Integrating collaborative governance theory with the Advocacy Coalition Framework

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Koebele
Keyword(s):  
Policy Change ◽  
Collaborative Governance ◽  
Advocacy Coalition Framework ◽  
Advocacy Coalition ◽  
Governance Theory ◽  
Governance Process ◽  
Original Case ◽  
Governance Processes ◽  
Governance Arrangements

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.

scholarly journals Meta-regulation meets Deliberation: Situating the Governor within NHS Foundation Trust Hospitals

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (03) ◽  
pp. 595-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROSS MILLAR ◽  
TIM FREEMAN ◽  
RUSSELL MANNION ◽  
HUW T. O. DAVIES
Keyword(s):  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Internal Governance ◽  
Hospital Governance ◽  
Regulatory Architecture ◽  
External Governance ◽  
Hospital Boards ◽  
Study Sites ◽  
Governance Processes ◽  
Governance Arrangements

AbstractNHS Foundation Trust (FT) hospitals in England have complex internal governance arrangements. They may be considered to exhibit meta-regulatory characteristics to the extent that governors are able to promote deliberative values and steer internal governance processes towards wider regulatory goals. Yet, while recent studies of NHS FT hospital governance have explored FT governors and examined FT hospital boards to consider executive oversight, there is currently no detailed investigation of interactions between these two groups. Drawing on observational and interview data from four case-study sites, we trace interactions between the actors involved; explore their understandings of events; and consider the extent to which the proposed benefits of meta-regulation were realised in practice. Findings show that while governors provided both a conscience and contribution to internal and external governance arrangements, the meta-regulatory role was largely symbolic and limited to compliance and legitimation of executive actions. Thus while the meta-regulatory ‘architecture’ for governor involvement may be considered effective, the soft intelligence gleaned and operationalised may be obscured by ‘hard’ performance metrics which dominate resource-allocation processes and priority-setting. Governors were involved in practices that symbolised deliberative involvement but resulted in further opportunities for legitimising executive decisions.

Service-Providing Nonprofits Working in Coalition to Advocate for Policy Change

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Chin
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Nonprofit Organizations ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Coalition Structure ◽  
Policy Advocacy ◽  
Organizational Survival ◽  
Advocacy Coalition ◽  
Implementation Level ◽  
Immigrant Health Policy

Nonprofit organizations that primarily provide social or health services can play an important role in policy advocacy, as indicated by recent research. Less is known about how and why they participate in policy advocacy, and concerns remain that their advocacy is overly self-interested. This case study of an urban immigrant health policy advocacy coalition made up primarily of service-providing nonprofits in New York City suggests that (a) service-providing nonprofits’ insights as daily case-level advocates for their clients generate unique contributions to policy change agendas, particularly at the policy implementation level rather than at the legislative level; (b) these organizations do not necessarily see a conflict between their organizational survival imperatives and social change objectives, nor between case-level and higher level advocacy; and (c) a coalition structure, leadership by an experienced advocacy organization, and dedicated foundation funding can elevate case advocacy concerns into a higher level and more sustained advocacy agenda.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document