Search

Contributing a new South American case study, this paper seeks to advance the research agenda on processes of policy integration by developing a better understanding of how nascent subsystems become integrated into mature ones and the role that changing beliefs of advocacy coalitions play in fostering policy integration. The paper examines environmental policy integration in Uruguay's forestry sector since the 1990s and is based on an inductive qualitative analysis of policy documents, sector reports, parliament hearings and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. This demonstrates that environmental policy integration has increased continuously since the 1990s, accelerating particularly during the 2000s. We can derive three insights that specifically address this path of integration: a change in the policy beliefs of the dominant advocacy coalition, international salience of the minority coalition's beliefs and participatory policy processes that foster interactions between opposing coalitions. Despite this, the two advocacy coalitions have crystallized with fundamentally different deep core beliefs about what a sustainable forestry sector should be. While one coalition argues that commercial tree plantations are sufficiently regulated in environmental terms, the other coalition maintains that the way that the pulp industry has developed in Uruguay is fundamentally unsustainable and therefore seeks to change the forestry sector as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political mobilization of policy actors into advocacy coalitions is a defining feature of policy subsystems. Nonetheless, knowledge about the particularities of advocacy coalitions across different political systems remains limited. This paper offers insights for comparative analysis of advocacy coalitions by exploring the issue of shale development in the United States, Argentina, and China using media content analysis. Methodologically, it advances the study of coalitions by introducing a standardized approach for measuring coalition attributes across countries. Empirically, it explores how coalitions vary in their composition across countries with different political opportunity structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cooperation between environmentalists, scientists, and governmental actors was a crucial driver behind Brazil's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the forest sector from 2004 onward. The same climate coalition's advocacy work to reduce emissions in the energy sector, Brazil's second-most emitting sector, has been unsuccessful. Why has climate-policy development been so different in the two sectors? Building on the advocacy coalition framework, this paper analyzes the climate coalition's role, systematically comparing how the coalition has worked to influence policy development in the two key sectors for Brazilian GHG emissions between 2003 and 2015. The paper finds that strong climate-coalition unity, unambiguous scientific knowledge, economic growth, and international pressure functioned as a constellation of factors that enhanced the climate coalition's ability to take advantage of a climate-policy window and frame deforestation as a core climate concern. The same constellation of factors was missing in the energy sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The close link between scientific knowledge, learning, and beliefs is particularly relevant in environmental policymaking and the interaction of environmental with economic development‐focused policies. This article contributes to a more refined understanding of the links among scientific knowledge, belief changes, and the move from a collaborative to an adversarial policy subsystem within the Advocacy Coalition Framework. It analyzes the process of drafting and negotiating the biofuels aspects of the European Renewable Energy Directive, which was dominated by political disagreements between two advocacy coalitions. Their initial agreement on increasing the share of renewable energies in transport turned into conflict after new scientific evidence emerged on the negative environmental and climate change impacts of crop‐based biofuels. The environmental coalition changed its empirical policy beliefs to reflect normative policy beliefs on environmental protection. This change in empirical policy beliefs uncovered a pre‐existing conflict with the normative policy beliefs of the economic development‐focused coalition. As a consequence, the collaborative policy subsystem shifted to an adversarial policy subsystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2005, the Ontario government passed the Places to Grow Act and the Greenbelt Act, both major changes in land use policy designed to preserve greenspaces and combat urban sprawl in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Canada's largest conurbation. This article examines the actors, actor beliefs, and inter-actor alliances in the southern Ontario land use policy subsystem from the perspective of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Specifically, this paper undertakes an empirical examination of the ACF's Belief Homophily Hypothesis, which holds that inter-actor alliances form on the basis of shared policy-relevant beliefs, creating advocacy coalitions. The analysis finds strong evidence of three advocacy coalitions in the policy subsystem-an agricultural coalition, an environmentalist coalition, and a developers' coalition-as predicted by the hypothesis. However, it also finds equally strong evidence of a cross-coalition coordination network of peak organizations, something not predicted by the Belief Homophily Hypothesis, and in need of explanation within the ACF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major policy issues rarely respect the borders of legally defined policy sectors or the competencies of single governmental departments. Policy sectors are neither completely segmented nor indifferent to decisions taken in other policy fields. The main aim of this study is to analyze the relations between forestry and nature preservation using the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). The ACF is used to analyze how coalitions advocate or pursue their beliefs in the formulation process of strategic documents (strategies) in the policy fields of nature conservation and forestry. The advocacy coalition framework presents one approach to the analysis of relevant actors' behavior and their interaction mechanisms in relation to the integration and coordination of relevant policies for the Slovak forestry sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The operationalization of market instruments for environmental governance depends on political processes in order to adapt to socioeconomic and political contexts; • Actors participating in the operationalization of forest certificate trading group together in advocacy coalitions that emphasize (1) environmental additionality, (2) market viability or (3) agricultural consolidation. • Actors apply knowledge filters (adoption, rejection or transformation) to new ideas, experiences and knowledge in order to influence policy-making processes in accordance with their beliefs and interests • Actors can adhere to multiple advocacy coalitions and shift their position depending on the political situation, suggesting that the boundaries of advocacy coalitions overlap. • Although the appropriation of the policy process has resulted in a decree for regulating trade, there is still much uncertainty about the future due to ignored concepts and hostile politics. Market instruments for environmental governance have a foundation in an economic theorythat claims to be universal and atemporal, but their materialization in practice always takes place in specific socioeconomic and political contexts. The Brazilian trade in forest certificates (CRA) is a new market instrument that allows farmers that have deforested illegally prior to 2008 to become compliant by acquiring certificates from other farmers that conserve a forest area beyond legal requirements. Even though the CRA market has been praised as an innovative environmental policy, it is still unclear whether it will be implemented even after more than two decades of political debate, congressional approval of legislation and substantial investments in new supporting systems. This research paper aims to analyze the materialization of this market by reconstructing how policy participants form advocacy coalitions (i.e. environmental protection, market viability and agricultural consolidation) to advance their interests. Our results show that advocacy coalitions filter (i.e. absorb, reject or transform) new ideas, experiences and knowledge in order to influence the regulations for forest certificate trading. In doing so, they often combine positions, form new alliances and merge with other advocacy coalitions in accordance with the interests of their constituents. These fluid allegiances within and between coalitions explain why market materialization remains ambiguous and unlikely to become operational in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]