IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v102y2021ics0264837721000077.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unity in diversity? When advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs grow trees in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Malkamäki, Arttu
  • Ylä-Anttila, Tuomas
  • Brockhaus, Maria
  • Toppinen, Anne
  • Wagner, Paul M.

Abstract

Competing coalitions can stabilise policymaking and hinder policy changes that are required to address the mounting pressures on land use systems across the globe. Thus, understanding the driving forces of coalition formation is important. This paper builds on the Advocacy Coalition Framework to determine the relative contributions of two sets of beliefs (more general policy core beliefs and more specific beliefs concerning policy instruments) to coalition formation in South African tree plantation politics and to identify coalitions therein. Discourse Network Analysis was used to code 656 statements regarding 40 beliefs to create network data from 55 interviews with organisational elites. Results from a network analysis of the twelve most salient beliefs indicate that dissimilar policy core beliefs about the validity of environmental regulation, social costs of tree plantations, and the conditionality of land reform in South Africa divide actors into two coalitions: the hegemonic “business-as-usual” coalition and the minority “justice and change” coalition. These boundaries were confirmed by comparing the network based on shared policy core beliefs with a co-ordination network. Dissimilar beliefs concerning policy instruments, including eco-certification and an indicative zoning, also divide actors, yet actors’ reasoning for or against these instruments differ to the degree that united fronts are unlikely to form. Hegemonic coalitions that combine selected state and business interests with labour arguments and prioritise short-term economic efficiency threaten to delay the necessary changes away from business-as-usual across land use systems in South Africa and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • Malkamäki, Arttu & Ylä-Anttila, Tuomas & Brockhaus, Maria & Toppinen, Anne & Wagner, Paul M., 2021. "Unity in diversity? When advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs grow trees in South Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:102:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721000077
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721000077
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105283?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. B. Timothy Heinmiller & Kevin Pirak, 2017. "Advocacy Coalitions in Ontario Land Use Policy Development," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(2), pages 168-185, March.
    2. Malkamäki, Arttu & Toppinen, Anne & Kanninen, Markku, 2016. "Impacts of land use and land use changes on the resilience of beekeeping in Uruguay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 113-123.
    3. David Francis & Edward Webster, 2019. "Poverty and inequality in South Africa: critical reflections," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(6), pages 788-802, November.
    4. Adam Wellstead, 2017. "Plus ça Change, Plus C’est La Même Chose? A review of Paul Sabatier’s “An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein”," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 549-561, December.
    5. De Witt, Annick & de Boer, Joop & Hedlund, Nicholas & Osseweijer, Patricia, 2016. "A new tool to map the major worldviews in the Netherlands and USA, and explore how they relate to climate change," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 101-112.
    6. Metz, Florence & Leifeld, Philip & Ingold, Karin, 2019. "Interdependent policy instrument preferences: a two-mode network approach," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 609-636, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Ghinoi, Stefano & Wesz Junior, Valdemar João & Piras, Simone, 2018. "Political debates and agricultural policies: Discourse coalitions behind the creation of Brazil’s Pronaf," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 68-80.
    9. Song, Xiao-Peng, 2018. "Global Estimates of Ecosystem Service Value and Change: Taking Into Account Uncertainties in Satellite-based Land Cover Data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 227-235.
    10. 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.
    11. Tanya Heikkila & Jonathan J. Pierce & Samuel Gallaher & Jennifer Kagan & Deserai A. Crow & Christopher M. Weible, 2014. "Understanding a Period of Policy Change: The Case of Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Policy in Colorado," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(2), pages 65-87, March.
    12. Zizzamia, Rocco, 2020. "Is employment a panacea for poverty? A mixed-methods investigation of employment decisions in South Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    13. Kröger, Markus & Raitio, Kaisa, 2017. "Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 6-15.
    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. Carla Inguaggiato & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Maurice Tschopp & Dimitris Christopoulos, 2021. "Collaborative Governance Networks: A Case Study of Argentina’s Forest Law," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-14, September.

    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. Zilliox, Skylar & Smith, Jessica M., 2017. "Memorandums of understanding and public trust in local government for Colorado's unconventional energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 72-81.
    2. Beygi Heidarlou, Hadi & Banj Shafiei, Abbas & Erfanian, Mahdi & Tayyebi, Amin & Alijanpour, Ahmad, 2020. "Armed conflict and land-use changes: Insights from Iraq-Iran war in Zagros forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. Hochachka, Gail, 2021. "Integrating the four faces of climate change adaptation: Towards transformative change in Guatemalan coffee communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    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. Blattert, Clemens & Eyvindson, Kyle & Hartikainen, Markus & Burgas, Daniel & Potterf, Maria & Lukkarinen, Jani & Snäll, Tord & Toraño-Caicoya, Astor & Mönkkönen, Mikko, 2022. "Sectoral policies cause incoherence in forest management and ecosystem service provisioning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    6. Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Lerato Phali, 2023. "On the impact of provincial development policies in South Africa," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(6), pages 1137-1152, November.
    7. Frederich Kirsten & Ilse Botha & Mduduzi Biyase & Marinda Pretorius, 2023. "Determinants of Subjective Social Status in South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 1-24, August.
    8. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    9. Fry, Matthew & Brannstrom, Christian, 2017. "Emergent patterns and processes in urban hydrocarbon governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 383-393.
    10. Beland Lindahl, Karin & Sandström, Camilla & Sténs, Anna, 2017. "Alternative pathways to sustainability? Comparing forest governance models," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 69-78.
    11. Henghui Xi & Wanglai Cui & Li Cai & Mengyuan Chen & Chenglei Xu, 2021. "Evaluation and Prediction of Ecosystem Service Value in the Zhoushan Islands Based on LUCC," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Tiecheng Huang & Wenjiang Huang & Kun Wang & Yongkang Li & Zhenhai Li & Yong’an Yang, 2022. "Ecosystem Service Value Estimation of Paddy Field Ecosystems Based on Multi-Source Remote Sensing Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-22, August.
    14. Fridén, Alexia & D'Amato, Dalia & Ekström, Hanna & Iliev, Bogomil & Nebasifu, Ayonghe & May, Wilhelm & Thomsen, Marianne & Droste, Nils, 2024. "Mapping two centuries of forest governance in Nordic countries: An open access database," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    15. Mack, Philipp & Kremer, Jakob & Kleinschmit, Daniela, 2023. "Forest dieback reframed and revisited? Forests (re)negotiated in the German media between forestry and nature conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    16. Baulenas, Eulàlia & Sotirov, Metodi, 2020. "Cross-sectoral policy integration at the forest and water nexus: National level instrument choices and integration drivers in the European Union," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    17. Simone Piras & Valdemar João Wesz & Stefano Ghinoi, 2021. "Soy Expansion, Environment, and Human Development: An Analysis across Brazilian Municipalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Tianyi Cai & Xueyuan Luo & Liyao Fan & Jing Han & Xinhuan Zhang, 2022. "The Impact of Cropland Use Changes on Terrestrial Ecosystem Services Value in Newly Added Cropland Hotspots in China during 2000–2020," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.
    19. Miyajima, Ken, 2022. "Mobile phone ownership and welfare: Evidence from South Africa’s household survey," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    20. Isoaho, K. & Burgas, D. & Janasik, N. & Mönkkönen, M. & Peura, M. & Hukkinen, J.I., 2019. "Changing forest stakeholders’ perception of ecosystem services with linguistic nudging," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).

    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:lauspo:v:102:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721000077. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.