IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/98qdy.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Slow Road to Big Change: Extending the Advocacy Coalition Framework with the Theory of Gradual, Institutional Change

Author

Listed:
  • Giordono, Leanne

Abstract

The Advocacy Coalition Framework is a policy process framework that explains subsystem-level policy change as a function of competition by advocacy coalitions. The ACF’s theory of policy change expects that abrupt policy changes are more likely to reflect major change, while incremental developments are more likely to yield minor changes. While the ACF does not explicitly preclude the possibility of major change occurring over a long time horizon via incremental developments, the theoretical pathways do not readily accommodate or explain such cases. In contrast, the theory of Gradual Institutional Change (GIC) offers a typology associated with gradual (incremental), transformative (major) change, as well as an underlying theory to account for such changes, building on distinctions between the process of change (incremental or abrupt) and the result of change (discontinuity or continuity). The GIC identifies four “modes” of institutional change (i.e., displacement, layering, conversion and drift), and suggests that when major change can occur over a shorter time frame, it is analogous to the non-incremental and discontinuous process typically examined by the ACF. The GIC further posits that incremental, transformative (major) change is influenced by similar forces as those that influence non-incremental change, such as political context, key policy actors, and institutions. The GIC thus offers an opportunity to apply concepts of gradual, institutional change in the context of the ACF theory of policy change. Given these theoretical and empirical observations, this study has two objectives: 1) to identify strategies for using concepts from the GIC in the context of the ACF; and 2) to illustrate the added value of an extended framework. The study begins with a description of the theoretical frameworks, including motivation and operationalization of the proposed integration, followed by an illustration applied to the disability policy subsystem in Washington State. The study responds to recent calls for more integration of the policy process and comparative politics literatures, and follows in the tracks of other innovations that build on and/or extend the Advocacy Coalition Framework with insights from other theoretical traditions. The extension is expected to increase the scope and relevance of both theories and offer broader opportunities for empirical application.

Suggested Citation

  • Giordono, Leanne, 2019. "The Slow Road to Big Change: Extending the Advocacy Coalition Framework with the Theory of Gradual, Institutional Change," OSF Preprints 98qdy, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:98qdy
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/98qdy
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5d04102b7b8c4d001a9c0d1a/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/98qdy?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. James Mahoney, 2012. "The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(4), pages 570-597, November.
    2. Koebele, Elizabeth A., 2019. "Integrating collaborative governance theory with the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 35-64, 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. Parker Hevron, 2018. "Judicialization and Its Effects: Experiments as a Way Forward," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Radtke, Jörg & Scherhaufer, Patrick, 2022. "A social science perspective on conflicts in the energy transition: An introduction to the special issue," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    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. Linhai Wu & Liwei Zhang & Yufeng Li, 2023. "Basis for fulfilling responsibilities, behavior, and professionalism of government agencies and effectiveness in public–public collaboration for food safety risk management," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Fairfield, Tasha & Charman, Andrew, 2017. "Explicit Bayesian analysis for process tracing: guidelines, opportunities, and caveats," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 69203, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Neal D. Woods, 2021. "The State of State Environmental Policy Research: A Thirty‐Year Progress Report," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 347-369, May.
    8. Derek Beach, 2016. "It's all about mechanisms – what process-tracing case studies should be tracing," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 463-472, September.
    9. Thomas Ambrosio & Jakob Tolstrup, 2019. "How do we tell authoritarian diffusion from illusion? Exploring methodological issues of qualitative research on authoritarian diffusion," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 2741-2763, November.
    10. Elizabeth A. Koebele, 2021. "When multiple streams make a river: analyzing collaborative policymaking institutions using the multiple streams framework," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 609-628, September.
    11. Rijia Ding & Chongbao Ren & Suli Hao & Qi Lan & Mingbo Tan, 2022. "Polycentric Collaborative Governance, Sustainable Development and the Ecological Resilience of Elevator Safety: Evidence from a Structural Equation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-37, June.
    12. Anne Nassauer & Nicolas M. Legewie, 2019. "Analyzing 21st Century Video Data on Situational Dynamics—Issues and Challenges in Video Data Analysis," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-21, March.
    13. Nowack, Daniel, 2018. "Cultural values, attitudes, and democracy promotion in Malawi: how values mediate the effectiveness of donor support for the reform of presidential term limits and family law," IDOS Discussion Papers 27/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    14. Muñoz, Pablo & Cacciotti, Gabriella & Cohen, Boyd, 2018. "The double-edged sword of purpose-driven behavior in sustainable venturing," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 149-178.
    15. Mundaca, Luis & Busch, Henner & Schwer, Sophie, 2018. "‘Successful’ low-carbon energy transitions at the community level? An energy justice perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 292-303.
    16. Wagemann, Claudius & Buche, Jonas & Siewert, Markus B., 2016. "QCA and business research: Work in progress or a consolidated agenda?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2531-2540.
    17. Broad, Robin & Cavanagh, John, 2015. "Poorer Countries and the Environment: Friends or Foes?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 419-431.

    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:osf:osfxxx:98qdy. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.