Communications Frameworks and the Supply of Information in Policy Subsystems

Author(s):  
Samuel Workman ◽  
JoBeth S. Shafran
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antti Gronow ◽  
Maria Brockhaus ◽  
Monica Di Gregorio ◽  
Aasa Karimo ◽  
Tuomas Ylä-Anttila

AbstractPolicy learning can alter the perceptions of both the seriousness and the causes of a policy problem, thus also altering the perceived need to do something about the problem. This then allows for the informed weighing of different policy options. Taking a social network perspective, we argue that the role of social influence as a driver of policy learning has been overlooked in the literature. Network research has shown that normatively laden belief change is likely to occur through complex contagion—a process in which an actor receives social reinforcement from more than one contact in its social network. We test the applicability of this idea to policy learning using node-level network regression models on a unique longitudinal policy network survey dataset concerning the Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiative in Brazil, Indonesia, and Vietnam. We find that network connections explain policy learning in Indonesia and Vietnam, where the policy subsystems are collaborative, but not in Brazil, where the level of conflict is higher and the subsystem is more established. The results suggest that policy learning is more likely to result from social influence and complex contagion in collaborative than in conflictual settings.


1994 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth N. Bickers ◽  
Robert M. Stein

2015 ◽  
Vol 94 (4) ◽  
pp. 953-969 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT R. ROBINSON

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 1711-1728
Author(s):  
Diana Cruz Rodrigues ◽  
Mário Vasconcellos Sobrinho ◽  
Ana Maria de Albuquerque Vasconcellos

Abstract 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.


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.


1998 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 883-897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay D. Gatrell ◽  
Lou Fintor

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document