Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 549–561 | Cite as

Plus ça Change, Plus C’est La Même Chose? A review of Paul Sabatier’s “An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein”

  • Adam WellsteadEmail author
Research Note

Abstract

Paul Sabatier’s 1988 Policy Sciences paper, “An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein” (21:129–168), introduced the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) to the policy discipline. Over the past 30 years, the ACF has become a generalizable theory of policy change. Another feature is the ongoing critical self-assessment and revisions of the framework’s theoretical and empirical assumptions. As a result, there have been many reviews of the ACF. However, the popularity of Sabatier’s contribution and the most cited article in this journal is its wider significance beyond the ACF. A bibliometric analysis of 737 peer-reviewed publications citing this paper is undertaken. This is followed by a summary chronicling ACF reviews and scholarship comparing the ACF with other policy process theories and frameworks.

Keywords

Advocacy coalition framework Bibliometric method Causality Policy change Policy learning Sabatier 

References

  1. Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston, NY: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  2. Cairney, P. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies? Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cairney, P. (2015). Sabatier’s advocacy coalition model of policy change. In E. Page, S. Balla, & M. Lodge (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of the classics of public policy and administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cairney, P., & Heikkila, T. (2014). A comparison of theories of the policy process. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 363–407). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cashore, B., Hoberg, G., Howlett, M., Rayner, J., & Wilson, J. (2001). In search of sustainability. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fenger, M., & Klok, P. J. (2001). Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: A contribution to the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 34(2), 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. Public Administration Concepts Cases, 413, 46–57.Google Scholar
  8. Heikkila, T., & Cairney, P. (2018). Comparison of theories of the policy process. The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution and future challenges. In C. Weible & P. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  9. Henry, A., 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, SI), 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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/Revue canadienne de science politique, 29(1), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Howlett, M., McConnell, A., & Perl, A. (2017). Moving policy theory forward: Connecting multiple stream and advocacy coalition frameworks to policy cycle models of analysis. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jang, S., Weible, C. M., & Park, K. (2016). Policy processes in South Korea through the lens of the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 9(3), 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jenkins-Smith, H., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C., & Ingold, K. (2018). The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution and future challenges. In C. Weible & P. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jenkins-Smith, H., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2014). The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In P. A. Sabatier & C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  15. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1994). Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of Public Policy, 14(2), 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. John, P. (2003). Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions, and punctuations: Using evolutionary theory to explain policy change? Policy Studies Journal, 31(4), 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kemp, R., & Weehuizen, R. (2005). Policy learning: What does it mean and how can we study it? PUBLIC project Innovation in the Public Sector. Maastricht: MERIT, University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  18. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Bostan: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  19. Lertzman, K., Rayner, J., & Wilson, J. (1996a). Learning and change in the British Columbia forest policy sector: A consideration of Sabatier’s advocacy coalition framework. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 29(1), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lertzman, K., Rayner, J., & Wilson, J. (1996b). On the place of ideas: A reply to George Hoberg. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 29(1), 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindquist, E. A. (1992). Public managers and policy communities: Learning to meet new challenges. Canadian Public Administration, 35(2), 127–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nohrstedt, D., & Olofsson, K. (2016). A review of applications of the advocacy coalition framework in Swedish policy processes. European Policy Analysis, 2(2), 18–42.Google Scholar
  23. Nowlin, M. C. (2011). Theories of the policy process: State of the research and emerging trends. Policy Studies Journal, 39(s1), 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pierce, J. J., Peterson, H. L., Jones, M. D., Garrard, S. P., & Vu, T. (2017). There and back again: A tale of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 45(S1), S13–S46. Google Scholar
  25. Rayner, J., Howlett, M., Wilson, J., Cashore, B., & Hoberg, G. (2001). Privileging the sub-sector: Critical sub-sectors and sectoral relationships in forest policy-making. Forest Policy and Economics, 2(3), 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sabatier, P. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2), 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sabatier, P. A. (1999). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  30. Sabatier, P. (2007). Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  31. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). The advocacy coalition framework: Assessment, revisions and implications for scholars and practitioners. In P. Sabatier & H. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 211–235). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  32. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sabatier, P., & Weible, C. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. Sabatier & C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 189–222). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (Eds.). (2014). Theories of the policy process. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49(3), 651–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sotirov, M., & Memmler, M. (2012). The advocacy coalition framework in natural resource policy studies—Recent experiences and further prospects. Forest Policy and Economics, 16, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007). VOS: A new method for visualizing similarities between objects. In R. Decker & H. J. Lenz (Eds.), Advances in data analysis: Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation e.V., Freie Universität Berlin (pp. 299–306). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weible, C. M., & Nohrstedt, D. (2012). The advocacy coalition framework: Coalitions, learning, and policy change. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 125–137). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Weible, C., & Sabatier, P. (2018). Theories of the policy process (4th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  41. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wellstead, A. (1996). The role of the advocacy coalition framework in understanding forest policy change: Alberta and Ontario. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  43. Wellstead, A. M., & Stedman, R. C. (2007). Coordinating future adaptation policies across Canadian natural resources. Climate Policy, 7(1), 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson, J. (1987). Forest conservation in British Columbia, 1935–85: Reflections on a barren political debate. BC Studies. The British Columbian Quarterly, 76, 3–32.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Zahariadis, N. (1998). Comparing three lenses of policy choice. Policy Studies Journal, 26(3), 434–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations