IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v39y2022i4p411-440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Make it loud and simple: Coalition politics and problem framing in the French policy process of hydraulic fracturing

Author

Listed:
  • Stéphane Moyson
  • Bastien Fievet
  • Maximilien Plancq
  • Sébastien Chailleux
  • David Aubin

Abstract

Based on a case study and media content analysis, we rely on insights from the advocacy coalition framework and from the narrative policy framework to conduct a congruence analysis of the French politics of hydraulic fracturing (2010–2017). Despite the lobbying of a resourceful coalition of pro‐fracturing policy actors and their strategy of active participation in various professional forums, hydraulic fracturing was partially banned in 2011 and completely prohibited in 2017. Our results relate this ban to the stronger repetition of a simpler framing of the policy problem by the members of the anti‐fracturing coalition. In other words, coalition members willing to transform their policy beliefs into concrete decisions should frame them into loud and simple policy narratives. These findings call for further articulation between the narrative policy framework and the advocacy coalition framework to account for narratives as the essence of strategies that advocacy coalitions develop for influencing policy processes. Basándonos en un estudio de caso y un análisis del contenido de los medios, nos basamos en los conocimientos del marco de la coalición de defensa y del marco de la política narrativa para realizar un análisis de congruencia de la política francesa de fracturación hidráulica (2010‐2017). A pesar del cabildeo de una ingeniosa coalición de actores políticos a favor de la fracturación y su estrategia de participación activa en varios foros profesionales, la fracturación hidráulica fue parcialmente prohibida en 2011 y completamente prohibida en 2017. Nuestros resultados relacionan esta prohibición con la repetición más fuerte de un marco más simple del problema político por parte de los miembros de la coalición antifractura. En otras palabras, los miembros de la coalición que deseen transformar sus creencias políticas en decisiones concretas deben enmarcarlas en narrativas políticas claras y simples. Estos hallazgos exigen una mayor articulación entre el marco de políticas narrativas y el marco de coaliciones de defensa para dar cuenta de las narrativas como la esencia de las estrategias que desarrollan las coaliciones de defensa para influir en los procesos de políticas. 基于一项案例研究和媒体内容分析,我们应用由倡导联盟框架和叙事政策框架得出的见解,对2010‐2017年间法国水力压裂政治进行一致性分析。尽管支持水力压裂的政策行动者组成资源丰富的联盟进行游说,并采用了积极参与不同专家论坛的策略,但水力压裂仍然在2011年被部分禁止,并于2017年被全面禁止。我们的结果将该禁令与一个因素相联系,即反水力压裂联盟成员对政策问题的建构更为简单,并且以更强的方式重复这一建构。换句话说,联盟成员在将其政策信念转变为具体决策方面的意愿应将其建构为响亮且不复杂的政策叙事。这些研究发现呼吁对叙事政策框架和倡导联盟框架进行更清晰的阐述,以期证明叙事是倡导联盟用于影响政策过程的策略核心。

Suggested Citation

  • Stéphane Moyson & Bastien Fievet & Maximilien Plancq & Sébastien Chailleux & David Aubin, 2022. "Make it loud and simple: Coalition politics and problem framing in the French policy process of hydraulic fracturing," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 411-440, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:39:y:2022:i:4:p:411-440
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12473
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12473?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manuel Fischer & Philip Leifeld, 2015. "Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 363-382, September.
    2. R. Hirsch & J. Baxter & C. Brown, 2010. "The importance of skillful community leaders: understanding municipal pesticide policy change in Calgary and Halifax," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(6), pages 743-757.
    3. Jill Yordy & Jongeun You & Kyudong Park & Christopher M. Weible & Tanya Heikkila, 2019. "Framing Contests and Policy Conflicts over Gas Pipelines," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 36(6), pages 736-756, November.
    4. Frank R. Baumgartner & Christine Mahoney, 2008. "Forum Section: The Two Faces of Framing," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 435-449, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder & Colette S. Vogeler, 2022. "Hydraulic fracturing, polarization, and environmental policy implementation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 384-386, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miriam Hartlapp & Julia Metz & Christian Rauh, 2010. "The agenda set by the EU Commission: the result of balanced or biased aggregation of positions?," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 21, European Institute, LSE.
    2. Marcel Hanegraaff & Arlo Poletti, 2021. "The Rise of Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: An Agenda for Future Research," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 839-855, July.
    3. Jens Nilsson & Annica Sandström & Daniel Nohrstedt, 2020. "Beliefs, social identity, and the view of opponents in Swedish carnivore management policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 453-472, September.
    4. Aerang Nam & Christopher M. Weible & Kyudong Park, 2022. "Polarization and frames of advocacy coalitions in South Korea's nuclear energy policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 387-410, July.
    5. Maria Stella Righettini, 2021. "Framing Sustainability. Evidence from Participatory Forums to Taylor the Regional 2030 Agenda to Local Contexts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, April.
    6. Garrett Ward Richards, 2019. "The Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of co-production: how climate science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 67-95, March.
    7. Dana R. Fisher & Philip Leifeld, 2019. "The polycentricity of climate policy blockage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 469-487, August.
    8. Ghouri, Arsalan Mujahid & Akhtar, Pervaiz & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Shabbir, Haseeb, 2019. "Affective organizational commitment in global strategic partnerships: The role of individual-level microfoundations and social change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 320-330.
    9. Malte Möck, 2021. "Patterns of Policy Networks at the Local Level in Germany," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(4), pages 454-477, July.
    10. Boyle Richard & O’Riordan Joanna & O’Leary Fergal & Shannon Laura, 2021. "Structured, formal engagement of stakeholders in public policy – The case of An Fóram Uisce (The Water Forum)," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 69(4), pages 39-55, December.
    11. Lana Ollier & Florence Metz & Alejandro Nuñez-Jimenez & Leonhard Späth & Johan Lilliestam, 2022. "The European 2030 climate and energy package: do domestic strategy adaptations precede EU policy change?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 161-184, March.
    12. Rachael M. Moyer, 2022. "Images of controversy: Examining cognition of hydraulic fracturing among policy elites and the general public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 441-467, July.
    13. Heather Millar, 2020. "Problem Uncertainty, Institutional Insularity, and Modes of Learning in Canadian Provincial Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 765-796, November.
    14. Tereza Aubrechtová & Eva Semančíková & Pavel Raška, 2020. "Formulation Matters! The Failure of Integrating Landscape Fragmentation Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    15. Florence Metz & Karin Ingold, 2017. "Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 721-743, December.
    16. Bruce Gilley, 2017. "Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 9-22, March.
    17. Hiromi Nakazato & Rui Izumi & Seunghoo Lim, 2022. "Joining Policy Forums Together to Develop Ki-no-Eki , a Community Currency System for Forest Management in Japan: Dynamics of Policy Communication Networks," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    18. Rachel A. Hirsch & Jamie Baxter, 2011. "Context, Cultural Bias, and Health Risk Perception: The “Everyday” Nature of Pesticide Policy Preferences in London, Calgary, and Halifax," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 847-865, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:39:y:2022:i:4:p:411-440. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.