Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 23–40 | Cite as

Policy Conflict Framework

  • Christopher M. Weible
  • Tanya Heikkila
Research Article

Abstract

This essay introduces a Policy Conflict Framework to guide and organize theoretical, practical, and empirical research to fill the vacuum that surrounds policy conflicts. The framework centers on a conceptual definition of an episode of policy conflict that distinguishes between cognitive and behavioral characteristics. The cognitive characteristics of a policy conflict episode include divergence in policy positions among two or more actors, perceived threats from opponents’ policy positions, and unwillingness to compromise. These cognitive characteristics manifest in a range of behavioral characteristics (e.g., framing contests, lobbying, building networks). Episodes of policy conflicts are shaped by a policy setting, which consists of different levels of action where conflicts may emerge (political, policy subsystem and policy action situations), interpersonal and intrapersonal policy actor attributes, events, and the policy issue. In turn, the outputs and outcomes of policy conflicts produce feedback effects that shape the policy setting. This essay ends with an agenda for advancing studies of policy conflicts, both methodologically and theoretically.

Keywords

Policy conflict Policy process theories Technical debates Policy analysis and evaluation Political analysis Public policy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the AirWaterGas Sustainability Research Network funded by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CBET-1,240,584. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Adam, S., & Kriesi, H. (2007). The network approach. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 129–154). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Axelrod, R. M. (2006). The evolution of cooperation (Revised ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Barke, R. P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists risk perceptions, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 13(4), 1585–1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. (1998). Basic Interests: The importance of groups in politics and in political science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. C., & Leach, B. L. (2009). Lobbying and policy change. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bentley, A. F. (1908). The process of government, a study of social pressures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Billig, M. G., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blum, G. (2007). Islands of agreement: Managing enduring armed rivalries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (2017). Public opinion. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1972). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Conlan, T. J., Posner, P. L., & Beam, D. R. (2014). Pathways to power. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  15. d’Estree, T. P., & Colby, B. (2004). Braving the currents: Evaluating environmental conflict resolution in the river basins of the American west. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Dahl, R. A. (1963). Modern political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Dahl, R. A. (2006). On political equality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Eck, K. (2012). In data we trust? A comparison of UCDP GED and ACLED conflict events datasets. Cooperation and Conflict, 47(1), 124–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fearon, J. D. (1997). Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation. International Organization, 52(2), 269–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences: Dramas of mediating public disputes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gais, T. L., & Walker, J. L., Jr. (1991). Pathways to influence in American politics. In J. L. Walker Jr. (Ed.), Mobilizing interest groups in America (pp. 104–111). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goertz, G. (2006). Social science concepts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Grossman, M. (2014). Artists of the possible: Governing networks and American policy change since 1945. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heclo, H. (1974). Modern social policy in Britain and Sweden: From relief to income maintenance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new political system (pp. 87–124). Washington, DC: Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  26. Heikkila, T., & Schlager, E. (2012). Addressing the Issues: The choice of environmental conflict resolution venues in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 774–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heikkila, T., & Weible, C. M. (2017). Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: A study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem. Policy Sciences. (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  28. Hensel, P. R. (2001). Contentious issues and world politics: The management of territorial claims in the Americas, 1816–1992. International Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hensel, P. R., Mitchell, S. M., Sowers, T. E., II, & Thyne, C. L. (2008). Bones of contention: Comparing territorial, maritime, and river issues. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(1), 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1998). Policy subsystem configurations and policy change: Operationalizing the postpositivist analysis of the politics of the policy process. Policy Studies Journal, 26(3), 466–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huth, P. K., & Allee, T. L. (2002). The democratic peace and territorial conflict in the twentieth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ingold, K., & Varone, F. (2012). Treating policy brokers seriously: evidence from the climate policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 219–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1990). Democratic politics and policy analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  35. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2014a). The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 183–224). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pg.Google Scholar
  36. Jenkins‐Smith, H., Silva, C. L., Gupta, K., & Ripberger, J. T. (2014b). Belief system continuity and change in policy advocacy coalitions: Using cultural theory to specify belief systems, coalitions, and sources of change. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 484–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones, B. D. (2002). Politics and the architecture of choice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jones, B. D., & 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), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, XLVII, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  41. Knight, J. (1992). Institutions and social conflict. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knill, C. (2013). The study of morality policy: analytical implications from a public policy perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krehbiel, K. (1998). Pivotal politics: A theory of US lawmaking. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. L.Google Scholar
  45. Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A preview of policy sciences. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  46. Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliot, M. L. P. (Eds.). (2003). Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174.Google Scholar
  50. Mattes, M. (2016). “Chipping away at the issues”: Piecemeal dispute resolution and territorial conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 25.Google Scholar
  51. May, P. J., & Jochim, A. E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (Eds.). (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. McConnell, A. (2010). Understanding policy success: Rethinking public policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Meier, K. (1994). The politics of sin. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  55. Mitchell, J. M., & Mitchell, W. C. (1968). Political analysis & public policy: An introduction to political science. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Company.Google Scholar
  56. Mucciaroni, G. (2011). Are debates about “morality policy” really about morality? Framing opposition to gay and lesbian rights, Policy Studies Journal, 39(2), 187–216.Google Scholar
  57. Nohrstedt, D. (2010). Do advocacy coalitions matter? Crisis and change in Swedish nuclear energy policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. M. (2010). The logic of policy change after crisis: Proximity and subsystem interaction. Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy, 1(2), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Pralle, S. B. (2006). Branching out digging In. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Putnam, R. D. (1976). The comparative study of political elites. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Putnam, L., & Wondolleck, J. (2003). Intractability: Definitions, dimensions, and distinctions. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. L. P. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and 34 cases (pp. 35–62). Washington DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–168). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  64. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  65. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  66. Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T. D., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human ecology review, 6(2), 81–97.Google Scholar
  68. Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. L. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  69. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2007). Contentious politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Weible, C. M. (2008). Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 615–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Welch, D. D. (2014). A guide to ethics and public policy: Finding our way. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Wolf, A. T., Yoffe, S. B., & Giordano, M. (2003). International waters: Identifying basins at risk. Water policy, 5(1), 29–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public AffairsUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations