IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v35y2015i02p245-268_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutions and coalitions in policy processes: a cross-sectoral comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Fischer, Manuel

Abstract

Actors with joint beliefs in a decision-making process form coalitions in order to translate their goals into policy. Yet, coalitions are not formed in an institutional void, but rather institutions confer opportunities and constraints to actors. This paper studies the institutional conditions under which either coalition structures with a dominant coalition or with competing coalitions emerge. It takes into account three conditions, i.e. the degree of federalism of a project, its degree of Europeanisation and the openness of the pre-parliamentary phase of the decision-making process. The cross-sectoral comparison includes the 11 most important decision-making processes in Switzerland between 2001 and 2006 with a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Results suggest that Europeanisation or an open pre-parliamentary phase lead to a dominant coalition, whereas only a specific combination of all three conditions is able to explain a structure with competing coalitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Fischer, Manuel, 2015. "Institutions and coalitions in policy processes: a cross-sectoral comparison," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 245-268, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:35:y:2015:i:02:p:245-268_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X14000166/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Junli Wang & Wendong Lv, 2023. "Research on the Impact of Green Innovation Network Embeddedness on Corporate Environmental Responsibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-28, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Sofia Pagliarin & Salvatore Mendola & Barbara Vis, 2023. "The “qualitative” in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): research moves, case-intimacy and face-to-face interviews," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 489-507, February.

    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:cup:jnlpup:v:35:y:2015:i:02:p:245-268_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pup .

    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.