The Role of Ideas in Evaluating and Addressing Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations

  • Christopher M. Weible
  • Tanya Heikkila
  • Jonathan J. Pierce
Part of the Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy book series (PEPP)


Many policy scholars have promoted and studied the influence of paradigms and ideas on politics and policy (Béland, 2009, 2010; Blyth, 2001; Campbell, 1998; Goldstein & Keohane, 1993; Hall, 1993; Jacobs, 2009; Parsons, 2002). The study of ideas is based on the observation that most political debates involve arguments about which actions to take and how these actions correspond to outcomes. Set within a dominant paradigm or competing paradigms, such arguments are ideational as participants depend on reasoning, utilize concepts, apply their values, and examine evidence about alternative policy options (John, 2012). In this chapter, we examine the effect of different types of ideas on the evaluation of current regulatory policy as well as the perception of future policy proposals.


Hydraulic Fracture Cultural Theory Core Belief Deep Core Energy Information Administration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Béland, D. (2009). Ideas, Institutions, and Policy Change. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 701–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Béland, D. (2010). The Idea of Power and the Role of Ideas. Political Studies Review, 8(2), 145–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (2010). Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research. Oxford: Oxford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blyth, M. (1997). Moving the Political Middle: Redefining the Boundaries of State Action. The Political Quarterly, 68(3), 217–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blyth, M. (2001). The Transformation of the Swedish Model: Economic Ideas, Distributional Conflict, and Institutional Change. World Politics, 54(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blyth, M. (2002). Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brazilian, M., Brandt, A. R., Billman, L., Heath, G., Logan, J., Mann, M., Melaina, M., Statwick, P., Arent, D., & Benson, S. M. (2014). Ensuring Benefits from North American Shale Gas Development: Towards a Research Agenda. Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources. Retrieved from
  8. Brunner, R. D., Steelman, T. A., Coe-Juell, L., Cromley, C., & Edwards, C. (2005). Adaptive Governance: Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision Making. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cairney, P. (2012). Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, J. (1998). Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy. Theory and Society, 27(3), 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. (2004). Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (2013). ‘Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose New Rules and Amendments to Current Rules of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2 CCR 404–1’. Retrieved from
  13. Davis, C. (2012). The Politics of ‘Fracking’: Regulating Natural Gas Drilling Practices in Colorado and Texas. Review of Policy Research, 29(2), 177–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Melo-Martin, I., Hays, J., & Finkel, M. L. (2014). The Role of Ethics in Shale Gas Policies. Science of the Total Environment, 470–1, 1114–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Douglas, M. (1970). Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London: Barrie & Rockliff.Google Scholar
  17. Douglas, M. (1990). Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Entrekin, S., Evans-White, M., Johnson, B., & Hagenbuch, E. (2011). Rapid Expansion of Natural Gas Development Poses a Threat to Surface Waters. Frontiers in Ecology of the Environment, 9(9), 503–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. George, A. L. (1969). The ‘Operational Code’: A Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision-Making. International Studies Quarterly, 13(2), 190–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. In J. Goldstein & R. O. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change (pp. 3–30). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gunderson, L., & Light, S. S. (2006). Adaptive Management and Adaptive Governance in the Everglades Ecosystem. Policy Sciences, 39(4), 323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunderson, L. H. (2001). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. (2013). Building a Conceptual Approach to Collective Learning: Lessons for Public Policy Scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heikkila, T., Pierce, J. J., Gallaher, S., Kagan, J., Crow, D., & Weible, C. M. (2014). Understanding a Period of Policy Change: The Case of Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Policy in Colorado. Review of Policy Research, 31(2), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jabko, N. (2006). Playing the Market. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jackson, R. B., Rainey Pearson, B., Osborn, S. G., Warner, N. R., & Vengosh, A. (2011). Research and Policy Recommendations for Hydraulic Fracturing and Shale-Gas Extraction. Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC. Retrieved from http://www.nicholas.duke.eduGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobs, A. M. (2009). How Do Ideas Matter?: Mental Models and Attention in German Pension Politics. Comparative Political Studies, 42(2), 252–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaffe, M. (2011a, August 3). Colorado Plans Disclosure Rule for Fracking Fluids by End of Year. The Denver Post. Retrieved from
  31. Jaffe, M. (2011b, November 1). Colorado Fracking Audit Advises Rule-Tightening. The Denver Post. Retrieved from
  32. Jaffe, M. (2011c, December 14). Colorado Approval of Fracking Fluids’ Full Disclosure Came after Long Negotiations and Nudge from Governor. The Denver Post. Retrieved from
  33. Jaffe, M. (2012, December 31). Colorado Proposes Bigger Oil and Gas Drilling Setbacks from Homes. The Denver Post. Retrieved from
  34. Jaffe, M. (2013, February 11). Colorado Oil and Gas Well Setback Fight Headed to State Legislature. The Denver Post. Retrieved from
  35. John, P. (2012). Analyzing Public Policy (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lustgarten, A. (2009, November 9). Natural Gas Drilling Produces Radioactive Waste-water. Scientific American. Retrieved from
  38. Maykuth, A. (2011, August 30). Fracking’s Thirst for Water: A Delicate Dance between Gas Industry and River Commission. Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved from
  39. Mooney, C. (2011). The Truth about Fracking. Scientific American, 305(5), 80–5. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.comCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murrill, B. J., & Vann, A. (2012, June 19). Hydraulic Fracturing: Chemical Disclosure Requirements. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from
  41. New Fracking Rules: What They’re Saying. (2011, December 13). Denver Business Journal. Retrieved from
  42. Parsons, C. (2002). Showing Ideas as Causes: The Origins of the European Union. International Organization, 56(1), 46–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peffley, M. A., & Hurwitz, J. (1985). A Hierarchical Model of Attitude Constraint. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 871–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rahm, D. (2011). Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale Gas Plays: The Case of Texas. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2974–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural Theory and Risk Analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (pp. 54–82). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  46. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rothstein, B. (2005). Social Traps and the Problem of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2), 129–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (Eds.) (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  50. Schafft, K. A., Glenna, L. L. Green, B., & Borlu, Y. (2014). Local Impacts of Unconventional Gas Development within Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale Region: Gauging Boomtown Development through the Perspectives of Educational Administrators. Society and Natural Resources, 27(4), 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schuller, T. (2013). ‘Tisha Schuller’s, President and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, Statement Regarding the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s Setback Ruling’. Press Release from Colorado Oil and Gas Association. Retrieved from
  54. Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., McBeth, M. K., & Lane, R. R. (2013). An Angel on the Wind: How Heroic Policy Narratives Shape Policy Realities. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 453–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  57. US Energy Information Administration. (2014a). Annual Energy Outlook 2014. DOE/EIA0383(2014). Washington, DC: Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  58. US Energy Information Administration. (2014b). Natural Gas, Shale Gas in Colorado. Retrieved from
  59. Warner, B., & Shapiro, J. (2013). Fractured, Fragmented Federalism: A Study in Fracking Regulatory Policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 43(3), 464–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of Risk Perception: Who Fears What and Why? Daedalus, 119(4), 41–60.Google Scholar
  62. Williams, D. O. (2011, September 21). Frack Frenzy Continues Nationwide as Colorado Officials Eye New Disclosure Rule by End of Year. The Colorado Independent. Retrieved from http://coloradoindependentGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Christopher M. Weible, Tanya Heikkila and Jonathan J. Pierce 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher M. Weible
  • Tanya Heikkila
  • Jonathan J. Pierce

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations