Policy Change in Comparative Contexts: Applying the

1 downloads 0 Views 365KB Size Report
Sep 3, 2014 - *School of Government and Public Policy, University of Arizona, ... ABSTRACT The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) is one of the most ... tualizations and the intractability of conducting studies across time and space (McDougal. 1952 .... state–society relationships, corruption, financial crises, and political ...
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice

ISSN: 1387-6988 (Print) 1572-5448 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fcpa20

Policy Change in Comparative Contexts: Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework Outside of Western Europe and North America Adam Douglas Henry, Karin Ingold, Daniel Nohrstedt & Christopher M. Weible To cite this article: Adam Douglas Henry, Karin Ingold, Daniel Nohrstedt & Christopher M. Weible (2014) Policy Change in Comparative Contexts: Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework Outside of Western Europe and North America, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16:4, 299-312, DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2014.941200 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2014.941200

Published online: 03 Sep 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1204

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fcpa20 Download by: [184.174.98.185]

Date: 18 January 2017, At: 12:41

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2014 Vol. 16, No. 4, 299–312, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2014.941200

Policy Change in Comparative Contexts: Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework Outside of Western Europe and North America ADAM DOUGLAS HENRY*, KARIN INGOLD**, DANIEL NOHRSTEDT†, & CHRISTOPHER M. WEIBLE‡ *School of Government and Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, **Institute of Political Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, †Department of Government, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, ‡School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA

ABSTRACT The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) is one of the most frequently applied theories of the policy process. Most applications have been in Western Europe and North America. This article provides an overview of the ACF, summarizes existing applications outside of Western Europe and North America, and introduces the special issue that features applications of the ACF in the Philippines, China, India, and Kenya. This article concludes with an argument for the continued application of the ACF outside of Western Europe and North America and a research agenda for overcoming challenges in using the ACF in comparative public policy research.

Introduction Comparative public policy research has faced numerous challenges and critiques over time. These challenges stem, in part, from the difficulty of developing common conceptualizations and the intractability of conducting studies across time and space (McDougal 1952; Feldman et al. 1978; Capano 2009; Capano and Howlett 2009; Howlett and Cashore 2009; Gupta 2012). For this reason, developing better theories of policy change is an important goal in comparative public policy research. The goal must be to understand why certain political choices or institutions emerge in some settings versus others, and to use theories that are generalizable yet flexible enough to account for differences across national or regional contexts. One pathway to better theories of comparative policy change is to promote an effort among scholars to pursue questions involving policy processes not as independent researchers, but as a community of researchers operating within a research program (Laudan 1977). The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) exemplifies one such research program (Sabatier 1988; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993). The ACF is one theoretical framework, among many, that simplifies the great complexity of social and political systems with the goal of moving towards a positive understanding of the various drivers of policy change at multiple scales (Sabatier 1999). Correspondence Address: Christopher M. Weible, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver. Email: [email protected]

© 2014 The Editor, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice

300

A. D. Henry et al.

In terms of a generalizable theory of policy change, the ACF has shown merit in its portability across different contexts, particularly across North America and Western Europe (Weible et al. 2009; Jenkins-Smith et al. 2014). However, the ACF research program includes relatively few applications outside of North America and Western Europe. The purpose of this special issue in the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis is to explore the generalizability of the ACF as well as its capacity to contribute to the literature of comparative policy analysis in helping to describe and explain phenomena across vastly different political-institutional contexts. A Synopsis of the Advocacy Coalition Framework The ACF provides a means for scholars to better understand coalition formation and behavior, learning, and policy change (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993; Sabatier 1998; Weible et al. 2009; Jenkins-Smith et al. 2014). The ACF depicts the policy process as adversarial competition where actors form and maintain coalitions, engage in analytical debates with the potential for learning, and advocate for their preferred policy problems and alternatives. Following Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993; Sabatier and Weible 2007), the appropriate scale for analyzing policy processes over time is a policy subsystem comprised of actors who regularly seek to influence policy choices surrounding a particular issue and within a particular geographic scope. Subsystems often contain advocacy coalitions, through which actors pursue common policy goals. These coalitions are made up of actors who have some degree of specialization in the policy area and include legislators, researchers, journalists, and actors drawn from government agencies, nonprofits, businesses, and interest groups. The ACF argues that policy-relevant beliefs are a principal motivator of individual behavior within policy subsystems. Policy-relevant beliefs include a mixture of normative beliefs (such as value systems or beliefs regarding appropriate roles of government in decision-making) and positive or empirically grounded beliefs (such as the likely impacts of a particular policy choice). In the ACF, belief systems have important consequences for the use of scientific information in the policy process (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993, 1999), the emergence and persistence of trust (Henry and Dietz 2011), and the structure of policy networks (Weible and Sabatier 2005; Henry 2011; Ingold 2011; Leifeld 2013). The ACF proposes an explicit model of belief systems, which are viewed as a three-tiered hierarchy of beliefs: deep core beliefs include normative and ontological axioms applicable to multiple subsystems; policy core beliefs include beliefs that support the achievement of deep core beliefs within a particular subsystem; and secondary aspects include a multitude of instrumental propositions to achieve policy goals within the subsystem (Sabatier 1998; Henry and Dietz 2012). The ACF facilitates the study of change within policy processes that might include changes in beliefs through learning, changes in coalition members and their interconnections, and changes in policy. Policy change, for example, is hypothesized to occur through some combination of policy-oriented learning and belief change, negotiated agreements among members of rival coalitions, and exploitive activities of coalition members after major events, such as crises in conjunction with a coalition that exploits the opportunity (Nohrstedt and Weible 2010). These developments are likely to be followed by changes in governmental programs (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999). Similar to patterns of change examined in other policy theories (e.g. in punctuated equilibrium theory, see Jones and

Policy Change in Comparative Contexts

301

Baumgartner 2012), the ACF argues that resistance to policy change is the norm. For this reason, the most frequent type of observed change is minor adjustments to policies or their corresponding belief systems, with major policy changes occurring less frequently (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993). Certain contextual factors make major policy change more likely; for example, policy brokers can facilitate learning and policy change when they intervene in high-conflict situations to mediate solutions between opponents (Ingold and Varone 2011). The ACF provides several advantages to scholars of comparative public policy. First, the framework identifies general concepts and provides theoretical and operational clarity in defining these concepts. Second, the ACF provides a lens to understand policy not as a single point in time but as a process without beginning or end, thereby sidestepping many of the limitations of viewing policy as a linear set of “stages” with a definitive beginning and ending point. Third, given its basic concepts and assumptions, the framework is somewhat malleable and open to experimentation in developing theoretical expectations and in using different forms of data collection and analysis. Although the ACF offers a useful research platform to address puzzles of coalition formation and maintenance, learning, and policy change, it is far from providing all the answers. Many questions remain. Some hypotheses remain untested and underdeveloped (Weible et al. 2009; Jenkins-Smith et al. 2014). Instruments for coding texts, interviews, and surveys need refinement. And, most importantly from the perspective of comparative policy research, the ACF has rarely been applied to contexts outside of North America and Western Europe. As a result, critics claim the ACF is only applicable in open pluralistic political systems, where actors are free to mobilize and assemble in coalitions and to apply pressure on government for policy change through multiple venues over extended periods of time (Parsons 1995; Sabatier 1998). The purpose of this special issue is to help address this challenge by investigating and broadening empirical applications of the ACF in contexts outside of North America and Western Europe, by showcasing four applications with examples in Kenya, India, the Philippines, and China. Is the ACF Applicable Outside of the US and Western Europe? Since the inception of the framework, researchers have aspired to apply the ACF to different policy issues within different political systems (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999). Meanwhile, one of the early criticisms stated that the framework is founded on pluralistic assumptions and, therefore, that it would be restricted as an approach to explain policymaking (John 1998; Carter 2001). According to this view, the theoretical premises of the ACF recognized key features of pluralism, including factionalized, competitive, and adversarial groups involved in struggles over access to multiple venues for legislative influence (cf. Schattschneider 1960). Meanwhile, doubts were raised concerning its applicability in other systems characterized by democratic corporatist policy styles or authoritarian policy regimes (Parsons 1995). In response, the ACF was gradually expanded (Sabatier 1998; Sabatier and Weible 2007; Jenkins-Smith et al. 2014) to include coalition opportunity structures, focusing specifically on the degree of openness of political systems (a function of the number of decision-making venues and the accessibility of each venue) and the degree of consensus needed for major policy change (Kübler 2001; Zafonte and Sabatier 2004; Sabatier and Weible 2007). These characteristics are assumed to affect the resources and constraints of

302

A. D. Henry et al.

subsystem participants. Yet, in practice, the nature of the relationship between these stable parameters and the behavior of subsystem participants remains an open question. Therefore, in order to explore the applicability of the ACF across different systems, researchers should engage in efforts to investigate empirically how processes of coalition formation, resource mobilization, and policy change may be enabled and constrained by basic coalition opportunity structures. On this basis, we agree with Parsons (1995: 200) that the bounds of applicability of the ACF should be assessed by empirical analysis: “We need to see a good deal more use of the framework outside and with case studies from other polyarchies if we are to come to any conclusions as to its general applicability.” Against this background, this special issue explores the theoretical, empirical and methodological challenges involved when studying policymaking in different political systems through the lens of the ACF. Despite fundamental institutional differences across political systems, public policy scholarship recognizes the importance of “within-case variation”. Although the openness and venue access of political systems vary considerably, there are also significant variations between policy subsystems across time and space. Situated within the same constitutional structure, policy subsystems display different opportunities and constraints for policy actors to access and influence the policy process (Freeman 1985). Some of these properties may change over time within the same subsystem as well. What also speaks in favor of comparative empirical analysis across subsystems is the observation that the nature and practice of political systems are changing over time. Studies in corporatism, for example, suggest that traditionally corporatist systems have changed gradually towards more open, informal and conflictual policymaking modes (e.g. Kickert 2003; Rommetvedt 2005; Lindvall and Rothstein 2006). Also, when it comes to understanding the interaction between political institutions and policy change in developing countries, researchers have focused much attention to underlying social, economic, and political constraints (e.g. state–society relationships, corruption, financial crises, and political power relationships) whereas less attention has been devoted to understanding processes of policy change that result in revised or new programs with improved performance (Steinberg 2003). Comparative studies on policymaking across policy subsystems in different political systems provide an opportunity to document how these changes emerge in practice. The ACF outlines three major theoretical emphases focusing on advocacy coalitions, policy-oriented learning, and policy change. Each one of these theoretical emphases narrows the scope of inquiry, links concepts by outlining observable implications, and establishes relationships among variables (Weible et al. 2011; Weible and Nohrstedt 2012). This special issue primarily focuses on one of these theoretical emphases – policy change – and it seeks to deepen our knowledge of how policy change occurs in different political systems. To meet this objective, the contributions address several overlapping questions. How do institutions, culture, policy-relevant beliefs, or problem attributes shape the policy change process? What are some of the intervening steps linking events to policy change? How might learning and negotiated agreements lead to policy change? How important are changes in the distribution of resources within and among coalitions as well as the role of policy brokers in policy change? The effort to answer these questions by comparative analysis relates to the continued development and refinement of the ACF (Weible et al. 2011; Scott 2012) as well as to the ongoing study of policy change in comparative contexts (Capano and Howlett 2009). Recent contributions to the study of policy change recognize the need to more carefully address the “dependent variable

Policy Change in Comparative Contexts

303

problem” (Howlett and Cashore 2009) and the explanatory variables and causal mechanisms that contribute to policy change over time (Capano 2009). In response to these challenges, each paper in this special issue specifically addresses the nature and scope of policy change and plausible explanations derived from the ACF. We hope that this special issue will contribute to policy change research in general and the ACF research program in particular.

Empirical Applications Outside of Western Europe and North America Applications of the ACF outside of North America and Europe are a recent and relatively rare endeavor with only 27 applications to date out of 224 total (see Table 1), with Sato’s publication in 1999 being the first.1 Most of the studies listed in Table 1 apply nearly all aspects of the ACF, including coalitions, learning, and policy change. This reflects the general tendency to apply the entire framework to understand the overarching policy context of a given policy subsystem over time, rather than to narrow the focus on one Table 1. A listing of ACF applications outside of Western Europe and North America Author (year) Sato (1999) Bulkeley (2000) Hogl (2000) Carvalho (2001) Elliott and Schlaepfer (2001) Tewari (2001) Arnold (2003) Chen (2003) Farquharson (2003) Kim (2003) Hsu (2005) Nagel (2006) Villamor (2006) Beverwijk et al. (2008); Beverwijk (2005) Ainuson (2009) Fang (2010) Kingiri (2011) Lahat (2011) Montefrio and Sonnenfeld (2011) Santa 2013) Dressel (2012) Li (2012) Francesch-Huidobro and Mai (2012) Kim (2012) Ortmann (2012) Marfo and McKeown (2013) Runkle et al. (2013)

Subsystem topic

Country

Tobacco policy Climate change policy Forest policy Metallurgical policy Forest certification policy Forest policy Forest policy Computer regulations Tobacco Policy Conservation policy Nuclear power policy Labor policy Forest policy Education policy

Japan Australia Australia Brazil Canada, Indonesia, and Sweden South Africa Chile Australia Transnational South Korea Taiwan Australia Philippines Mozambique

Water policy Economic/Business policy Biotechnology Poverty policy Forest policy Tourism policy Economic/Business policy Environmental policy Climate policy Environmental policy Civil society policy Forest policy Health Policy

Ghana South Korea Kenya Israel Philippines Philippines Philippines China China South Korea Singapore Ghana Liberia

304

A. D. Henry et al.

particular component of the framework in order to develop greater theoretical description and explanations. Such general applications also reflect the source of data. Most studies outside of North America and Western Europe use an informal analysis of documents with some document coding, and some studies complement their analysis with open-ended qualitative interview data. These applications generally lack large-N data coupled with quantitative analysis, which may reflect the myriad challenges of administering mail and online surveys outside of North America and Western Europe. The authors from Table 1 also commented on the strengths and weaknesses of applying the ACF in their context. The reported strengths are paraphrased below: ● The ACF generally provides a useful theoretical approach for understanding policy issues comparatively (Elliott and Schlaepfer 2001). ● The ACF’s focus on change in coalitions, in learning, power, and policy is useful for studying public policy over time (Carvalho 2001; Elliott and Schlaepfer 2001; Chen 2003; Kingiri 2011; Marfo and McKeown 2013). ● The ACF provides a useful means for identifying coalitions based on beliefs and perceptions (Kim 2003; Nagel 2006). ● The ACF provides a good way for understanding policy change as resulting from coalition politics (Sato 1999; Hsu 2005). ● The ACF’s perspective of subsystem politics and non-sequential change is useful for understanding policy processes (Carvalho 2001). ● Policy change within the ACF can be studied by examining changes in the relatively stable parameters (Beverwijk et al. 2008). ● The ACF offers useful principles for recommending political strategies regarding policy change (Runkle et al. 2013) The authors reported several weaknesses as well: ● The ACF needs to do a better job of integrating into policy subsystems international organizations and the effects of different contexts (Elliott and Schlaepfer 2001; Farquharson 2003; Hsu 2005; Ainuson 2009; Santa 2013) ● The ACF assumes sovereigns are “neutral arbiters” (Chen 2003). ● The ACF needs to develop its hypotheses better for nascent policy subsystems (Beverwijk et al. 2008). ● The ACF could improve its description of coalition politics by dealing with internal coalition relations and divisions, provide better theoretical depictions of belief systems (including relations and depictions between policy core and secondary beliefs), and describe theoretically how coalitions change over time (Sato 1999; Arnold 2003; Kim 2003; Nagel 2006). ● The ACF provides limited explanations for processes of learning (Bulkeley 2000) and how coalitions translate their beliefs into actual policy (Sato 1999). ● The ACF undervalues the role of institutions (Nagel 2006). ● The ACF needs theoretical development to understand and explain the structure and stability of coalitions in different political systems (Li 2012; Ortmann 2012; Santa 2013). ● The ACF needs to account for fundamental values of a society that could drive subsystem activities and policy change (Kim 2012).

Policy Change in Comparative Contexts

305

Overall, the authors describe beneficial uses of the ACF to countries outside of North America and Europe, but not without a number of accompanying challenges. Among those who question the applicability of applying the ACF in different political systems is the collection of applications in Asian countries (Scott 2012). The applications in Singapore and China, in particular, raise thought-provoking questions about the structure and stability of coalitions in hybrid and authoritarian regimes. Similarly, Beverwijk et al. (2008) commented strongly on the challenges of applying the ACF in different political settings. Ainuson (2009), among others, mentions how useful it was to apply the ACF in their country of study. However, Ainuson (2009) also directs authors towards understanding the factors shaping subsystem affairs.

An Overview of the Special Issue This special issue includes four applications spanning the globe (see Table 2). The major aim of the contributions is to highlight drivers for major or minor policy change. Building from the assumptions and hypotheses of the ACF, the authors focus on factors internal and external to the investigated subsystems in order to explain what might induce change in different policy fields. Aside from being non-US and non-European applications, the four applications cover a wide range of political subsystems including hydropower in China; indigenous peoples’ rights in the Philippines; nuclear energy and forest management in India; and biotechnology policy in Kenya. For each study, we outline the research questions, major analytical elements, empirical and methodological approaches, and conclusions. Han, Swedlow and Unger analyze factors that led to China’s suspension of its latest large-scale hydropower project on the Nu River. This paper is one of the first applications of the ACF in China and its authoritarian system. The authors convincingly demonstrate the added value of the ACF to explain policy change in China’s hydropower development subsystem in comparison to the fragmented authoritarianism model. Through primary and secondary literature research and additional open-ended interviews, the authors were able to identify actors’ belief systems, coalitions, resources, and mobilization. More concretely, China’s hydropower subsystem is characterized through various state and non-state entities that either coalesced into a development coalition or an environmental coalition which held incompatible policy beliefs regarding this hydropower project. Finally, the authors conclude that the following factors contributed to the project suspension: adversarial interactions between the two coalitions, policy learning within the subsystem, interventions by one policy broker (Premier Wen), and, finally, the intervention by the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA). Table 2. A listing of ACF applications in the JCPA special issue Author (year) Han et al. (2014) Montefrio (2014) Gupta (2014) Kingiri (2014)

Subsystem topic

Country

Hydropower development project Indigenous peoples rights Nuclear energy and forest management Biotechnology regulatory policy

China Philippines India Kenya

306

A. D. Henry et al.

Montefrio analyzes the case of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) in the Philippines. The aim of this case study is to explain regressive policy change and weak implementation, focusing on exogenous factors such as constitutional structures and conflicting subsystems. The identification of coalitions and their coordination is based on data gathered through content analysis of official documents, in-depth key informant interviews, and participant observation. The author explains the delays in the creation of the law, the law’s weak implementation, and incremental policy changes through the Regalian Doctrine provisions in the Philippine constitution and the competing environmental, conservation, and natural resource policy subsystems that overlap with the IPRA. One added value of this paper is therefore the in-depth investigation of subsystem interconnectedness and how exogenous drivers intervene with internal subsystem factors in producing policy change. Gupta compares two subsystems: nuclear energy and forest management in India. The author asks how coalition opportunity structures impact on coalition strategies. Gupta outlines how subsystem-relevant coalition opportunity structures influence strategies in multiple ways, including providing opportunities or constraining access to new resources within subsystems, shaping opportunities for venue exploitation, and setting legal impediments that can impact on the range of available political strategies. One major added value of this study is its longitudinal and comparative investigation across two subsystems (nuclear and forest policy) applying a similar-systems approach. Through a content analysis of primary and secondary sources, including newspaper archives, Gupta was able to identify coalitions and their strategies in both cases and over time. She finds that highly centralized policy subsystems with restricted access to decision-making led to coalitions adopting strategies such as public protests, hunger strikes, and rallies designed to disrupt the subsystem status quo. By contrast, she concludes that decentralized policy subsystems with relatively open decision-making processes led coalitions to adopt strategies such as deliberation, appeals, and petitions designed to work within the subsystem status quo. This application provides substantial insights about the investigation of subsystem internal opportunity structures and shows how they vary, both across subsystems and within subsystems over time. The article is therefore an intriguing and significant addition to the growing literature within the ACF studying opportunity structures. Kingiri, in her study of biotechnology policy in Kenya, asks how advocacy coalitions and policy brokers influence policy change. She combines analytical and theoretical elements from the advocacy coalition framework with theories of innovation, focusing mainly on the role of brokerage in policy processes. Data were gathered through interviews with key representatives of private and public organizations, and provide insights into the subsystem structure, coalition formation, the identification of key actors and brokers, and the factors that motivate actions of actors in the conflictive domain of Kenya’s biotechnology policy. This case study supports ACF propositions that disagreement over policy beliefs generate conflict and distrust between adversarial coalitions. This led to venue shopping strategies being employed by some subsystem actors in order to preserve the status quo in Kenya’s biotechnology subsystem. Kingiri concludes that coalition and broker activities are further explained by, among other reasons, interests, motivations, and opportunities.

Policy Change in Comparative Contexts

307

Toward an International Research Program on the Policy Process Despite the emergence of the ACF in the context of the United States, the applications presented in this special issue demonstrate how the ACF can be used as a common foundation to empirically study advocacy coalitions and processes of learning, and policy change across a range of contexts. The ACF serves as a common foundation among the researchers in this special issue by establishing the policy subsystem as a common scale for analysis, by guiding their analyses of beliefs among actors in coalitions, and by offering some theoretical rationale for processes of learning and policy change. Such a foundation, however, cannot provide every descriptive factor or explanatory mechanism which is important for understanding coalition behavior, learning, and policy change. The reason for this is simple: the number of specific factors and interrelations between factors are uncountable. But a framework can provide a shared language and approach for studying similar phenomena and generating shared knowledge. To make such an enterprise work, attention needs to be given to developing strategies for conceptual clarity and theoretical expectations (Easton 1971; Weible and Nohrstedt 2012). For instance, as shown by the contributions in this special issue, the investigation of belief systems is one of the important initial steps for an ACF application. The ACF assumes a three-tiered belief system, thereby guiding the analyses across contexts of fundamental deep core beliefs, more subsystem-bounded policy core beliefs, and instrumental secondary beliefs. However, the exact beliefs to be measured within any tiered level are contingent upon the context of study (Henry and Dietz 2012), as illustrated by the beliefs measured in the study by Kingiri (2014). Another common foundation for ACF applications is the policy subsystem as an appropriate scale for empirical analysis. As a subunit of a broader system, all policy subsystems are set within broader political, cultural, socio-economic, and physical conditions. The range of approaches to documenting the broader governing system includes Gupta’s (2014) study of coalition opportunity structures, which she found affected coalition strategies. Such attention to the external context of policy subsystems must continue to be accounted for when applying the ACF in any setting, including Western Europe, North America, and anywhere else in the world. In addition to learning about added value and shortcomings when applying the ACF to cases outside of the US and Europe, the four studies also nicely contribute to central, current discussions in the recent literature on the ACF (see Weible et al. 2011; Weible and Nohrstedt 2012; Jenkins-Smith et al. 2014). One major question, for instance, is how different subsystems may influence one another. Montefrio focuses strongly on subsystem interconnectedness to explain changes in the Philippine Indigenous Rights Act, and highlights how constitutional factors on the national level may affect conflicts among different policy fields. Through the comparative study of India’s nuclear energy and forest management policies, Gupta contributes to the discussion of how subsystem specificities, and in subsystem-internal opportunity structures, are able to shape coalitions’ strategies. All of those studies point out the need for further research into vertical and horizontal subsystem interconnectedness. Another issue of attention in recent ACF literature involves policy brokerage. Han et al. (2014) show, for instance, how the premier acted as a policy broker in shaping policy change in the Nu River subsystem. This application raises the important question of how to identify policy brokers based on the ACF’s definition of the term. Kingiri’s study of

308

A. D. Henry et al.

Kenya’s biotechnology policy takes on this question and asks, as a starting point, how policy brokers influence policy change. This application shows how the ACF can be combined with other theoretical frameworks. It therefore contributes to the discussion on how to conceptualize and operationalize brokers and brokerage in the policy processes (for a comparison, see also Christopoulos and Ingold 2011; Ingold and Varone 2011). The evidence offered by this special issue should provoke further examination of competing theoretical approaches to policy change across political systems. One avenue for future research involves examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the ACF compared to alternative policy process approaches and frameworks. When widening the empirical basis for the ACF beyond political systems within the US and the EU, new questions are being raised regarding, for example, the ability of marginalized groups or “non-elites” to participate and influence the policy process (Holmes and Scoones 2001). This illustrates how, as applications of the ACF in diverse contexts continue to accumulate, we will be able to observe variation in important variables that tend to remain constant when one focuses solely on the US and the EU but are central to other theoretical perspectives. Another intriguing challenge involves contrasting the ACF with conventional approaches used to understand policy processes in specific contexts, such as the fragmented authoritarianism framework in China (Han et al. 2014). Studies that critically compare and contrast the theoretical premises of the ACF with other frameworks and theories are therefore an important basis for future development of the ACF (Weible et al. 2011). Contributions to this special issue add new empirical insights that should inspire further analysis of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the ACF as a basis for understanding the policy process across contexts. We expect these empirical efforts to be followed by future applications that continue to address the basic premises of the framework through critical theoretical analysis and methodological innovation. This will also support scholarship focused on testing the micro-level theories of human behavior embedded in the ACF, and the degree to which political or social contexts are likely to matter for processes such as the learning of new beliefs, shifting norms of behavior, or the formation of cooperative networks (Henry and Dietz 2012). Finally, although limitations of applying the ACF outside of Europe and North America are evident in this special issue as well as through the applications listed in Table 1, we encourage the continued comparative development of the framework across these different contexts. Assumptions may need to be questioned, theory developed, context better incorporated, and hypotheses rejected and revised to enable comparisons and valid insights. We see no other way to gain traction in issues of coalitions, learning, and policy change other than to continue to apply the ACF outside of North America and Western Europe. The challenge, of course, is not to blindly apply the ACF without the incorporation of the context of study, and then to offer best practices for incorporating such contexts into the framework. This introduction of the ACF suggests that the framework is somewhat malleable and can adapt to different contexts. In this regard, we agree with Cairney’s (2012: 19) assessment that “the ACF resembles one of its coalitions; its authors engage in learning to refine the ACF’s secondary aspects while protecting the core argument. This is no accident. Rather, it reflects a “‘Lakatosian’ approach to science that may be relevant to the overall study of public policy”. Frameworks and theories that cannot, in some way, adapt to scholarly mistakes or new information will probably be discarded too quickly to permit

Policy Change in Comparative Contexts

309

learning among the applicators, especially given the challenges in generating instruments, the context of our observations, and the difficulties in communication. Overcoming these challenges will happen through the application of the ACF in different contexts, which will provide important insights into the strength and weaknesses of the ACF’s logic and help propel the literature forward. We adhere to Simon’s advice in his metaphorical description of how developing good theory is like designing a motor: In a benign environment we would learn from the motor [framework] only what it had been called upon to do; in a taxing environment we would learn something about its internal structure – specially about those aspects of the internal structure that were chiefly instrument in limiting performance. (Simon 1996: 12) Through the application of the ACF in the taxing contexts of China, Philippines, Kenya, and India, we are able to learn more about the strengths and limitations of the performance of the advocacy coalition framework.

Note 1. The 27 applications listed in Table 1 were collected using a key word search on the phrase “advocacy coalition framework” in ProQuest and Google Scholar. The results were then manually searched and affirmed (or not) to have used the ACF as a principal theoretical lens for the empirical application. See Jenkins-Smith et al. (2014) for a description of the 224 applications of the framework.

References Ainuson, K., 2009, An advocacy coalition approach to water policy change in Ghana: A look at belief systems and policy oriented learning. Journal of African Studies and Development, 1(2), pp. 16–27. Arnold, F. E., 2003, Native forest policy in Chile: Understanding sectoral process dynamics in a country with an emerging economy. International Forestry Review, 5(4), pp. 317–328. doi:10.1505/IFOR.5.4.317.22662 Beverwijk, J., 2005, The Genesis of a System: Coalition Formation in Mozambican Higher Education, 1993–2003, (The Netherlands: CHEPS/UT). Beverwijk, J., Goedegebuure, L. and Huisman, J., 2008, Policy change in Nascent subsystems: Mozambican higher education policy 1993–2003. Policy Sciences, 41, pp. 357–377. doi:10.1007/s11077-008-9072-0 Bulkeley, H., 2000, Discourse coalitions and the Australian climate change policy network. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18(6), pp. 727–748. doi:10.1068/c9905j Cairney, P., 2012, Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues, (New York, NY: Palgrave). Capano, G., 2009, Understanding policy change as an epistemological and theoretical problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11, pp. 7–31. doi:10.1080/13876980802648284 Capano, G. and Howlett, M., 2009, Introduction: The determinants of policy change: Advancing the debate. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), pp. 1–5. doi:10.1080/ 13876980802648227 Carter, N., 2001, The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Carvalho, G. O., 2001, Metallurgical development in the Caraja’s area: A case study of the evolution of environmental policy formation in Brazil. Society and Natural Resources, 14, pp. 127–143. doi:10.1080/ 089419201300000535 Chen, P., 2003, Advocating online censorship. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(2), pp. 41–64. doi:10.1111/1467-8497.00324 Christopoulos, D. and Ingold, K., 2011, Distinguishing between political brokerage & political entrepreneurship. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 10, pp. 36–42. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.01.006

310

A. D. Henry et al.

Dressel, B., 2012, Targeting the public purse: Advocacy coalitions and public finance in the Philippines. Administration & Society, 44(6 Suppl), pp. 65S–84S. doi:10.1177/0095399712460055 Easton, D., 1971, The Political System: An Inquiry Into the State of Political Sciences, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc). Elliott, C. and Schlaepfer, R., 2001, The advocacy coalition framework: Application to the policy process for the development of forest certification in Sweden. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), pp. 642–661. doi:10.1080/13501760110064438 Farquharson, K., 2003, Influencing policy transnationally: Pro- and anti-tobacco global advocacy networks. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(4), pp. 80–92. doi:10.1111/j..2003.00351.x Feldman, E. J., Heidenheimer, A.J., Heclo, H., Adams, C.T., Smith, T.A., Hayward, J., Watson, M., 1978, Comparative public policy: Field or method? Comparative Politics, 10(2), pp. 287–305. doi:10.2307/421650 Francesch-Huidobro, M. and Mai, Q., 2012, Climate advocacy coalitions in Guangdong, China. Administration & Society, 44, pp. 43S–64S. doi:10.1177/0095399712460068 Freeman, G. P., 1985, National styles and policy sectors: Explaining structured variation. Journal of Public Policy, 5(4), pp. 467–496. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00003287 Gupta, K., 2012, Comparative public policy: Using the comparative method to advance our understanding of the policy process. Policy Studies Journal, 40(S1), pp. 11–26. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00443.x Gupta, K., 2014, A Comparative Policy Analysis of Coalition Strategies: Case Studies of Nuclear Energy and Forest Management in India. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(4), pp. 356–372. doi:10.1080/13876988.2014.886812 Han, H., Swedlow, B. and Unger, D., 2014, Policy Advocacy Coalitions as Causes of Policy Change in China? Analyzing Evidence from Contemporary Environmental Politics. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(4), pp. 313–334. doi:10.1080/13876988.2013.857065 Henry, A. D., 2011, Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), pp. 361–383. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00413.x Henry, A. D. and Dietz, Th., 2011, Information, networks, and the complexity of trust in commons governance. International Journal of the Commons, 5(2), pp. 188–212. Henry, A. D. and Dietz, Th., 2012, Understanding environmental cognition. Organization & Environment, 25(3), pp. 238–258. doi:10.1177/1086026612456538 Hogl, K., 2000, The Austrian domestic forest policy community in change? Impacts of the globalisation and Europeanisation of forest politics. Forest Policy and Economics, 1, pp. 3–13. Holmes, T. and Scoones, I., 2001, Participatory environmental processes: Experiences from North and South, in: Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment. International Institute of Environment and Empowerment. International Institute for Environment and Development, Sustainable Agriculture Programme. Howlett, M. and Cashore, B., 2009, The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), pp. 33–46. doi:10.1080/13876980802648144 Hsu, S., 2005, Advocacy coalitions and policy change on nuclear power utilization in Taiwan. The Social Science Journal, 42, pp. 215–229. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.002 Ingold, K., 2011, Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), pp. 435–459. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00416.x Ingold, K. and Varone, F., 2011, Treating policy brokers seriously: Evidence from the climate policy. Journal of Public Administration Research Theory (JPART), 22, pp. 319–346. Jang, J. H. and Han, C. H., 2010, Advocacy Coalitions in Regulating Big Business in South Korea: Change of Chaebols Holding Company Policy. Korea Observer, 41(2), pp. 161–188. Jenkins-Smith, H., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. and Sabatier, P., 2014, The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research, in: P. Sabatier and C. Weible (Eds) Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), pp. 183–223. John, P., 1998, Analyzing Public Policy, (New York, NY: Cassell). Jones, B. D. and Baumgartner, F. R., 2012, From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), pp. 1–20. doi:10.1111/ j.1541-0072.2011.00431.x Kickert, W., 2003, Beneath consensual corporatism: Traditions of governance in the Netherlands. Public Administration, 81(1), pp. 119–140. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00339 Kim, S., 2003, Irresolvable cultural conflicts and conservation/development arguments: Analysis of Korea’s Saemangeum project. Policy Sciences, 36, pp. 125–149. doi:10.1023/A:1024866323901

Policy Change in Comparative Contexts

311

Kim, P. S., 2012, Advocacy coalitions and policy change: The case of South Korea’s Saemangeum project. Administration & Society, 44, pp. 85S–103S. doi:10.1177/0095399712460078 Kingiri, A. N., 2011, Conflicting advocacy coalitions in an evolving modern biotechnology regulatory subsystem: Policy learning and influencing Kenya’s regulatory policy process. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), pp. 199–211. doi:10.3152/030234211X12924093660273 Kingiri, A. N., 2014, Comparative Strategic Behavior of Advocacy Coalitions and Policy Brokers: The Case of Kenya’s Biosafety Regulatory Policy. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(4), pp. 373–395. doi:10.1080/13876988.2014.942569 Kübler, D., 2001, Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework: An application to Swiss drug policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), pp. 623–641. doi:10.1080/1350176011 0064429 Lahat, L., 2011, How can leaders’ perceptions guide policy analysis in an era of governance? Policy Sciences, 44(2), pp. 135–155. Laudan, L., 1977, Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press). Leifeld, P., 2013, Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: A discourse network analysis of German Pension politics. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), pp. 169–198. doi:10.1111/ psj.12007 Li, W., 2012, Advocating environmental interests in China. Administration & Society, 44(6 Suppl), pp. 26S–42S. doi:10.1177/0095399712460079 Lindvall, J. and Rothstein, B., 2006, Sweden: The fall of the strong state. Scandinavian Political Studies, 29(1), pp. 47–63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2006.00141.x Marfo, E. and McKeown, J. P., 2013, Negotiating the supply of legal timber to the domestic market in Ghana: Explaining policy change intent using the advocacy coalition framework. Forest Policy and Economics, 32, pp. 23–31. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.12.007 McDougal, M. S., 1952, The comparative study of law for policy purposes: Value clarification as an instrument of democratic world order. The Yale Law Journal, 61, pp. 915–946. doi:10.2307/793456 Montefrio, M., 2014, State versus Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: Comparative Analysis of Stable System Parameters, Policy Constraints and the Process of Delegitimation. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(4), pp. 335–355. doi:10.1080/13876988.2014.938912 Montefrio, M. and Sonnenfeld, D. A., 2011, Forests, fuel, or food? Competing coalitions and biofuels policy making in the Philippines. The Journal of Environment & Development, 20(1), pp. 27–49. doi:10.1177/ 1070496510394321 Nagel, P., 2006, Policy games and venue shopping: Working the stakeholder interface to broker policy change in Rehab services. Australian Journal of Policy Analysis, 65(4), pp. 3–16. Nohrstedt, D. and Weible, C. M., 2010, The logic of policy change after crisis: Proximity and subsystem interaction. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 1(2), pp. 1–32. doi:10.2202/1944-4079.1035 Ortmann, S., 2012, Policy advocacy in a competitive authoritarian regime: The growth of civil society and agenda setting in Singapore. Administration & Society, 44(6 Suppl), pp. 13S–25S. doi:10.1177/009539971 2460080 Parsons, W., 1995, Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis, (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar). Rommetvedt, H., 2005, Norway: Resources count, but votes decide? From neo-corporatist representation to neo-pluralist parliamentarism. West European Politics, 28(4), pp. 740–763. doi:10.1080/01402380500 216674 Runkle, K., LaFollette, S. and Alamu, J., 2013, Public health policy options for Improving well-Water Quality in West Point, Liberia. World Medical & Health Policy, 5(4), pp. 304–323. doi:10.1002/wmh3.73 Sabatier, P. A., 1988, An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, pp. 129–168. doi:10.1007/BF00136406 Sabatier, P. A., 1998, The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), pp. 98–130. doi:10.1080/13501768880000051 Sabatier, P. A., 1999, Fostering the development of policy theory, in: P. A. Sabatier (Ed) Theories of the Policy Process, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), pp. 261–276. Sabatier, P. A. and Jenkins-Smith, H., 1993, Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).

312

A. D. Henry et al.

Sabatier, P. A. and Jenkins-Smith, H., 1999, The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment, in: P. A. Sabatier (ed) Theories of the Policy Process, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), pp. 117–166. Sabatier, P. A. and Weible, C. M., 2007, The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications, in: P. A. Sabatier (Ed) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), pp. 189–222. Santa, E. D., 2013, The politics of implementing Philippine tourism policy: A policy network and advocacy coalition framework approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18(8), pp. 913–933. doi:10.1080/ 10941665.2012.717958 Sato, H., 1999, The advocacy coalition framework and the policy process analysis: The case of smoking control in Japan. Policy Studies Journal, 27(1), pp. 28–44. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01951.x Schattschneider, E. E., 1960, The Semi-Sovereign People, (New York, NY: Holt). Scott, I., 2012, Analyzing advocacy issues in Asia. Administration and Society, 44, pp. 4S–12S. doi:10.1177/ 0095399712460081 Simon, H. A., 1996, The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press). Steinberg, P. F., 2003, Understanding policy change in developing countries: The spheres of influence framework. Global Environmental Politics, 3(1), pp. 11–32. doi:10.1162/152638003763336365 Tewari, D. D., 2001, Is commercial forestry sustainable in South Africa? The changing institutional and policy needs. Forest Policy and Economics, 2, pp. 333–353. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00028-4 Villamor, G. B., 2006, The rise of protected area policy in the Philippine forest policy: An analysis from the perspective of Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Forest Policy and Economics, 9(2), pp. 162–178. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.04.003 Weible, C. M. and Nohrstedt, D., 2012, The advocacy coalition framework: Coalitions, learning, and policy change, in: E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, and X. Wu (Eds) Handbook of Public Policy, (New York, NY: Routledge). Weible, C. M. and Sabatier, P. A., 2005, Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in California. The Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), pp. 181–201. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00101.x Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D. and deLeon, P., 2011, A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: An introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), pp. 349–360. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00412.x Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A. and McQueen, K., 2009, Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), pp. 121–140. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00299.x Zafonte, M. and Sabatier, P. A., 2004, Short-term versus long-term coalitions in the policy process: Automotive pollution control, 1963–1989. The Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), pp. 75–107. doi:10.1111/j.0190292X.2004.00054.x

Suggest Documents