IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v16y2012icp51-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Advocacy Coalition Framework in natural resource policy studies — Recent experiences and further prospects

Author

Listed:
  • Sotirov, Metodi
  • Memmler, Michael

Abstract

In this paper, we deal with the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) which has been promoted as a promising theoretical approach of policy change and stability. After outlining the framework's main features and development over time, we review numerous ACF applications in natural resource policy studies and relate them to existing theoretical debates. The framework accounts for long-lasting policy debates between advocacy coalitions regarding value conflicts in multitude geographical domains and political systems. However, we identify several empirical anomalies and conceptual inconsistencies regarding advocacy coalition properties and causal paths to policy change. We draw on cultural theory and veto-player theory and the empirical evidence to theorize and propose several conceptual improvements and new hypotheses. By doing so, we address the ACF's concepts of belief systems, collective action, the role of and interdependencies among external events, political resources and institutions. Our theoretical proposals could provide for more detailed, dynamic and comprehensive look at the interactions among actors and their wider political and socioeconomic environment. These theoretical enhancements could mediate between the ACF propositions and the long-lasting theoretical critique directed to this framework and the divergent empirical evidence as regards to policy change analysis. We acknowledge that the further conceptual development of the framework will depend on the willingness of ACF theorists to integrate insights from rival research programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Sotirov, Metodi & Memmler, Michael, 2012. "The Advocacy Coalition Framework in natural resource policy studies — Recent experiences and further prospects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 51-64.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:16:y:2012:i:c:p:51-64
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.06.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934111000876
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.06.007?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jenny Stewart, 2006. "Value Conflict and Policy Change," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 23(1), pages 183-195, January.
    2. Quattrone, George A. & Tversky, Amos, 1988. "Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(3), pages 719-736, September.
    3. Rick S. Kurtz, 2004. "Coastal Oil Pollution: Spills, Crisis, and Policy Change1," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 21(2), pages 201-219, March.
    4. Charles Davis, 2006. "Western Wildfires: A Policy Change Perspective," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 23(1), pages 115-127, January.
    5. Benjamin Cashore & Michael Howlett, 2007. "Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 532-551, July.
    6. Tewari, Devi Datt, 2001. "Is commercial forestry sustainable in South Africa? The changing institutional and policy needs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3-4), pages 333-353, July.
    7. Simon, Herbert A., 1985. "Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(2), pages 293-304, June.
    8. Moe, Terry M, 1990. "Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(0), pages 213-253.
    9. Pralle, Sarah B., 2003. "Venue Shopping, Political Strategy, and Policy Change: The Internationalization of Canadian Forest Advocacy," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 233-260, September.
    10. Tsebelis, George, 1995. "Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 289-325, July.
    11. Weber, Norbert & Christophersen, Tim, 2002. "The influence of non-governmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-12, May.
    12. William M. Salka, 2004. "Mission Evolution: The United States Forest Service's Response to Crisis," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 21(2), pages 221-232, March.
    13. Villamor, Grace B., 2006. "The rise of protected area policy in the Philippine forest policy: An analysis from the perspective of Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 162-178, November.
    14. Sabatier, Paul A., 1986. "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 21-48, January.
    15. Hogl, Karl, 2000. "The Austrian domestic forest policy community in change? Impacts of the globalisation and Europeanisation of forest politics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 3-13, May.
    16. Van Gossum, Peter & Ledene, Liselot & Arts, Bas & De Vreese, Rik & Verheyen, Kris, 2008. "Implementation failure of the forest expansion policy in Flanders (Northern Belgium) and the policy learning potential," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 515-522, October.
    17. Wildavsky, Aaron, 1987. "Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 3-21, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Metodi Sotirov & Georg Winkel, 2016. "Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 125-154, June.
    2. Farhan, Farwiza & Hoebink, Paul, 2019. "Can campaigns save forests? Critical reflections from the Tripa campaign, Aceh, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 17-27.
    3. Juerges, Nataly & Newig, Jens, 2015. "How interest groups adapt to the changing forest governance landscape in the EU: A case study from Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 228-235.
    4. André Kaiser, 1997. "Types of Democracy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(4), pages 419-444, October.
    5. Oliver Westerwinter & Kenneth W. Abbott & Thomas Biersteker, 2021. "Informal governance in world politics," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 1-27, January.
    6. Metodi Sotirov & Marko Lovric & Georg Winkel, 2015. "Symbolic transformation of environmental governance: implementation of EU biodiversity policy in Bulgaria and Croatia between Europeanization and domestic politics," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 986-1004, October.
    7. Maier, Carolin & Abrams, Jesse B., 2018. "Navigating social forestry – A street-level perspective on National Forest management in the US Pacific Northwest," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 432-441.
    8. Abrams, Jesse, 2019. "The emergence of network governance in U.S. National Forest Administration: Causal factors and propositions for future research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Rajeev K. Goel & Michael A. Nelson, 2021. "Direct and indirect influences of political regimes on corruption," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1569-1589, July.
    10. Acciai, Claudia, 2021. "The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    11. Niklas Potrafke, 2006. "Parties Matter in Allocating Expenditures: Evidence from Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 652, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    12. Munger, Michael C., 2011. "Persuasion, psychology and public choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 290-300.
    13. Laurenz Ennser‐Jedenastik, 2016. "Do parties matter in delegation? Partisan preferences and the creation of regulatory agencies in Europe," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 193-210, September.
    14. Rajeev K. Goel & Michael A. Nelson, 2020. "Presidential Versus Parliamentary Systems: Where Do Female Entrepreneurs Thrive?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1773-1788, September.
    15. Pablo T. Spiller, 2003. "The Institutional Foundations of Public Policy: A Transactions Approach with Application to Argentina," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 281-306, October.
    16. Carlos Scartascini & Mariano Tommasi & Ernesto H. Stein, 2008. "Veto Players, Intertemporal Interactions and Policy Adaptability: How Do Political Institutions Work?," Research Department Publications 4593, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    17. Mariano Tommasi & Pablo T. Spiller & Ernesto Stein, 2003. "Political Institutions, Policymaking Processes, and Policy Outcomes. An Intertemporal Transactions Framework," Working Papers 59, Universidad de San Andres, Departamento de Economia, revised Jul 2003.
    18. Rajeev K. Goel & Michael A. Nelson, 2023. "Which political regimes foster entrepreneurship? An international examination," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 126-146, February.
    19. Janse, Gerben, 2006. "Information search behaviour of European forest policy decision-makers," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(6), pages 579-592, August.
    20. Christopher Weible & Tanya Heikkila & Peter deLeon & Paul Sabatier, 2012. "Understanding and influencing the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 1-21, March.

    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:eee:forpol:v:16:y:2012:i:c:p:51-64. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.