Policy Sciences

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 125–154 | Cite as

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

Research Article

Abstract

The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) has developed into a comprehensive theoretical approach to the policymaking process. Empirical findings have however posed challenges in understanding important questions about the identification of advocacy coalitions, explanations for possibilities and sources of shifting coalitions, and the role of exploitive coalitions in policy change. We argue that the integration of relevant aspects of cultural theory (CT) into the ACF provides answers to these open questions. First, the theoretical synthesis of both perspectives suggests an exhaustive typology of four distinct sets of policy actors’ cultural biases. In environmental and natural resource policy, they are mainly expressed by myths about physical nature that can be understood as deep core beliefs that entail, guide, and constrain policy core beliefs in the policy subsystem. Second, linking ACF and CT allows for the conceptualization of cognitive mechanisms for strategic cross-cultural alliances between different advocacy coalitions, which are enabled through specific shared or complementary core beliefs. Third, the synthesis provides an explanation for exploitive coalitions who take advantage of issues triggered by external and internal disruptive events through strategic issue (re-)framing and shifting coalitions that, together with ideological congruence related to veto and institutional players, make major policy change possible. To illustrate our theoretical arguments, we present a long-term analysis of policy change through forest sector reforms and forest certification in Germany and Bulgaria. We conclude by underlining the promising explanatory power of combining ACF and CT as a basis for developing a more comprehensive cognitive theory of policymaking in the context of environmental and natural resource management.

Keywords

Actors Beliefs Coalition building Cultural bias Forest policy Myths of nature Natural resources Policy change 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank our colleagues Michael Memmler and Yvonne Hengst-Ehrhart for providing empirical data on Germany for this paper, and Karl-Reinhard Volz for his support and advice on our research in both countries. We thank Emily Kilham and Brian Shaw for doing the proof reading. We are very grateful to all interviewees for sharing their knowledge on forest policy in Bulgaria and Germany. Finally, we are grateful to our funders, the European Union’s 7th Framework Program for Research (FP-7) under Grant Agreement No FP7-282887 (INTEGRAL Project), the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), and the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN).

References

  1. 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), 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Tal, D., & Teichman, Y. (2005). Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict: Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BDF. (2007). Bündnis für den Wald gegründet. Sicherung der Gemeinwohlfunktion des Waldes zentrales Anliegen. Press release from 20th of April 2007.Google Scholar
  4. Boin, A., ‘t Hart, P., & McConell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: Political and Policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bukowski, J. (2007). Spanish water policy and the national hydrological plan: An advocacy coalition approach to policy change. South European Society and Politics, 12(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnett, M., & Davis, C. (2002). Getting out the cut, politics and national forest timber harvests, 1960–1995. Administration and Society, 34, 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton, P. (2006). Modernising the policy process: Making policy research more significant? Policy Studies, 27(3), 173–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capano, G. (2009). Understanding policy change as an epistemological and theoretical problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coyle, D. (1994). This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land: Cultural Conflict in Environmental and Land-Use Regulation. In D. J. Coyle & R. J. Ellis (Eds.), Politics, policy, and culture (pp. 33–50). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davidsen, C. (2006). Sources of change in community forestryThe roles of learning and beliefs in the policy process: A comparative analysis of Ecuador, Mexico and Canada. Doctoral dissertation 2006. Technische Universität Dresden, Germany: Dresden.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, C., & Davis, S. (1988). Analyzing change in public lands policymaking: From subsystems to advocacy coalitions. Policy Studies Journal, 17(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DFWR. (2007). Forst- und Holzwirtschaft gründen Plattform Forst und Holz. DFWR-Aktuell 07/2007. Press release from 10th of May 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Elliot, C., & Schläpfer, R. (2001a). Understanding forest certification using the advocacy coalition framework. Forest Policy and Economics, 2(3–4), 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliot, C., & Schläpfer, R. (2001b). The advocacy coalition framework: Application to the policy process for the development of forest certification in Sweden. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 642–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elliott, C. (2000). Forest certification: A policy perspective. CIFOR Thesis Series: Jakarta.Google Scholar
  17. Fenger, M., & Klok, P.-J. (2001). Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: A contribution to the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 34(1), 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischbach-Einhoff, J. (2005). Die politische Positionierung der Forstverwaltungen in Deutschland. Freiburger Schriften zur Forst- und Umweltpolitik. Remagen-Oberwinter: Verlag Dr. Kessel.Google Scholar
  19. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2004). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  20. Grendstad, G., & Selle, P. (2000). Cultural myths of human and physical nature: Integrated or Separated? Risk Analysis, 20(1), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hann, A. (1995). Sharpening up Sabatier: Belief systems and public policy. Politics, 15(1), 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henry, A. D. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henry, A. D., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. M. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoberg, G. (1996). Putting ideas in their place: A response to “Learning and Change in the British Columbia Forest Policy Sector”. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 29, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holling, C. S. (1979). Myths of ecological stability. In G. Smart & W. Stansbury (Eds.), Studies in crisis management. Montreal: Butterworth.Google Scholar
  27. Hoppe, R. (2002). Cultures of public policy problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 4, 305–326.Google Scholar
  28. Hoppe, R., & Grin, J. (1999). Pollution through traffic and transport: The praxis of cultural pluralism in parliamentary technology assessment. In M. Thompson, G. Grendstad, & P. Selle (Eds.), Cultural theory as political science (pp. 154–169). London and New York: Routledge/ECPR Studies in Political Science.Google Scholar
  29. Hysing, E., & Olsson, J. (2008). Contextualising the advocacy coalition framework: Theorising change in Swedish forest policy. Environmental Politics, 17(5), 730–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ingold, K. (2011). Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C. L., Gupta, K., & Ripberger, J. (2014). Belief system continuity and change in policy advocacy coalitions: Using cultural theory to specify belief systems, coalitions, and sources of change. The Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 484–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahan, D. M., & Braman, D. (2006). Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale and Law Policy Review, 24, 149–172.Google Scholar
  33. Kim, S. (2003). Irresolvable cultural conflicts and conservation/development arguments: Analysis of Korea’s Saemangeum project. Policy Sciences, 36, 125–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kröger, L. (2005). Development of the Finnish agri-environmental policy as a learning process. European Environment, 15, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Layzer, J. (2006). Fish stories: Science, advocacy, and policy change in New England fishery management. The Policy Studies Journal, 34(1), 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lockhart, C. (1999). Cultural contributions to explaining institutional form, political change, and rational decisions. Comparative Political Studies, 32(October), 862–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mamadouh, V. (1999). Grid-group cultural theory: An introduction. GeoJournal, 47, 395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mann, S. (1998). Konflikte in der Forstwirtschaft. Konflikttheoretische Analyse der forstpolitischen Diskussion über die Krise der Forstwirtschaft. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Matti, S., & Sandström, A. (2011). The rationale determining advocacy coalitions: Examining coordination networks and corresponding beliefs. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 385–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (8th ed.). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
  41. Meijerink, S. (2005). Understanding policy stability and change: The interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945–2003. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 1060–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Memmler, M., & Schraml, U. (2008). Waldzukünfte. Akteurslandkarte. Bericht über die Analyse relevanter Akteure der Waldpolitik in Deutschland. Freiburg: Institut für Forst- und Umweltpolitik, University of Freiburg. http://www.ioew.net/downloads/downloaddateien/Waldzukuenfte_Akteurslandkarte.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2013.
  43. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded resource book. Thousand oaks, CA, and London, UK: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  44. Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Möltgen, K., & Pippke, W. (2009). New Public Management und die Demokratisierung der öffentlichen Verwaltung. In E. Czerwick, W. H. Lorig, & E. Treutner (Eds.), Die öffentliche Verwaltung in der Demokratie der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 199–224). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nohrstedt, D. (2005). External shocks and policy change: Three Mile Island and Swedish nuclear energy policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 1041–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. M. (2010). The logic of policy change after crisis: Proximity and subsystem interaction. Risks, Hazards, and Crisis in Public Policy, 1(2), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nüßlein, S. (2005). Forstreformen in den Bundesländern. AFZ – Der Wald, 13, 679–683.Google Scholar
  49. Ott, W. (1987). Forstpolitische Zielsetzung zwischen Ökonomie und Ökologie. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift, 37(34), 873–876.Google Scholar
  50. Ott, W. (2003). Die Zerstörung der Landesforstverwaltung in Baden-Württemberg. AFZ-Der Wald, 58(18), 918–923.Google Scholar
  51. Ripberger, J., Gupta, K., Silva, C., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (2014). Cultural theory and the measurement of deep core beliefs within the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. PS. Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sabatier, P. A. (1999). The need for better theories. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 3–17). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sabatier, P., Hunter, S., & McLaughlin, S. (1987). The devil shift: Perceptions and misperceptions of opponents. The Western Political Quarterly, 40(3), 449–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sabatier, P. A., Loomis, J., & McCarthy, C. (1995). Hierarchical controls, professional norms, local constituencies, and budget maximization: An analysis of U.S. Forest Service planning decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 204–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sabatier, P., & Weible, C. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189–220). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  59. Sabatier, P., & Zafonte, M. (1995). The views of Bay/Delta water policy activists on endangered species issues. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 2(Winter), 131–146.Google Scholar
  60. Schanz, H. (1996). Forstliche Nachhaltigkeit. Sozialwissenschaftliche Analyse der Begriffsinhalte und -funktionen. Schriften aus dem Institut für Forstökonomie, 4. Freiburg: University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
  61. Schlager, E. (1995). Policy making and collective action: Defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 28, 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schlager, E. (1999). A comparison of frameworks, theories and models of policy processes. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 233–260). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  63. Schlager, E. (2007). A comparison of frameworks, theories and models of the policy process. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy (2nd ed., pp. 293–319). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  64. Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49, 651–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schwarz, M., & Thompson, M. (1990). Divided we stand: Redefining politics, technology and social choice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sobeck, J. (2003). Comparing policy process frameworks: What do they tell us about group membership and participation for policy development? Administration and Society, 35, 350–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sotirov, M. (2010). Waldpolitik im Wandel. Eine Politikfeldanalyse im Transformationsprozess Bulgariens. Freiburger Schriften zur Forst- und Umweltpolitik. Remagen-Oberwinter: Verlag Kessel.Google Scholar
  68. Sotirov, M., & Memmler, M. (2012). The advocacy coalition framework in natural resource policy studies—Recent experiences and further prospects. Forest Policy and Economics, 16(2012), 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stewart, J. (2006). Value conflict and policy change. Review of Policy Research, 23(1), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Swaffield, S. (1998). Contextual meanings in policy discourse: A case study of language use concerning resource policy in the New Zealand high country. Policy Sciences, 31, 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Swedlow, B. (2002). Toward cultural analysis in policy analysis: Picking up where Aaron Wildavsky left off. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 4, 267–285.Google Scholar
  72. Swedlow, B. (2011a). Editor’s introduction: Cultural theory’s contributions to political science. In Symposium: A cultural theory of politics. PS Political Science & Politics (October 2011, pp. 703–710).Google Scholar
  73. Swedlow, B. (2011b). Cultural surprises as sources of sudden, big policy change. In Symposium: A cultural theory of politics. PS: Political Science & Politics (October 2011, pp. 736–739).Google Scholar
  74. Swedlow, B. (2014). Advancing policy theory with cultural theory: An introduction to the special issue. The Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tewari, D. D. (2001). Is commercial forestry sustainable in South Africa? The changing institutional and policy needs. Forest Policy and Economics, 2(2001), 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  77. Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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(2006), 162–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Volz, K.-R. (1997). Waldnutzungskonzepte und ihre forstpolitische Bewertung. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 116, 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weber, N., Härdter, U., Rother, A., & Weisshaupt, M. (2000). Forstpolitische Aktivitäten von Umweltverbänden in Deutschland - eine vorläufige Bestandsaufnahme. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung, 171(8), 144–153.Google Scholar
  81. Weible, C. M. (2005). Beliefs and policy influence: An advocacy coalition approach to policy networks. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D., & deLeon, P. (2011). A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: An introduction to the special issue. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. The American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wildavsky, A. (2006). Cultural analysis: Politics, public law, and administration. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  87. Winkel, G. (2007). Waldnaturschutzpolitik in Deutschland. Bestandsaufnahmen, Analysen und Entwurf einer Story-Line. Freiburger Schriften zur Forst- und Umweltpolitik, 13. Remagen-Oberwinter: Verlag Dr. Kessel.Google Scholar
  88. Winkel, G., & Sotirov, M. (2011). An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of “new modes of governance” in Bulgaria and Germany. Forest Policy and Economics, 13, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zafonte, M., & Sabatier, P. (1998). Shared beliefs and imposed interdependencies as determinants of ally networks in overlapping subsystems. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(4), 473–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zafonte, M., & Sabatier, P. (2004). Short-term versus long-term coalitions in the policy process: Automotive pollution control, 1963–1989. Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 75–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Forest and Environmental PolicyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations