Promoting and Challenging Immigration Detention in Canada: Understanding the Role of Advocacy Coalition Groups in Canada’s Immigration Detention Policy Subsystem

Advocacy coalition groups such as closed border supporters and open border advocates play a role in Canada’s immigration detention policy subsystem. Using political mobilization, they exploit pathways of policy change to promote policy objectives which favour or limit policy changes relating to the detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants for immigration purposes in Canada. This paper investigates the role of actors from opposing advocacy coalition groups in promoting or challenging immigration detention in Canada. The paper adopts the theoretical underpinnings of “Advocacy Coalition Framework” as a lens of analysis to trace the role of advocacy coalition groups in recent history of Canada’s immigration detention policy subsystem. This paper assumes an actor-centric approach with an aim to contribute to current body of knowledge on Canada’s immigration detention policy subsystem. Keywords: immigration detention; open border advocates; closed border supporters; advocacy coalition groups; advocacy coalition framework; Canada; policy subsystem

Explaining the legitimizing function of expert knowledge: how France got away with pain in farm animals

Scholars have long investigated connections between types of knowledge use and types of policy subsystem. Yet, most of them focus on the learning function of expert information. The legitimizing function of knowledge—when expertise serves as a substitute for decision (Boswell in J Eur Public Policy 15(4):471–488, 2008)—has attracted less attention. An empirically validated explanation of this function is still missing. This article tests existing hypotheses regarding which features of the subsystem are conducive to the legitimizing function. The demonstration rests upon a case study: France’s Ministry of Agriculture’s commissioning of INRA to carry out a systematic literature review on pain in farm animals. Two types of factors are involved in the legitimizing function of knowledge: environmental mechanisms (an adversarial policy subsystem, concentration of policy authority) and relational mechanisms (coalitions displaying epistemic uncertainty and exerting pressures on the source of policy authority, a policy broker mitigating the conflict between the two coalitions).

Formação de coalizão de defesa e atores chaves da política

The article discusses advocacy coalition formation and the roles of key actors in science, technology and innovation (ST&I) policies for social inclusion in a subnational context. The policy subsystem category and concept of advocacy coalition are used in the context of the advocacy coalition framework and address the need to understand the influences of key actors (policy broker and policy entrepreneur) on it. The policy subsystem was outlined using case-oriented research and the discourse was analyzed in order to understand the policy actors’ beliefs. The analysis of two cases of ST&I policy processes for social inclusion (assistive technology and social technology) highlighted policy broker and policy entrepreneur key roles in the emergence of policy subsystems, but had different effects on advocacy coalition formation. The policy entrepreneur had a closer relationship with advocacy coalition building when setting up regular mechanisms to share beliefs and policy-oriented learning, as well as taking initiatives to coordinate the collective action of members in the early advocacy coalition. Although relevant in agenda setting and maintaining a specific social inclusion agenda in the policy process, the policy broker did not achieve a positive relationship with advocacy coalition building. The article corroborates the possibility of incorporating the concept of policy entrepreneur in analyses of the advocacy coalition framework and highlights this actor’s characteristics through this analytical model.

Advocacy coalition formation and key actors within the policy

The article discusses advocacy coalition formation and the roles of key actors in science, technology and innovation (ST&I) policies for social inclusion in a subnational context. The policy subsystem category and concept of advocacy coalition are used in the context of the advocacy coalition framework and address the need to understand the influences of key actors (policy broker and policy entrepreneur) on it. The policy subsystem was outlined using case-oriented research and the discourse was analyzed in order to understand the policy actors’ beliefs. The analysis of two cases of ST&I policy processes for social inclusion (assistive technology and social technology) highlighted policy broker and policy entrepreneur key roles in the emergence of policy subsystems, but had different effects on advocacy coalition formation. The policy entrepreneur had a closer relationship with advocacy coalition building when setting up regular mechanisms to share beliefs and policy-oriented learning, as well as taking initiatives to coordinate the collective action of members in the early advocacy coalition. Although relevant in agenda setting and maintaining a specific social inclusion agenda in the policy process, the policy broker did not achieve a positive relationship with advocacy coalition building. The article corroborates the possibility of incorporating the concept of policy entrepreneur in analyses of the advocacy coalition framework and highlights this actor’s characteristics through this analytical model.

Mudança de larga escala na política ambiental: análise da realidade brasileira

The Brazilian presidential elections of 2018 brought large-scale changes in the Brazilian environmental policy subsystem. The purpose of this article is to analyze these changes through the lenses of the Advocacy Coalition Framework - ACF. First, we introduced some of the main characteristics of this subsystem, then we presented a hemerographic analysis to describe and analyze the effects of four recent shocks in this subsystem. Two of these shocks were external: (i) the election of a new political elite in power that brought a clear discourse of denial of the relevance of environmental policy and (ii) calamitous environmental events that occurred in Brazil in 2019. The other two shocks were internal: (i) the capture of key positions and resources by dominant coalition members and (ii) the rise of conflict and polarization among the coalitions in the subsystem. The results showed: (i) the rise of a hyper-adversarial environmental policy subsystem; (ii) a realignment between non-dominant coalitions in a cooperative direction; (iii) the imposition of clear barriers to negotiation; (iv) changes in the use of scientific information by more politicized discourses with a high degree of bias. The article contributes to the understanding of the processes of institutional change in environmental policy, especially in contexts of large-scale change generated by increasing electoral polarization and fierce political disputes. It also contributes to the analysis of the limits and possibilities of the ACF in the Brazilian environmental agenda.

Large-scale environmental policy change: analysis of the Brazilian reality

The Brazilian presidential elections of 2018 brought large-scale changes in the Brazilian environmental policy subsystem. The purpose of this article is to analyze these changes through the lenses of the Advocacy Coalition Framework - ACF. First, we introduced some of the main characteristics of this subsystem, then we presented a hemerographic analysis to describe and analyze the effects of four recent shocks in this subsystem. Two of these shocks were external: (i) the election of a new political elite in power that brought a clear discourse of denial of the relevance of environmental policy and (ii) calamitous environmental events that occurred in Brazil in 2019. The other two shocks were internal: (i) the capture of key positions and resources by dominant coalition members and (ii) the rise of conflict and polarization among the coalitions in the subsystem. The results showed: (i) the rise of a hyper-adversarial environmental policy subsystem; (ii) a realignment between non-dominant coalitions in a cooperative direction; (iii) the imposition of clear barriers to negotiation; (iv) changes in the use of scientific information by more politicized discourses with a high degree of bias. The article contributes to the understanding of the processes of institutional change in environmental policy, especially in contexts of large-scale change generated by increasing electoral polarization and fierce political disputes. It also contributes to the analysis of the limits and possibilities of the ACF in the Brazilian environmental agenda.