Policy Core Beliefs Research Articles

How Do Crises Affect Policy Subsystems? The Evolution of Policy Core Beliefs in the EU Asylum Policy

AbstractCrises, shocks, and perturbations are frequently considered turning points in public policy literature. The Advocacy Coalition Framework has become one of the most employed policy process frameworks, focusing on policy subsystems, belief systems and shocks as one of the drivers of policy change. Relying on a network approach, this article aims at analysing the EU asylum policy by exploring the prioritisation of policy core beliefs before, during and after the so‐called refugee crisis. From a methodological perspective, discourse network analysis (DNA) is employed. The results show that the system of policy core beliefs has not stabilised in the aftermath of the crisis, implying a ‘conservative’ crisis response approach and short‐term effects on the policy subsystem. The innovation of this article stands on the theoretical–analytical elaborations of some crisis management and public policy literature core concepts and the empirical testing of said concepts through an original dataset with DNA.

Examining emotional belief expressions of advocacy coalitions in Arkansas' gender identity politics

AbstractMany theories and approaches to policy studies have recently begun to question and research how emotions interact with peoples' understanding and behaviors, especially in policy and politics. This paper builds on and contributes to studying emotions in policy and politics via the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). In applying Emotional‐Belief Analysis, this paper examines the legislative testimony on one of the US' first gender‐affirming care (GAC) bans. It shows that those testifying can be organized in competing advocacy coalitions with distinct emotion‐belief expressions in combination with deep core and policy core beliefs. Moreover, expressions of negative emotions and policy core beliefs display significant and the largest effects in explaining coalition affiliation and shared views of the bill banning GAC. The conclusion summarizes the paper's empirical themes with suggestions for incorporating emotions more into the ACF and the broader policy studies field.

Tales of creation: advocacy coalitions, beliefs and paths to policy change on the ‘energy efficiency first’ principle in EU

The co-legislators of the EU adopted in July 2023 a revised version of the Energy Efficiency Directive, implying that the ‘energy efficiency first’ (EE1) principle is made legally binding for member states, to apply in policy, planning and investment decisions exceeding euro 100 million each and euro 175 million for transport infrastructure projects. The EE1 principle complements two other guiding principles of EU energy and climate policy: cost-effectiveness and consumer protection. This article analyses the policy process and politics leading to the adoption of the EE1 principle as a legal institute in EU energy and climate policy. Policy core and secondary beliefs of four different advocacy coalitions are identified, and explained what are the paths to policy change. Lines of dispute among the coalitions related to (i) the purpose and meaning of energy efficiency policy, (ii) the size of projects covered (all projects or only very large projects) and (iii) which sectors to be covered (the public sector or both the public and private sectors). The adoption of the EE1 principle as a binding provision follows an ‘external shock’ to the political subsystem of energy efficiency, namely the Paris Agreement and the subsequent adoption of an EU climate law strengthening the EU climate targets for 2030 and 2050. In addition, it is a ‘negotiated agreement’ between the Council and the Parliament, undertaken as a deliberative problem-solving exercise rather than bargaining. The deliberative nature of the negotiations opened for ‘policy-oriented learning’ across belief systems in the subsystem.

Advocacy Coalitions and Paths to Policy Change for Promoting Energy Efficiency in European Industry

This paper applied the advocacy coalition framework to explore and explain the political processes creating policies to enhance energy efficiency of European Union (EU) industry. The paper used legislation on energy audits and energy management systems as a proxy for EU policy on energy efficiency in industry. Based on qualitative text analysis of EU policy documents, including a proposal to recast the energy efficiency directive, amendments to the proposal suggested by Member States, the Council and the European Parliament, and reports from negotiations, the paper identified four advocacy coalitions with different core beliefs, spanning from those that want few companies to implement energy audits or energy management systems, and that recommendations from audits should not be mandatory to implement, to those that advocate that many companies implement energy audits and management systems and that it should be mandatory to implement measures recommended in audits. It was further found that policy change followed an external shock, deliberative negotiations, and policy-oriented learning. The identification of core beliefs and advocacy coalitions will help policymakers and other stakeholders become more aware of their own and others’ values on energy efficiency and how these could be changed. As important was the differentiation of deep core beliefs, policy core beliefs and secondary beliefs. Which beliefs can be easily changed, which cannot?

United in disagreement: Analyzing policy networks in EU policy making

AbstractShared belief systems are generally assumed to forge policy networks. Empirical evidence whether and to what extend shared policy core beliefs create ally networks and under which circumstances shared policy core beliefs are not necessary to form these networks, however, is limited. Based on a novel inferential network approach in combination with mediation analysis, this study investigates the role of belief systems as a link between interest group type and policy preference congruence, ultimately leading to ally networks in the European Union. In order to measure the intervening effect of policy core beliefs, automated text analysis is used. Our results suggest that shared policy core beliefs are a strong mediator for members of the same interest group. In addition, “strange bedfellow” networks between NGOs and businesses do, in fact, lack belief congruence and emerge on issues with low potential for intergroup conflict. This paper makes a contribution to our understanding of ally network formation and adds to the emerging line of research which combines quantitative text with inferential network analysis.

Implementing voluntary assisted dying laws in healthcare: Exploring beliefs to identify implementation hurdles.

The number of countries introducing voluntary assisted dying (VAD) laws is increasing. Actively taking steps to end a person's life is contentious so implementing these laws into healthcare services presents unique challenges. Theoretically underpinned by the Advocacy Coalition Framework, this study identified the beliefs of classes of stakeholders who engaged with the parliamentary process associated with the introduction of VAD laws in Queensland, Australia. Submissions about VAD made to a parliamentary inquiry were allocated to a class and qualitatively analysed to identify underlying beliefs. The data were then subjected to statistical analysis including nonmetric dimensional scaling and one-way analysis of similarity. Data visualisation techniques were used to generate a chord map and heatmap, to identify the belief types, as well as similarities and differences between beliefs and among classes. Fourteen different beliefs were identified in the 91 reviewed submissions. Six were deep core beliefs and eight were policy core beliefs. Beliefs could be associated with a positive or negative sentiment toward VAD. In this study, the class of Health Services expressed more negative sentiments to VAD than neutral or positive sentiments. The sentiments expressed by the class of Health Professionals were equally divided between positive, neutral and negative. These findings provide important insights for implementors as laws become operational. In particular, for organisations that provide health services, clear articulation of their stance in relevant policy and guidance documents is recommended.

Policy silences and the formation of advocacy coalitions in East European sex tourism

ABSTRACT The widening of the European Union and the emergence of budget airlines have brought a host of challenges to member states like Latvia. A result of the economic polarization and its disproportionate effect on women is the explosion of sex tourism. East European destinations such as Rīga have become more prevalent and accessible for sex tourists particularly from Western Europe. Despite this influx of sex tourists, the Latvian government has not formulated a policy response to manage sex tourism. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework from the public policy literature, this article examines how coalitions formed around Latvian sex tourism, a women’s advocacy coalition and a business advocacy coalition despite a policy silence. I find that women’s coalitions are key players in the policy subsystem that share beliefs and coordinate activities related to the victimization of women, while the business coalition prioritized creating a positive image of Latvia and generating tourism revenue over trying to regulate the tourism industry. This case study also reveals how a policy subsystem tried to emerge, but when sex tourism dissipated, coalitions pivoted to other sexual regulatory policy areas dependent on their deep core and policy core beliefs.

Pill testing policy: A comparative analysis using the Advocacy Coalition Framework.

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.

Cultural Beliefs and Stakeholder Affiliation Influence Attitudes Towards Responsible Research and Innovation Among United States Stakeholders Involved in Biotechnology and Gene Editing

Biotech developers are concerned about the future of gene editing having experienced the contentious history of first-generation GM foods. They have also expressed desires to do better with public engagement in gene-editing innovation. The framework of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) may provide a way forward to act on their desires for greater public legitimacy. However, in the United States, -there has also been reluctance to incorporate RRI into biotechnology innovation systems like gene editing in food and agriculture. In this article, we investigate individual- and group-level factors, including demographic, sociographic, and cultural factors, that influence attitudes towards RRI among biotechnology United States stakeholders. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework’s (ACF) hierarchy of beliefs as a theoretical guide, biotechnology stakeholders (n = 110) were surveyed about their cultural (deep-core) beliefs and then about their attitudes towards principles (policy-core beliefs) and practices (secondary beliefs) of RRI applied to biotechnology innovation. Through statistical analysis of the results, we found significant relationships between stronger egalitarian cultural-beliefs and positive attitudes towards both the principles and practices of RRI. We also found that participants with higher levels of experience held more positive attitudes towards principles of RRI. In contrast, we found a significant inverse relationship between professional affiliation with industry or trade organizations and attitudes towards RRI practices. With these results, we present a model of factors that influence RRI attitudes for future testing. In closing, we interpret the results in the context of ACF to examine the potential for building cross-sector coalitions for practicing RRI within United States gene-editing innovation systems.

Business Improvement District Enabling Laws in the United States and Germany: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Learning

This study aims to answer the question of how political cultures of respective countries affect policy learning processes. Using historical and contextual information about the political cultures of the United States and Germany and with applications of the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory, this study finds that the originally American business improvement district (BID) institutional form was adopted in Germany when its political culture was open to it. German policy makers adopted the provisions of the U.S. laws that were compatible with their secondary beliefs, which were related to where and how to deliver local services. They did not directly adopt the BID governing models in the U.S. laws, which were based on the American deep core and policy core beliefs. Instead, they adapted the American models to their own Hegelian deep core beliefs and the hierarchical political core beliefs, which resulted in the formulation of the “ Aufgabenträger” (task performer) model.

Party Identification and Cultural Theory in Europe: Methodologically Advancing Comparative Studies of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

To enhance comparative studies of the ACF, this contribution provides empirical evidence for the measurement of deep normative core beliefs and cultural theory through partisan affiliation. It assesses the interplay between cultural worldviews, partisanship, and policy core beliefs by means of linear regression analyses and correlation statistics to answer the question how deep normative core beliefs are best operationalized across and within European countries. The results methodologically advance and validate cultural theory and partisanship as conceptualizations of deep normative core beliefs and indicate that an appropriate measurement is dependent both on the national context and the policy subsystem. Under different conditions, either cultural worldviews or partisanship depict deep normative core beliefs and explain the formation of policy core beliefs as the basis for advocacy coalitions.

Unity in diversity? When advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs grow trees in South Africa

Competing coalitions can stabilise policymaking and hinder policy changes that are required to address the mounting pressures on land use systems across the globe. Thus, understanding the driving forces of coalition formation is important. This paper builds on the Advocacy Coalition Framework to determine the relative contributions of two sets of beliefs (more general policy core beliefs and more specific beliefs concerning policy instruments) to coalition formation in South African tree plantation politics and to identify coalitions therein. Discourse Network Analysis was used to code 656 statements regarding 40 beliefs to create network data from 55 interviews with organisational elites. Results from a network analysis of the twelve most salient beliefs indicate that dissimilar policy core beliefs about the validity of environmental regulation, social costs of tree plantations, and the conditionality of land reform in South Africa divide actors into two coalitions: the hegemonic “business-as-usual” coalition and the minority “justice and change” coalition. These boundaries were confirmed by comparing the network based on shared policy core beliefs with a co-ordination network. Dissimilar beliefs concerning policy instruments, including eco-certification and an indicative zoning, also divide actors, yet actors’ reasoning for or against these instruments differ to the degree that united fronts are unlikely to form. Hegemonic coalitions that combine selected state and business interests with labour arguments and prioritise short-term economic efficiency threaten to delay the necessary changes away from business-as-usual across land use systems in South Africa and beyond.

Policy Change Through Negotiated Agreements: The Case of Greening Swiss Agricultural Policy

Negotiated agreements are a promising pathway for policy change. This paper revisits and extends characteristics of negotiated agreements using the Advocacy Coalition Framework. We focus on two characteristics of negotiated agreements that previous literature has not explicitly addressed. First, we scrutinize the role of policy core and secondary policy beliefs in actor constellations. Secondly, we address partial success, that is, the notion that actors concede on some points, but in return succeed in others. We investigate these two characteristics in the 2014 reform of Swiss agricultural policy. Based on cluster and social network analysis, we exemplify how negotiated agreements embedded in a participatory policy process lead to a surprising level of policy change by promoting agricultural production practices with an intended positive effect on the environment. We show that rather than coalitions based on policy core beliefs, the formation of groups of actors based on secondary beliefs who span across the coalitions formed the basis for a negotiated agreement. Green and conservative groups were both able to achieve partial success. We conclude that insights from this exemplary case study should revive the concept and initialize a research agenda on negotiated agreements as a pathway for change in domestic policymaking.

The Effect of Beliefs on Policy Instrument Preferences: The Case of Swiss Renewable Energy Policy

This article explores how beliefs affect preferences leading to policy instrument choices of elite actors. Beliefs are general attitudes regarding a given policy field, for example toward the role of the state or the urgency of a problem. Both beliefs and preferences are central for applications of Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition Framework, but their interrelationship has remained undertheorized. Understanding how beliefs and preferences are linked can provide important insights into policy instrument choice, while improving the comparability of studies across policy subsystems. The article compares the relative contribution of beliefs to shaping instrument choices of elite actors in the domain of Swiss renewable energy policy. Results suggest that beliefs are likely to play a prominent role in shaping instrument choice. We find that policy core beliefs translate into preferences through a process involving two main pathways. First, some policy beliefs primarily influence the preferred characteristics of the overall instrument mix. Second, some policy beliefs are primarily associated with preferences for specific instruments. Some policy beliefs are influential via both pathways. These, therefore, emerge as especially important factors shaping the policy process. Our results offer insights for policymakers into how potential future conflicts in negotiations can be attenuated.

Responsible innovation in biotechnology: Stakeholder attitudes and implications for research policy

This article explores attitudes of stakeholders involved in biotechnology towards the Responsible Innovation (RI) framework. As a framework for governance, RI has received increasing scholarly attention but has yet to be successfully integrated into U.S. research and innovation policy. Using a mixed methods approach, we analyzed the attitudes of different biotechnology stakeholders, particularly those working in areas related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and the environment, towards the principles and practices of RI. Homogenous focus groups (organized by stakeholder affiliation) and pre- and post-focus group surveys were used to measure attitudes towards RI. We designed the survey questions according to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and examined the agreement of stakeholders with policy core beliefs (general principles of RI) and secondary beliefs (implementation practices of RI). Although all stakeholder groups had neutral to positive attitudes towards RI general principles, we found significant differences in their reactions to the scholarly definitions of RI and in their attitudes towards practices to implement RI. In comparison to government and advocacy groups, stakeholders promoting biotechnology innovations–industry, trade organizations, and academics–had more negative reactions to social science definitions of RI and to RI practices that relinquish control to people outside of technology development pipelines. Qualitative analysis of focus-groups revealed barriers for implementing RI practices. For example, innovators were cynical about including external voices in innovation pathways due to inflexible funding programs and were concerned about potential delays to innovation given the highly competitive environments for financing and patents. In order to help address these tensions, we call for the co-design of RI practices between biotechnology innovators and other stakeholders. The opening-up of biotechnology innovation to RI practices of anticipation, inclusion, responsiveness and reflexivity will likely be important for future, public legitimacy of emerging genetic engineering applications such as gene editing and gene drives.

Why Secondary Schools Do Not Implement Far-Reaching Smoke-Free Policies: Exploring Deep Core, Policy Core, and Secondary Beliefs of School Staff in the Netherlands

BackgroundSecondary schools that implement smoke-free policies are confronted with students who start smoking outside their premises. One solution is to complement smoke-free policies with prohibitions for all students to leave the school area during school hours, technically making school hours a smoke-free period. However, there are strikingly few Dutch secondary schools that implement this approach. This study explores why staff members in the Netherlands decide not to implement smoke-free school hours for all students.MethodWe interviewed 13 staff members, with different functions, from four secondary schools. The analysis was informed by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to delve into the values, rationales, and assumptions of staff with the aim to identify deep core, policy core, and secondary beliefs.ResultsWe identified six beliefs. Two deep core beliefs are that schools should provide adolescents the freedom to learn how to responsibly use their personal autonomy and that schools should only interfere if adolescents endanger or bother others. Three policy core beliefs identified included the following: that smoking is not a pressing issue for schools to deal with; that schools should demarcate their jurisdiction to intervene in adolescents’ lives in time, space, and precise risk behavior; and that implementing smoke-free school hours would interfere with maintaining positive student-staff relationships. One secondary belief identified was that smoke-free school hours would be impossible to enforce consistently.ConclusionThis paper was the first to demonstrate the many beliefs explaining why schools refrain from voluntary implementing far-reaching smoke-free policies.

Advocacy Coalition Framework and Policy Changes in a Third‐World Country

This work concerns health sector reform in Nigeria between 2003 and 2014. Using qualitative content analysis, I investigate the factors that led to the reform, the reform process, and its outcome. The objective is to assess the conformity of the policy reform to Sabatier and Weible's Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in order to ascertain the applicability, or otherwise, of the ACF in policy analysis in stable democratic African states. In the article, external shock, policy subsystem, stable parameter, technical experts, advocacy coalitions, the “devil shift,” and policy core beliefs—which are basic components of ACF—were all identified in the policy reform process. I conclude that the ACF can be applied in policy reform in democratic African states, so long as there is the rule of law, a separation of powers, freedom of speech and association, a fairly stable political environment, and the presence of policy participants with expert knowledge of the policy issues.Related ArticlesMorris, Mary Hallock. 2007. “The Political Strategies of Winning and Losing Coalitions: Agricultural and Environmental Groups in the Debate over Hypoxia.” Politics & Policy 35 (4): 836‐871. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00086.xSwigger, Alexandra, and Bruce Timothy Heinmiller. 2014. “Advocacy Coalitions and Mental Health Policy: The Adoption of Community Treatment Orders in Ontario.” Politics & Policy 42 (2): 246‐270. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12066Udjo, Eric O., and Barney Erasmus. 2014. “Impact of Retirement Age Policy on the Workforce of a Higher Education Institution in South Africa.” Politics & Policy 42 (5): 744‐768. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12092 Related Media CNBC Africa. 2017. “How Can Nigeria Improve Its Healthcare System?” https://www.cnbcafrica.com/videos/2017/09/14/how-can-nigeria-improve-its-healthcare-system/Opeyemi, Agbaje. 2012. “Health Sector Reforms in Nigeria 1.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvV_xj0meU

Advocacy Coalitions, Policy Stability, and Policy Change in China: The Case of Birth Control Policy, 1980–2015

This study used the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) to explain stability and change in China's national birth control policy from 1980 to 2015. We found that policy remained stable, despite internal and external changes to the relevant subsystem, from 1980 to 2013. The stability was explained by the dominant advocacy coalition's mobilization of considerable resources to defend its policy core beliefs. Policy changes in 2013 and 2015 were caused by a combination of external and internal perturbations, in addition to policy‐oriented learning and advocacy by two expert‐led minority advocacy coalitions. The case showed that the openness and plurality of China's policy processes had increased over time but were still limited in comparison with those in Western democracies. The case analysis confirmed two policy change hypotheses and suggested a mechanism for policy change: a hierarchically superior jurisdiction is more likely to impose a major policy change when it learns that the change is an adaptation to internal and external perturbations and that adopting the change will serve the jurisdiction's political interests.

Advocacy coalition impacts on healthy public policy-oriented learning in Alberta, Canada (2009–2016): A difference-in-differences analysis

Since 2009, the Alberta Policy Coalition for Chronic Disease Prevention (APCCP) has pursued policy, systems, and environmental change strategies engaging policy elites to promote healthy public policy for chronic disease prevention in Alberta, Canada. Employing Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) vocabulary to facilitate our analysis, we examined whether concerted advocacy by the APCCP shifted elites' belief system structures over an eight year period compared to the general public as a baseline, by fostering healthy public policy-oriented learning. As data for the study, we employed a trend design series of cross-sectional Chronic Disease Prevention Surveys in Alberta, Canada between 2009 and 2016, comparing policy elite responses in 2009 (n = 183) and 2016 (n = 174) with general public responses in 2010 (n = 1203) and 2016 (n = 1200). Drawing on four scales developed in a published exploratory factor analysis, we examined changes in elite versus public beliefs with respect to (i) behavioral etiology, (ii) socio-ecological etiology, (iii) individual responsibility, and (iv) societal responsibility. Each scale was analyzed for reliability using Cohen's alpha (α), tested for sample mean (μ) value differences with analysis of variance (ANOVA) (p < .05), and compared between groups over time using difference-in-differences analysis. Cohen's alphas above approximately 0.700 indicated acceptable scale reliability (0.692≤α ≤ 0.879). ANOVA testing indicated significant group mean difference for every scale but societal responsibility among elites (μ2009 = 13.2, μ2016 = 13.7; p = .06). Standardized beta coefficients (β) presented significant differences between elites and the public for three of four scales, excepting behavioral etiology (β = −0.009, p = .746). In ACF terms, transformation of elites' policy core beliefs is necessary, but not sufficient, for major policy change such as healthy public policy. Spanning provincial policy communities relevant to whole-of-government intervention for chronic disease prevention, our results provide evidence to support the plausibility of long term socio-ecological strategies aiming to foster policy-oriented learning among elites by advocacy coalitions like the APCCP.

The transforming capacity of collaborative institutions: Belief change and coalition reformation in conflicted wildlife management

The aim of this study is to examine the transformative capacity of top-down imposed collaborative institutions on participants' beliefs and coordination patterns. First, do collaborative arenas enhance learning in terms of belief change and belief convergence among participating actors? Second, what types of beliefs are changed and, third, how are changes in beliefs reflected in the formation of coalitions? To answer these questions, a longitudinal study encompassing three collaborative decision-making arenas in the highly adversarial system for wildlife management in Sweden is performed. The empirical analysis indicates both stability and change within the new management system that confirms, as well as challenges, the theoretical assumptions guiding the analysis. While beliefs overall are rather stable, we note, surprisingly, how some participants' more normatively oriented policy core beliefs have been slightly modified over time. A more expected result was that these adjustments in normative policy core beliefs were accompanied by a reformed coalition structure within the studied decision-making arenas. The study contributes to our understandings of policy beliefs and coalitions in conflicted policy areas; it underlines the mixed results of collaborative institutions found in previous research; yet, lends a modest support in favor of the transformative capacity of collaborative institutions.