Advocacy Coalition Research Articles

Reimagining public water: an intergenerational exploration of paradigms for future system design

ABSTRACT Due to the life-span of infrastructure, the complexity of components and the tendency of institutional structures to reproduce themselves, infrastructural systems as a whole are seldom reimagined. In addition, strategic thinking about possible system innovations is mainly done by the generations with extensive work experience. This whilst challenges such as climate change trigger the need for system innovation and are inherently intergenerational. This paper examines a method for “intergenerational reimagination”, facilitating reflexive learning within a generationally diverse subgroup of actors. This was done to explore paradigms for future system design. Building on the Advocacy Coalition Framework, descriptive, normative and explorative steps are developed. These steps include an intergenerational dialogue and carefully designed workshops, involving both young and senior professionals. The methodology was applied to reimagine the Dutch public water system, a design process which involved over 50 young professionals and resulted in three reimaginations. This process shows the potential for intergenerational development of possible paradigms for future system design. Moreover, throughout the process, policy-oriented learning was given substance. Finally, the study provided young professionals with a means to join strategic thinking at the semi-public level of water companies; a potential source of inspiration for other sectors and issues.

SHIPBREAKING AND RECYCLING INDUSTRY POLICY: AN ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK (A C F) APPROACH

Shipbreaking and recycling industry generates huge employment opportunities for workers and contribute a lot to the economy of Bangladesh. However, the profit motive driving the industry, has, however, been controversial in Bangladesh because of the severe violation of environmental and human rights that shipbreaking often involves. Since 1998, Greenpeace has published reports highlighting the poor conditions in shipbreaking yards and Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) has been at the forefront of legal actions against shipyard owners and government agencies. After sustained dialogues with the government and various stakeholders, Bangladesh adopted the Ship Breaking and Recycling Rules, 2011 and the Hazardous Wastes and Shipbreaking Waste Management Rules, 2011. In 2018, the Bangladesh Ship Reprocessing Act was passed in Parliament, introducing new provisions that address the issues of Shipbreaking and recycling industry. The application of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to the shipbreaking and recycling industry of Bangladesh has provided valuable insights into the intricate policymaking landscape of this critical sector. It provides a structured way to understand how different actors and their beliefs shaped the development and evolution of the Ship Breaking and Recycling policy in Bangladesh. KEY WORDS: Shipbreaking, Recycling Policy, ACF

Mudanças na Política Nacional de Arquivos

Law 8.159, of January 8, 1991, which provides for the national policy of public and private archives in Brazil (Archives Law) is being revised, through Bill 2.789/2021. More contemporary perspectives on public policy allow us to identify public policy as a response to public problems, solutions that can come from the State or from other political spheres. Among the approaches to public policy analysis that permeate this conception, we highlight the Advocacy Coalition Model and What's the problem represented to be. The objective of this work is to understand the context of the amendments to the Archives Law, with the specific objectives of identifying the public problem that the Bill proposes to solve, as well as identifying evidence of defense coalitions among the political actors involved. The research has a qualitative, exploratory nature, with documentary procedures, supported by public policy analysis approaches. The results show evidence of two defense coalitions in the observed context, with divergences between the conceptions of public problem between them. It concludes with the need to expand the documentary corpus studied, as well as other data sources that allow to account for categories that could not be explored to the satisfaction.

The political polarization over abortion: An analysis of advocacy coalition belief systems

The political polarization over abortion: An analysis of advocacy coalition belief systems

(Un)usual advocacy coalitions in a multi-system setting: the case of hydrogen in Germany

Grand sustainability challenges span multiple sectors and fields of policymaking. Novel technologies that respond to these challenges may trigger the emergence of new policy subsystems at the intersection of established sectors. We develop a framework that addresses the complexities of ‘multi-system settings.’ Empirically, we explore belief and coalition formation in the nascent policy subsystem around hydrogen technologies in Germany, which emerges at the intersection of electricity, transport, heating, and industry and is characterised by a broad range of actors from different sectoral backgrounds. We find two coalitions: a rather unusual coalition of actors from industry, NGOs, and research institutes as well as an expectable coalition of gas and heat sector actors. Actors disagree over production, application, and import standards for hydrogen. However, there is widespread support for hydrogen and for a strong role of the state across almost all actors. We explain our findings by combining insights from the advocacy coalition framework and politics of transitions: Belief and coalition formation in a nascent subsystem are influenced by sectoral backgrounds of actors, technology characteristics, as well as trust and former contacts. Our study contributes to a better understanding of early stages of coalition formation in a multi-system setting.

“Please Wait, Your Policy is Important to Us” issue prioritization, the ACF, and Canada’s failed attempts at cannabis decriminalization, 2003–2005

In Canada, in the early 2000s, the decriminalization of cannabis for recreational use seemed imminent. Between 2003 and 2005, three government decriminalization bills were introduced in the Canadian House of Commons, but none were adopted, and decriminalization efforts were abandoned. Subsequently, Canada went beyond decriminalization and legalized recreational cannabis in 2018. This paper examines why the Canadian decriminalization efforts failed, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and ACF policy change theory. Three ACF-based hypotheses to explain the failed reform attempts are developed and investigated, but none are empirically supported. A fourth hypothesis is developed using information processing insights from Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) but adapted to the ACF. This hypothesis is empirically supported showing that Canada’s decriminalization efforts failed, despite a supportive advocacy coalition, favourable conditions in the cannabis policy subsystem and favourable conditions in the Canadian political system, because its systemic advocates did not give it priority relative to other issues from other subsystems. This finding has implications for ACF policy change theory, identifying a necessary condition for major policy change that has been potentially overlooked, and illustrates the potential for cross-fertilization between PET and ACF theories of policy change.

International actors and national policies: the introduction of the national care system in Uruguay

This paper aims to understand coalition building between national and international actors in the context of an emerging subsystem. In applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework to the case of Uruguay, where a new field of social policy – the National Care System – was introduced in 2015 after a process involving different national actors from academia, civil society, politics, and administration, but also United Nations agencies, the paper explores the role of these international organizations in coalition building, and examines how a dominant coalition of national and international actors shaped the development of the new system. Using interview data and documents, the findings suggest that the involvement of international organizations in the coalition was based on shared beliefs and personal and institutional relationships. While powerful opposing coalitions were absent due to the nascent nature of the subsystem, the dominant coalition was able to influence the policy’s introduction based on their beliefs regarding gender equality and rights.

Does (dis)agreement reflect beliefs? An analysis of advocacy coalitions in Swiss pesticide policy

AbstractAgricultural pesticide use is a wicked sustainability challenge: Trade‐offs exist between health, environmental, agro‐economic, and socio‐political objectives. Various actors involved have diverse beliefs regarding these trade‐offs and policies to address the challenge. But to what extent does the agreement or disagreement between actors reflect belief similarities or differences, and thus, the formation of advocacy coalitions? To answer this question, the study draws on the advocacy coalition framework and investigates data from 54 key actors in the case of Swiss pesticide policy. The study explores the relationship between the actors' (dis)agreement relations and their beliefs using Random Forests. Coalitions are identified through block modeling and beliefs based on multi‐attribute value theory. The study shows that the two relations are a good proxy for identifying coalitions with conflict lines concerning beliefs and presents an approach to exploring ideological reasons behind (dis)agreement relations that supports identifying conflicting beliefs relevant to future policy solutions.

Relational processes for transformative climate justice policymaking: insights from a Western Australian community of practice

ABSTRACT This article explores how relational approaches to policymaking across multiple levels and sectors of society might enable transformative climate justice. It draws on a unique case study from the state of Western Australia (WA), where climate justice is thwarted by the coloniality of climate politics and the hegemony of the fossil fuel industry. It examines the relational processes of a climate and health community of practice (CoP) in WA that involves people across the health sector, public service, non-government, and community. The CoP had an important role in enabling the WA Government’s public inquiry into climate change and health in 2019–2020, which stimulated a range of new policies, strategies, and inquiries in the state’s climate policy subsystem where meaningful climate action was previously lacking. To understand how relational processes and practices may have enabled the Inquiry, and their transformative potential, a participatory action research study was undertaken. This article reports on findings from interviews and collective analysis with co-researchers including advocates, public servants, and practitioners working at the intersection of climate and health in WA. The Inquiry was in part enabled by relational practices and processes, demonstrated through a Community of Practice, relational organizing, and diverse advocacy coalitions. The article then applies an Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis to assess the transformative potential of a relational approach to climate-responsive policymaking. The analysis reveals persistent inequities concerning recognitional and procedural climate justice and suggests ways that diverse actors involved in policymaking can use a relational approach to address them.

Do educators get it? Examining understanding of compulsory civic education for learners in Zambian secondary schools

This study explores educators' understanding of the rationale for Civic Education to be taught as a compulsory subject to learners in secondary schools in Zambia, as enshrined in the national policy on education. The study was conducted in all secondary schools of Kabwe district, guided by the Advocacy Coalition Framework Theory (ACF). Using a mixed-method approach within a pragmatic research paradigm, data were collected from 239 participants. Quantitative insights were derived from 215 respondents across 32 selected schools, including head teachers, heads of Social Science departments, heads of Civic Education sections, and Civic Education teachers who completed an online questionnaire. Qualitative data involved interviews with 24 educators and 2 Ministry of Education officials, supplemented by document analysis of national policy and curriculum frameworks. Findings underscore a robust awareness among educators of Civic Education's role in fostering informed citizenship and preparing learners for democratic engagement, focusing on four themes: (1) cultivating informed learners, (2) promoting good citizenship and social cohesion, (3) preparing learners for political engagement, and (4) enhancing critical thinking skills. Additionally, findings may inform policy and practice. Recommendations include enhancing professional development through targeted training programs, ensuring curriculum alignment with national policy frameworks, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration among departments, and establishing mechanisms for ongoing program evaluation to ensure effectiveness and continuous improvement. These recommendations aim to strengthen compulsory Civic Education implementation in Kabwe District, Zambia, fostering a knowledgeable and engaged citizenry capable of contributing positively to society.

Advocacy Coalitions and Education Policy Transfer: Lessons from School Board of Trustees Policy in Georgia

The article explores the relationship between education policy change and policy transfer, focusing on Georgia's School Board of Trustees. It analyzes how Western practices have been implemented in the education policies of post-Soviet countries. To achieve this, the article utilizes instrumental case studies and in-depth interviews. It views policy transfer as a tool of education policy change while integrating it with an advocacy coalition framework. The study indicates that advocacy coalitions transform into transfer networks, and their approach is to replicate or emulate foreign experiences. The article also poses new research questions, enabling researchers to build on and scrutinize the proposed assumptions and concentrate on post-Soviet education policy transformation.

The Disputes Around The Construction of A Regulatory Framework in The Communications Sector in Brazil: An Analysis Based on The Advocacy Coalition Framework

Objective: the objective of this research work is to analyze how conflicts occur around the construction of a regulatory framework for the communications sector in Brazil Theoretical Framework: The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) approach is used, initially developed by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993). Also, a characterization of the communication sector in Brazil is carried out. Method: The research is qualitative in nature and data was collected through semi-structured interviews with representatives of some movements that fight for the democratization of the media in Brazil Results and Discussion: The analysis of primary and secondary data indicated that the elements perceived by the interviewees as being those that most contributed to the emergence of coalitions in favor of the democratization of the media in Brazil were predominantly political and technological. Furthermore, there is an intense conflict between groups that fight for the democratization of the media and those that are against any initiative in this regard. Research Implications: It is intended, through the results achieved, to bring elements that help guide the various debates carried out by civil society with the aim of discussing the democratization of the media in the country. Originality/Value: Discussions about the field of communication in Brazil from a perspective that focuses on power struggles between different groups in society are uncommon in management literature, especially based on the use of the defense coalition model .

The Perfect Storm: Applying the Multiple Streams Framework to Understand the Adoption of a WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control-Based Policy in Mexico.

The aim of this study was to document how Mexico adopted a WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)-based national tobacco control law. We analyzed publicly available documents and interviewed 14 key stakeholders. We applied the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to analyze these findings. Previous attempts to approve comprehensive FCTC-based initiatives failed due to a lack of political will, the tobacco industry's close connections to policymakers, and a lack of health advocacy coordination. Applying the MSF reveals increased attention towards collecting and sharing data to frame the severity of the problem (problem stream). The expansion of a coordinated health advocacy coalition and activities led to increased support for desired FCTC policy solutions (policy stream). The election of President López Obrador and legislative changes led to a deep renewed focus on tobacco control (politics stream). These three streams converged to create a policy window to secure a strong FCTC-based initiative on the political agenda that was ultimately passed. The Mexican experience illustrates the importance of continued health advocacy and political will in adopting FCTC-based policies. Other countries should follow Mexico's lead by collecting and sharing data through coordinating efforts in order to be prepared to seize political opportunity windows when strong political will is present.

Power Through Pressure: How Interconnection Became Part of the EU's Overarching Climate and Energy Policy

AbstractInterconnection is important to attain several important EU climate and energy targets. Drawing on data from 56 stakeholder interviews, stakeholder event participation and document studies, this study enquires as to why electricity interconnection became a part of the EU's overarching climate and energy policy in 2014. The theoretical approaches liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) and the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) are tested complementarily. LI received support: member states, particularly Portugal and Spain, were essential for the outcome. These successfully played the veto card in the high‐level negotiations for the 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework, leading to the first inclusion of concrete interconnection targets in it and interconnection becoming a European Commission priority. ACF received partial support: a ‘green’ long‐term, multi‐level advocacy coalition consisting of the renewables industry, environmental organisations and others promoted a binding target for electricity interconnection. This ‘green’ advocacy coalition was instrumental in aiding Portugal and Spain.

GREEN GOVERNANCE: INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INTO PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING

<em>This study delves into the multifaceted domain of Green Governance, aimed at integrating environmental policies into public decision-making processes. Grounded in qualitative research methods utilizing secondary data, the investigation unfolds key insights derived from various thematic domains. The exploration begins by uncovering the foundational elements crucial to Green Governance, unveiling key components and imperatives for effective environmental policy implementation. Stakeholder perspectives emerge as pivotal, shaping policy realities and influencing the trajectory of environmental initiatives. The study navigates through theoretical perspectives, shedding light on the intricacies of policy integration into public decision-making, drawing from diverse lenses such as the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Institutional Theory. Additionally, the research meticulously explores various governance models, dissecting collaborative and network-based approaches and elucidating their distinguishing features and comparative advantages in integrating environmental policies. Findings underscore the significance of collaboration, adaptive structures, stakeholder engagement, and inclusive decision-making in crafting effective green governance frameworks. Ultimately, this research culminates in a comprehensive understanding of Green Governance, providing insights vital for policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders.</em>

Challenging agricultural norms and diversifying actors: Building transformative public policy for equitable food systems

Food systems governance regimes have long been spaces of “thick legitimacy” (Montenegro de Wit & Iles, 2016), where embedded norms benefit pro­duc­tivist agricultural practices. Within governance regimes, the science-policy interface and the scien­tists who occupy this space are integral in today’s public policy processes. Often treated as objective science, technical disciplines have become a power­ful source of legitimatizing in decision making. Without the contextualization of lived experience or diverse ways of knowing, these siloed spaces can lead policymakers towards an action bias (e.g., a rush to short-term solutions) that neglects the underlying causes and concerns of our current crises. Current governance arrangements in the science-policy interface demonstrate the bias toward technical science (e.g. economics) and short-term solutions. However, by challenging productivist agriculture norms reformed public policy processes may shift from a space of repres­sion to one of possibility. This reform can happen through investigatiing dominant actor coalitions and identifying tools to reconfigure these power arrangements. Public policy theory, such as the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), helps organ­ize relations within current agricultural policy arenas. The work of practitioners and other disci­plines offer tools that can support transformative action by food systems advocates in the pursuit of changing the way public policy is made. In part, understanding how power is organized and who may influence policy processes is critical to change. This reflective essay ends with tools and strategies for those wishing to engage governments in this shift. The proposed tools and strategies focus on how people (e.g. policy champions), processes (e.g. policy leverage points), and partnerships (e.g. ally­ship) generate ways in which advocates can, and do, engage governments in transformative change.

Advocacy coalitions, soft power, and policy change in Mexican electricity policy: a discourse network analysis

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.

Integration of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) for Stakeholder Analysis in the Transition Process: The Case of the Korean Hydrogen Energy System

Integration of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) for Stakeholder Analysis in the Transition Process: The Case of the Korean Hydrogen Energy System

Membangun Silogisme Pendekatan Naratif dalam Proses Pembuatan dan Analisis Kebijakan Publik William N. Dunn

This research explains how to build a narrative approach syllogism in policy making and analysis using William N. Dunn's framework. The data used in this research uses secondary data from internet searches and literature from reputable journals. This research uses a qualitative and descriptive approach. The conclusion of this research is the syllogism of the narrative approach in public policy studies, consisting of the narrative approach in qualitative research methods, the narrative policy framework (NPF), and the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). In public policy studies, the activities of the policy-making process are divided into two actors with different tasks: first, policymakers carry out agenda setting, formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation of policies. Meanwhile, the second actor is a policy analyst, whose job is to identify problems, forecast policies, recommend policies, and monitor and evaluate policies. Each stage can use a narrative approach syllogism, where policymakers can explain and understand whether a policy will impact individuals or communities, understand the experiences and perspectives of the community or other stakeholders, build community empathy and support, and identify unexpected consequences. For policy analysts, the narrative approach of the syllogism is useful in terms of understanding the impact of policies, identifying emerging problems and conflicts, organizing and presenting policy recommendations clearly and persuasively, assisting with efforts to identify emerging issues, identifying dominant and alternative narratives that shape policy debates, understanding the formation, maintenance, and role of coalitions in the policy process, and evaluating policy effectiveness and adjusting recommendations. Keywords: Public policy, syllogism, narrative approach, Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)

Tapping the Conversation on the Meaning of Decarbonization: Discourses and Discursive Agency in EU Politics on Low-Carbon Fuels for Maritime Shipping

EU politics on decarbonizing shipping is an argumentative endeavor where different policy actors strive try to influence others to see problems and policy solutions according to their perspectives to gain monopoly on the framing and design of policies. This article critically analyzes, by means of argumentative discourse analysis, the politics and policy process related to the recent adoption of the FuelEU Maritime regulation, the world’s first legislation to set requirements for decarbonizing maritime shipping. Complementing previous research focusing on the roles and agency of policy entrepreneurs and beliefs of advocacy coalitions active in the policy process, this paper dives deeper into the politics of the new legislation. It aims to explore and explain the discursive framing and politics of meaning-making. By analyzing the political and social meaning-making of the concept “decarbonizing maritime shipping”, this paper helps us understand why the legislation was designed in the way it was. Different narratives, storylines and discourses defining different meanings of decarbonization are analyzed. So is the agency of policy actors trying to mutate the different meanings into a new meaning. Two discourses developed in dialectic conversation framed the policy proposals and subsequent debates in the policy process, focusing on (i) incremental change and technology neutrality to meet moderate emission reductions and maintain competitiveness, and (ii) transformative change and technology specificity to meet zero emissions and gain competitiveness and global leadership in the transition towards a hydrogen economy. Policy actors successfully used discursive agency strategies such as multiple functionality and vagueness to navigate between and resolve conflicts between the two discourses. Both discourses are associated with the overarching ecological modernization discourse and failed to include issue of climate justice and a just transition. The heritage of the ecological modernization discourse creates lock-ins for a broader decarbonization discourse, thus stalling a just transition.