IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/cejopp/v12y2018i1p41-56n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advocacy Coalitions in Transport Policy: A Case of Rail Sector in Croatia

Author

Listed:
  • Poljak Željko

    (Center for Empirical Research in Political Science, Faculty of Political Science, University of Zagreb.; Lepušićeva 6, 10000Zagreb, Croatia.)

Abstract

The author analyses the transport policy of the rail sector in Croatia and tries to give answers regarding the policy stability and change based on the actors in the rail transport. The aim of the paper is to give an overview of the development of the rail sector in modern Croatia and to explore, in a larger period, the relations and beliefs of all types of actors in this area at the national level. As a theoretical background, the author uses an advocacy coalition framework, which states that policy actors are grouped into coalitions within a policy subsystem in which they advocate their beliefs in order to transfer them into government programs, thus provoking change and stability in the system. The author methodologically uses qualitative content analysis in the form of coding of the collected material based on transcripts of interviews with actors, official documents, and transcript of one parliamentary debate. Following is a review of the historical development of the rail sector in Croatia, with an emphasis on the post-independence Croatia period, which provides a basis for concrete research findings. The results are presented in two units: (1) identified actors and their relations, and (2) beliefs of actors. The follow-up discussion points to the existence of similar patterns of beliefs among the actors at the national level. However, the empirical material collected does not establish clear relationships that could be classified as an advocacy coalition. In conclusion, the author argues that the coded material does not give away any importance of the coalitions of actors at the national level for policy stability and change of rail sector leading to recommendations for further research in this area, where other transport sectors should be included as well as international actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Poljak Željko, 2018. "Advocacy Coalitions in Transport Policy: A Case of Rail Sector in Croatia," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 41-56, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:cejopp:v:12:y:2018:i:1:p:41-56:n:2
    DOI: 10.2478/cejpp-2018-0002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/cejpp-2018-0002
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/cejpp-2018-0002?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. 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.
    2. Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Sabatier, Paul A., 1994. "Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 175-203, April.
    3. Donald F. Kettl, 1997. "The global revolution in public management: Driving themes, missing links," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 446-462.
    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. 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.
    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. Thibaud Deguilhem & Juliette Schlegel & Jean-Philippe Berrou & Ousmane Djibo & Alain Piveteau, 2024. "Too many options: How to identify coalitions in a policy network?," Post-Print hal-04689665, HAL.
    4. Ogada, Maurice Juma, 2012. "Forest Management Decentralization in Kenya: Effects on Household Farm Forestry Decisions in Kakamega," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126319, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Yi, Fangxin & Deng, Dong & Zhang, Yanjiang, 2020. "Collaboration of top-down and bottom-up approaches in the post-disaster housing reconstruction: Evaluating the cases in Yushu Qinghai-Tibet Plateau of China from resilience perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Richard M Walker & Ling Hin Li, 2002. "Reinventing Government? Explaining Management Reform at the Hong Kong Housing Authority," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 20(4), pages 573-592, August.
    7. Caroline Stiel, 2017. "Modern Public Enterprises: Organisational Innovation and Productivity," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1713, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Van de Graaf, Thijs, 2018. "Building or stumbling blocks? Assessing the performance of polycentric energy and climate governance networks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 317-324.
    9. repec:ocp:rpaper:pp-1704 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Munger, Michael C, 2000. "Five Questions: An Integrated Research Agenda for Public Choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 103(1-2), pages 1-12, April.
    11. Mockshell, Jonathan & Birner, Regina, 2020. "Who has the better story? On the narrative foundations of agricultural development dichotomies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    12. Hildebrand Sean, 2015. "Coerced Confusion? Local Emergency Policy Implementation After September 11," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 273-298, June.
    13. Gakou-Kakeu, Josiane & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni & Sonwa, Denis Jean, 2022. "REDD+ policy implementation and institutional interplay: Evidence from three pilot projects in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    14. Hyndman, Noel & Liguori, Mariannunziata & Meyer, Renate E. & Polzer, Tobias & Rota, Silvia & Seiwald, Johann, 2014. "The translation and sedimentation of accounting reforms. A comparison of the UK, Austrian and Italian experiences," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 388-408.
    15. Spilsbury, Michael J. & Nasi, Robert, 2006. "The interface of policy research and the policy development process: challenges posed to the forestry community," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 193-205, March.
    16. Fleury, Marie-Josée & Grenier, Guy & Vallée, Catherine & Hurtubise, Roch & Lévesque, Paul-André, 2014. "The role of advocacy coalitions in a project implementation process: The example of the planning phase of the At Home/Chez Soi project dealing with homelessness in Montreal," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 42-49.
    17. Jungrav-Gieorgica, Natalia, 2020. "Narrative Policy Framework - polityka publiczna jako walka opowieści," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 1-27, July.
    18. Gluck, Peter, 2000. "Theoretical perspectives for enhancing biological diversity in forest ecosystems in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 195-207, December.
    19. Xiao Tang & Zhengwen Liu & Hongtao Yi, 2016. "Mandatory Targets and Environmental Performance: An Analysis Based on Regression Discontinuity Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-16, September.
    20. Philip Wenzel, 2007. "Public-sector transformation in South Africa," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 7(1), pages 47-64, January.
    21. Albert Weale, 2010. "Political Theory and Practical Public Reasoning," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 266-281, 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:vrs:cejopp:v:12:y:2018:i:1:p:41-56:n:2. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.