scholarly journals Foreign Policy Change from an Advocacy Coalition Framework Perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta N Haar ◽  
Jonathan J Pierce
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
Change Agents ◽  
Advocacy Coalition Framework ◽  
Advocacy Coalition ◽  
Future Challenges ◽  
Foreign Policy Change

Abstract Why does a state change its foreign policy objectives and who is responsible for instigating such change? According to Hermann, four primary change agents are central to this process: leaders, bureaucracies, changes in domestic constituencies, and external shocks. This paper argues that the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a complementary policy process framework that can explain foreign policy change (FPC) and that accounts for all four of these primary change agents. Additionally, it is a broader framework of the policy process that facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing FPC than traditional FPC research. The ACF has the potential to broaden our understanding of FPC by emphasizing the intersection of the international system with domestic politics and focusing on a myriad of policy actors coordinating their advocacy efforts to influence FPC. To support this argument, the paper discusses how FPC can benefit from the ACF and reviews past applications. It proposes a research agenda using the ACF to study FPC and draws conclusions about future challenges and directions.

The Advocacy Coalition Framework

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paúl Cisneros
Keyword(s):  
Policy Change ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Belief Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advocacy Coalition Framework ◽  
Advocacy Coalitions ◽  
Forthcoming Article ◽  
Advocacy Coalition ◽  
Policy Subsystems ◽  
Theoretical Foundations

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.

Identifying parameters of foreign policy change: An eclectic approach

2014 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Spyros Blavoukos ◽  
Dimitris Bourantonis
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Structural Parameters ◽  
International System ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Institutional Setting ◽  
Peace Agreement ◽  
Eclectic Approach ◽  
Foreign Policy Change ◽  
The One

This paper examines foreign policy change, identifying structural parameters of domestic and international origins that bring about major foreign policy shifts. Domestic structural parameters comprise the politico-institutional setting and advocacy groups in support of alternative foreign policy options. International structural parameters refer on the one hand to systemic changes that may bring about foreign policy realignment and, on the other hand, to the country’s role in the international system and its interactions with other countries that may activate foreign policy changes. We posit that this eclectic approach is necessary to account for major, multi-dimensional and complex, foreign policy decisions. We use this analytical framework to examine the Israeli re-orientation that enabled the signing of the Oslo Peace Agreement in the early 1990s.

scholarly journals Aprendizado e mudança em políticas públicas: explorando possibilidades no Modelo de Coalizões de Defesa

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 1672-1690
Author(s):  
Janaina Ma ◽  
Diego Mota Vieira
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Advocacy Coalition Framework ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Advocacy Coalition ◽  
Institutional Dynamics ◽  
Use Of Knowledge

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.

scholarly journals Policy learning and policy change: exploring possibilities on the Advocacy Coalition Framework

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 1672-1690
Author(s):  
Janaina Ma ◽  
Diego Mota Vieira
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Advocacy Coalition Framework ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Advocacy Coalition ◽  
Institutional Dynamics ◽  
Use Of Knowledge

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.

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

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leanne Giordono
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Change ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Advocacy Coalition Framework ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Advocacy Coalition ◽  
Incremental Change

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.

Domestic Constraints on Foreign Policy Change in Belarus

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-55
Author(s):  
Paul Hansbury
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Group Competition ◽  
Domestic Constraints ◽  
Foreign Policy Change ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Policy Shifts

Abstract After 2014 the relationship between Russia and its ally Belarus was strained. Russia was dissatisfied with Belarus’s foreign policy and sought to influence the latter’s international affairs. This article considers the extent of change and continuity in Belarus’s foreign policy, and thus whether Russia’s criticisms reflect consequential shifts, covering the period 2016–2019. The analysis begins with the removal of EU sanctions, which afforded Belarus new opportunities, and ends before the protest movement that emerged ahead of the election in 2020. The study considers three policy areas: international trade; diplomacy more broadly; and foreign policy concerns for prestige. The article argues that Belarus made appreciable policy changes in response to structural pressures in the period 2016–2019, but the parameters of these foreign policy shifts were necessarily highly constrained by domestic interest group competition which prevents Belarus distancing itself from Russia. It concludes with a brief reflection on how the 2020 election protests and repressions affect the dynamics described.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document