Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory

Abstract

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.