Learning and Change in the British Columbia Forest Policy Sector: A Consideration of Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework

1996 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Lertzman ◽  
Jeremy Rayner ◽  
Jeremy Wilson

AbstractThis article uses British Columbia forest policy to test our ability to distinguish between policy change and policy learning using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) developed by Paul Sabatier. The authors find the ACF a useful way of approaching policy change in this sector, but argue that finer discriminations are needed to detect policy learning. They argue that Sabatier underestimates the extent to which the legitimation function of key ideas forces dominant advocacy coalitions to respond to criticisms in ways that promote learning. They conclude that, in this case, adaptive strategies undertaken by a dominant advocacy coalition in response to criticism has resulted in policy-oriented learning that may cause a major policy shift without an externally induced crisis in the forest policy sector.

1996 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Hoberg

Ken Lertzman, Jeremy Rayner and Jeremy Wilson provide an idea-based approach to explaining changes in British Columbia's forest policy by applying the concept of learning developed by Paul Sabatier as part of his “advocacy coalition framework.” This effort to highlight the importance of ideas and learning is a welcome development in Canadian policy studies. But a word of caution is in order as well, because the article has some indications of slipping into a disconcerting pattern in the development of our discipline. For periods of time we seem to single out one significant variable and pay an inordinate amount of attention to it, the most striking examples being interest groups in the 1950s and 1960s and institutions in the 1980s. As we seize upon the new variable, we discredit the previous generation of scholars who we claim (sometimes misleadingly) ignored it.


1996 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Lertzman ◽  
Jeremy Rayner ◽  
Jeremy Wilson

In “Putting Ideas in Their Place,” George Hoberg raises some important and persistent questions about the explanation of policy change. In particular, he suggests that our attempt to demonstrate the role played by ideas in changing forest policy in British Columbia using Paul Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) gives excessive weight to ideas at the expense of more traditional concerns with power and interest. Although it is unclear whether he places the blame on the ACF itself or merely on the way we have employed it, the burden of his critique is that we fail to live up to our commitment to show how ideas and interests can be combined in a more comprehensive form of explanation than one which appeals to interests alone. Worse still, by our reckless overstatement of the case for ideas, we risk creating a “straw monster,” thereby warping the judgment of an entire generation of political scientists.


Author(s):  
Paúl Cisneros

This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Please check back later for the full article. Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins Smith introduced the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in the late 1980s, to refine the theoretical and methodological tools available for the study of the policy process. In the past two decades, the framework has grown in use outside the United States, and it is now applied to study a broad range of policy arenas in all continents. ACF scholars have created a core community that regularly synthetizes findings from applications of the framework, giving the ACF the form of a true research program. The ACF has three principal theoretical domains: advocacy coalitions, policy subsystems, and policy change. Expectations about the interactions between and within these domains are contained in 15 main hypotheses. The ACF posits that advocacy coalitions and policy subsystems are the most efficient way to organize actors interested in the policy process for empirical research. The policy subsystem is the main unit of analysis in the ACF, and there are four paths leading to policy change. The aspect that has received more attention in existing applications is the effect that external events have on policy change, and some areas in need of refinement include: policy-oriented learning, interactions across subsystems, the theoretical foundations to identification of belief systems, and how the interactions between beliefs and interests affect coalition behavior.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chinyere Okeke ◽  
Ana Manzano ◽  
Uche Obi ◽  
Enyi Etiaba ◽  
Obinna Onwujekwe ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The unacceptably high rate of maternal and child mortality in Nigeria prompted the government to introduce a free maternal and child health (MCH) programme, which was stopped abruptly following a change in government. This triggered increased advocacy for sustaining MCH as a political priority in the country and led to the formation of advocacy coalitions. This study set out to explain the process involved in the formation of advocacy coalition groups and how they work to bring about sustained political prioritization for MCH in Nigeria. It will contribute to the understanding of the Nigerian MCH sector subsystem and will be beneficial to health policy advocates and public health researchers in Nigeria. Methods This study employed a qualitative case study approach. Data were collected using a pretested interview guide to conduct 22 in-depth interviews, while advocacy events were reviewed pro forma. The document review was analysed using the manual content analysis method, while qualitative data audiotapes were transcribed verbatim, anonymized, double-coded in MS Word using colour-coded highlights and analysed using manual thematic and framework analysis guided by the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). The ACF was used to identify the policy subsystem including the actors, their belief, coordination and resources, as well as the effects of advocacy groups on policy change. Ethics and consent approval were obtained for the study. Results The policy subsystem identified the actors and characterized the coalitions, and described their group formation processes and resources/strategies for engagement. The perceived deep core belief driving the MCH agenda is the right of an individual to health. The effects of advocacy groups on policy change were identified, along with the factors that enabled effectiveness, as well as constraints to coalition formation. External factors and triggers of coalition formation were identified to include high maternal mortality and withdrawal of the free MCH programme, while the contextual issues were the health system issues and the socioeconomic factors affecting the country. Conclusion Our findings add to an increasing body of evidence that the use of ACF is beneficial in exploring how advocacy coalitions are formed and in identifying the effects of advocacy groups on policy change.


2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 1672-1690
Author(s):  
Janaina Ma ◽  
Diego Mota Vieira

Abstract This article aims to advance the discussion about the influence of knowledge and policy learning on policy change, taking the Advocacy Coalition Framework as reference. We propose unlinking the comprehension of learning through change in two perspectives. First, we suggest apprehending the relation between knowledge and policy learning, through the use of knowledge, assuming that different forms of learning are possible, depending on the context of decision-making. Then, relying on the contributions of the theory of gradual institutional change, we suggest using the notion of institutional dynamics, in order to capture the explanatory power of knowledge and policy learning both in stasis and change situations. We aim to contribute to diminish the skepticism presented in the literature about the influence of knowledge and policy learning in the policy process.


2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 1672-1690
Author(s):  
Janaina Ma ◽  
Diego Mota Vieira

Abstract This article aims to advance the discussion about the influence of knowledge and policy learning on policy change, taking the Advocacy Coalition Framework as reference. We propose unlinking the comprehension of learning through change in two perspectives. First, we suggest apprehending the relation between knowledge and policy learning, through the use of knowledge, assuming that different forms of learning are possible, depending on the context of decision-making. Then, relying on the contributions of the theory of gradual institutional change, we suggest using the notion of institutional dynamics, in order to capture the explanatory power of knowledge and policy learning both in stasis and change situations. We aim to contribute to diminish the skepticism presented in the literature about the influence of knowledge and policy learning in the policy process.


2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Koebele

AbstractAs collaborative governance processes continue to grow in popularity, practitioners and policy scholars alike can benefit from the development of methods to better analyse and evaluate them. This article develops one such method by demonstrating how collaborative governance theory can be integrated with the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to better explain coalition dynamics, policy-oriented learning and policy change in collaborative contexts. I offer three theoretical propositions that suggest alternate relationships among ACF variables under collaborative governance arrangements and illustrate these propositions using interview data from an original case study of a collaborative governance process in Colorado, USA. The integration of collaborative governance theory with the ACF improves its application in collaborative contexts and provides new theoretical insights into the study and practice of collaborative governance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document