in influencing public policies, and in bringing about policy change (Sabatier, 1998; Weible et al, 2011)
According to our analysis of interviews with an expert, consultant, and government official involved in the long-term feasibility study process (Respondents 4, 13, and 19) as well as an analysis of the reports produced as part of the study (DWA, 2013a, 2013b), we argue that this process created an opportunity for inter-coalition policy-oriented learning to take place in an increasingly collaborative subsystem context (DWA, 2013a)
During the first unitary acid mine drainage (AMD) subsystem period, we identified awareness raising as an additional use of expert-based information

Summary

Introduction

One of the founding aims of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) was to study the roles of experts- and expert-based information in analyzing the scale, causes, probable impacts, and possible solutions to specific policy problems, in influencing public policies, and in bringing about policy change (Sabatier, 1998; Weible et al, 2011). We use Weible’s (2008) definition of the term “experts,” which includes policy analysts, scientists, consultants, and researchers in government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These experts generate “expert-based information” based on analytical approaches as defined by a professional community of peers. The chemical reaction that results releases acid, sulfate, and metal ions that enter freshwater sources (Whitehead & Jeffrey, 1995) and contributes to ecological destruction (Coil et al, 2014) This pollution can persist for decades, centuries, and even thousands of years and is very difficult to contain, making it an extremely serious and persistent problem (Coil et al, 2014)

Methods

Results

Conclusion