Search

Related Articles This article examines the narrative framework in European Union (EU) research and innovation projects, focusing on symbolic practices and terminology. The analysis includes over five years of ethnographic research, and 20 European projects funded by Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe, and Erasmus+ programs. It explores different ways project actors internalize and reproduce the EU's symbolic power through its policies, particularly the ambiguous concept of “innovation.” Using Bourdieu's theory of practice, the research highlights the way social structures within the “project field” influence dynamics and outcomes, often resulting in a gap between rhetoric and reality. The study also uncovers broader political and social implications of these practices, calling for critical reflection of their impact. In its conclusion, the authors discuss the challenges of maintaining genuine innovation amidst bureaucratic requirements and the EU's symbolic power, advocating for more nuanced and context‐aware project practices.Kanol, Direnç. 2022. “Narrative Strategies for Emerging Disruptive Technologies: A Case Study of Blockchain for Europe.” Politics & Policy 50(5): 952–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12492.Nowlin, Matthew C., Maren Trochmann, and Thomas M. Rabovsky. 2022. “Advocacy Coalitions and Political Control.” Politics & Policy 50(2): 201–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12458.Von Malmborg, Fredrik. 2023. “Combining the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Argumentative Discourse Analysis: The Case of the ‘Energy Efficiency First’ Principle in EU Energy and Climate Policy.” Politics & Policy 51(2):222–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12525. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For different currents in policy analysis as policy networks and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), identifying coalitions from policy beliefs and coordination between actors is crucial to a precise understanding of a policy process. Focusing particularly the relational dimension of ACF approaches linked with policy network analysis, determining policy subsystems from the actor collaborations and exchanges has recently begun offering fertile links with the network analysis. Studies in this way frequently apply Block Modeling and Community Detection (BMCD) strategies to define homogeneous political groups. However, the BMCD literature is growing quickly, using a wide variety of algorithms and interesting selection methods that are much more diverse than those used in the policy network analysis and particularly the ACF when this current focused on the collaboration networks before or after regarding the belief distance between actors. Identifying the best methodological option in a specific context can therefore be difficult and few ACF studies give an explicit justification. On the other hand, few BMCD publications offer a systematic comparison of real social networks and they are never applied to policy network datasets. This paper offers a new, relevant 5-Step selection method to reconcile advances in both the policy networks/ACF and BMCD. Using an application based on original African policy network data collected in Madagascar and Niger, we provide a useful set of practical recommendations for future ACF studies using policy network analysis: (i) the density and size of the policy network affect the identification process, (ii) the "best algorithm" can be rigorously determined by maximizing a novel indicator based on convergence and homogeneity between algorithm results, (iii) researchers need to be careful with missing data: they affect the results and imputation does not solve the problem. • Identifying policy coalitions is fundamental to understand a policy network. • Studies apply different strategies but identifying the best option can be difficult. • We offer a relevant and consistent 5-Step method by maximizing a novel indicator. • Further research need to be careful with missing data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the relationship between education policy change and policy transfer, focusing on Georgia's School Board of Trustees. It analyzes how Western practices have been implemented in the education policies of post-Soviet countries. To achieve this, the article utilizes instrumental case studies and in-depth interviews. It views policy transfer as a tool of education policy change while integrating it with an advocacy coalition framework. The study indicates that advocacy coalitions transform into transfer networks, and their approach is to replicate or emulate foreign experiences. The article also poses new research questions, enabling researchers to build on and scrutinize the proposed assumptions and concentrate on post-Soviet education policy transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Canada, in the early 2000s, the decriminalization of cannabis for recreational use seemed imminent. Between 2003 and 2005, three government decriminalization bills were introduced in the Canadian House of Commons, but none were adopted, and decriminalization efforts were abandoned. Subsequently, Canada went beyond decriminalization and legalized recreational cannabis in 2018. This paper examines why the Canadian decriminalization efforts failed, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and ACF policy change theory. Three ACF-based hypotheses to explain the failed reform attempts are developed and investigated, but none are empirically supported. A fourth hypothesis is developed using information processing insights from Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) but adapted to the ACF. This hypothesis is empirically supported showing that Canada's decriminalization efforts failed, despite a supportive advocacy coalition, favourable conditions in the cannabis policy subsystem and favourable conditions in the Canadian political system, because its systemic advocates did not give it priority relative to other issues from other subsystems. This finding has implications for ACF policy change theory, identifying a necessary condition for major policy change that has been potentially overlooked, and illustrates the potential for cross-fertilization between PET and ACF theories of policy change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Grand sustainability challenges span multiple sectors and fields of policymaking. Novel technologies that respond to these challenges may trigger the emergence of new policy subsystems at the intersection of established sectors. We develop a framework that addresses the complexities of 'multi-system settings.' Empirically, we explore belief and coalition formation in the nascent policy subsystem around hydrogen technologies in Germany, which emerges at the intersection of electricity, transport, heating, and industry and is characterised by a broad range of actors from different sectoral backgrounds. We find two coalitions: a rather unusual coalition of actors from industry, NGOs, and research institutes as well as an expectable coalition of gas and heat sector actors. Actors disagree over production, application, and import standards for hydrogen. However, there is widespread support for hydrogen and for a strong role of the state across almost all actors. We explain our findings by combining insights from the advocacy coalition framework and politics of transitions: Belief and coalition formation in a nascent subsystem are influenced by sectoral backgrounds of actors, technology characteristics, as well as trust and former contacts. Our study contributes to a better understanding of early stages of coalition formation in a multi-system setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although abortion policy is often discussed as a black-and-white conflict characterized by polarization and a lack of compromise, this study explores the validity of such a presupposition by asking how advocates articulate their belief systems about abortion policy and in what ways—if at all—are those beliefs shared within and across coalitions and create fissures within and between coalitions? Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we interviewed advocates, representing both pro-abortion-access and anti-abortion-access perspectives, about their beliefs, coalition allies, and opponents in Colorado. The result reveals nuanced belief systems that address competing conceptions of morality, gender, and life with a tendency toward deep core beliefs. This paper contributes to the ACF literature by highlighting a policy issue not often raised by ACF scholars, bridging morality policy and abortion policy literature with more mainstream policy process research, and surpassing simple "pro-life vs. pro-choice" dichotomies to reveal complex belief systems about abortion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to understand coalition building between national and international actors in the context of an emerging subsystem. In applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework to the case of Uruguay, where a new field of social policy – the National Care System – was introduced in 2015 after a process involving different national actors from academia, civil society, politics, and administration, but also United Nations agencies, the paper explores the role of these international organizations in coalition building, and examines how a dominant coalition of national and international actors shaped the development of the new system. Using interview data and documents, the findings suggest that the involvement of international organizations in the coalition was based on shared beliefs and personal and institutional relationships. While powerful opposing coalitions were absent due to the nascent nature of the subsystem, the dominant coalition was able to influence the policy's introduction based on their beliefs regarding gender equality and rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Policy Analysis is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Drawing on a review of 112 Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) applications to China published during 2006–2022, this article finds that, consistent with ACF assumptions, policy processes in China are complex processes of top‐down decision making, horizontal negotiation, networked influence, and bottom‐up initiation. The review finds policy processes in many subsystems of China inconsistent with one implicit assumption of the framework: the difficulty of reconciling conflicting beliefs between warring coalitions. Compared with the results from a review of the English ACF applications to countries around the globe, policy‐oriented learning and imposition by a hierarchically superior jurisdiction were identified more frequently as pathways to policy change in reviewed applications to China. The Xi Jinping administration encourages between‐coalition learning and negotiation to pursue the ideal of building a well‐off and equitable society. At the same time, his top‐level reforms have changed the long‐time status quo in some subsystems by national policy reforms. Related Articles: Nam, Aerang, and Christopher M. Weible. 2023. "Examining Experts' Discourse in South Korea's Nuclear Power Policy Making: An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach to Policy Knowledge." Politics & Policy 51(2): 201–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12522. Nwalie, Martin Ike. 2019. "Advocacy Coalition Framework and Policy Changes in a Third‐World Country." Politics & Policy 47(3): 545–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12302. von Malmborg, Fredrik. 2023. "Combining the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Argumentative Discourse Analysis: The Case of the 'Energy Efficiency First' Principle in EU Energy and Climate Policy." Politics & Policy 51(2): 222–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12525. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Educational Studies (1673-1298) is the property of Journal of Educational Studies Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This document is a collection of articles that explore the role of emotions, narratives, and government strategies in political processes. The articles discuss topics such as the influence of fear and hope narratives on congressional attention to climate change, the emotional expressions of advocacy coalitions in highly contentious legislative sessions, and the use of cultural theory and the Narrative Policy Framework to understand public preferences and political narratives surrounding fracking. The articles highlight the importance of studying emotions and narratives in political conflicts and policy-making processes. Additionally, the document includes an article that provides a comprehensive review of scientific publications on farm animal welfare governance, emphasizing the need for more political and social science research in this area. Hårstad's study examines the influence of different actors on private governance, specifically in relation to animal welfare. The study identifies retailers and non-governmental organizations as significant influencers, while public entities and political parties are described as slower initiators of change, allowing private actors to take the lead. The study also highlights the growing public concern for animal welfare, which, although not directly changing public behavior, legitimizes advancements in research and market practices. The review emphasizes the need for further research in political and social sciences to understand the dynamics and effectiveness of various governance mechanisms in farm animal welfare. [Extracted from the article]

While emotions are an inherent component of the human experience that influence behavior, values, and beliefs, they have largely been left out of policy process studies theoretically and methodologically. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), with its focus on how individuals coalesce into coalitions around a set of common beliefs, we begin to situate emotions as a critical component of belief systems and discourse about public policies. This study analyzes legislative testimony from four policies debated during the 2021 Colorado Legislative Session using discourse analysis to identify the emotions and coalitional beliefs. We find that policy actors express emotions and beliefs similarly to other policy actors in the same coalition and differently from policy actors in the opposing coalition. We conclude this paper by discussing the theoretical and methodological contributions of including emotions in the ACF. The move to incorporate the analysis of emotional expressions, and hence the study of affect, into the ACF mirrors the ongoing incorporation of how people feel in politics and not just how they think. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Australia, the policy priorities and processes of government and national governing bodies of sport impact how community sport organizations operate. This study explored the views of community sport club (CSC) officials (n = 53) in the Illawarra region in New South Wales, where there is a disparity in impact compared with their better‐resourced urban counterparts concerning sustainability, policy, and advocacy matters. Participants were surveyed for their views about the typically top‐down policy processes, inter‐organizational relationships, and advocacy for community sport. CSC officials participated in an online survey to assess opinions on resource issues and policy processes. The findings demonstrated that community sport is challenging to sustain and that CSC officials have little influence on policy. The outcome points to an appetite for advocacy from CSC officials in policy creation. Further, the Advocacy Coalition Framework is proffered as a platform for evaluating the viability of advocacy within community sport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, no empirical study has focused on understanding the evolution process of China's college admission policies and clarifying its hidden evolution logic. Based on the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), this study determines different advocacy coalitions and their belief systems during the evolution process of independent enrollment policy, as well as various driving forces that affect the process. The social network analysis methods are adopted to delineate alliance structures formed by actors with different policy beliefs in the policy subsystems which change over time. This study chooses news reports included in the China National knowledge infrastructure (CNKI) database as the data source, and identifies 328 related news reports to be coded in the analysis. This article not only provides the evolution logic of independent enrollment policy, but also bridges the research gap and therefore enriches the broad literature on the application of Advocacy Coalition Framework in Eastern countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing availability of extensive governmental data, technological advancements, and a rising standard for government openness are encouraging global governments to implement open data initiatives. While some governments are actively adapting to these trends, others remain behind, despite the pressure. This research explores the political and administrative reasons behind these differences. By analyzing how local governments in South Korea handled requests for open data from citizens between 2007 and 2016, the study highlights the importance of political competition and administrative strength in fostering government transparency and effectively addressing citizen data requests. The study assesses open government data based on its scope, time, and quality, finding that higher levels of electoral competition and better administrative capabilities contribute to increased transparency and responsiveness. However, the study's use of a regression discontinuity design reveals that the political party controlling local governments had minimal influence on these factors. Related Articles: Heo, Inhye. 2013. "The Political Economy of Policy Gridlock in South Korea: The Case of the Lee Myung‐bak Government's Green Growth Policy." Politics & Policy 41(4): 509–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12029. Heo, Inhye. 2022. "Energy Democratization Policy without Democratization of Policy Governance in South Korea: A Participatory Democracy Perspective." Politics & Policy 50(4): 834–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12480. Nam, Aerang, and Christopher M. Weible. 2023. "Examining Experts' Discourse in South Korea's Nuclear Power Policy Making: An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach to Policy Knowledge." Politics & Policy 51(2): 201–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12522. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Policy Studies Journal's second issue for 2024 features 10 research articles covering a wide range of topics within policy theories and substantive policy areas. The articles explore the interplay between policy theories and substantive issues, including climate change policy, preemption, advocacy strategies, collaborative policymaking, polycentric governance, policy influence online and offline, emotional belief expressions in gender identity politics, narrative storytelling in critical race theory discourse, policy responses to environmental change, and the rapid spread of Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) laws in college athletics. These articles provide valuable insights into policy mechanisms and their effects, emphasizing the importance of theory-driven research in crafting effective public policy. The journal also shares updates about new article types, ongoing special issue initiatives, and recent events and meetings. [Extracted from the article]

Many theories and approaches to policy studies have recently begun to question and research how emotions interact with peoples' understanding and behaviors, especially in policy and politics. This paper builds on and contributes to studying emotions in policy and politics via the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). In applying Emotional‐Belief Analysis, this paper examines the legislative testimony on one of the US' first gender‐affirming care (GAC) bans. It shows that those testifying can be organized in competing advocacy coalitions with distinct emotion‐belief expressions in combination with deep core and policy core beliefs. Moreover, expressions of negative emotions and policy core beliefs display significant and the largest effects in explaining coalition affiliation and shared views of the bill banning GAC. The conclusion summarizes the paper's empirical themes with suggestions for incorporating emotions more into the ACF and the broader policy studies field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the key objectives of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) is to clarify the role of science in policymaking. As such, scientists can help inform science and technology policy decisions by providing information on the risks and benefits of a technology. There is also high demand for scientists to take an active role in policy debates, and policymakers often rely on scientific experts to help them make decisions on regulations. However, few empirical studies have focused on the establishment of coalitions and their impact on policy outputs, or on the role of scientists in these coalitions. This paper explores how the ACF can be applied to a policy subsystem by examining two nanotechnology regulation policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as cases. Drawing on 21 interviews with people involved in nanotechnology subsystems, this paper finds that there are two opposing advocacy groups in the nanotechnology policy subsystem, each with their own shared beliefs. The qualitative interview analysis suggests that the lineup of coalition members is stable over time, but the EPA exhibits less consistent positions. The interview data also show that despite many policy actors being involved in the nanotechnology policy process, there is a significant role for scientific information in the subsystem. The paper concludes with discussions of the role of science within the nanotechnology policy subsystem and the applicability of the ACF in various settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study unveils a unique case in the Paralympic Games through investigating the negotiation between the International Paralympic Committee and the Beijing Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games for the change of the emblem of the 2022 Paralympic Winter Games two years after its official release. Qualitative data is collected through interviews with senior personnel and archival documents and is analysed through employing the Advocacy Coalition Framework to highlight the change in the belief system of the two parties and the interaction between the policy subsystem and the broader political and social economic system. The findings reveal the shift in the belief system of respective Coalitions and the change in the power dynamics. The paper concludes with a discussion concerning the ACF's four pathways of policy change and a response to one of the questions that is raised in the ACF literature for further researches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Only a few states have adopted a paid family leave (PFL) policy in the United States of America. Local media described the 2019 Oregon PFL legislation as "the most progressive" policy in the country, with coalitions as crucial policy advocates. This case study applies the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to examine policy learning and negotiated agreements as causal mechanisms to explain the adoption of the PFL. We identified three modes of policy learning: previous policy cycles, learning from other coalitions, and learning from community organizations. ACF explains the evolution of negotiated agreements based on the stability of coalition belief systems, including consensus on leave time, inclusivity, and cost-sharing contributions. ACF helps describe how coalitions adopted progressive ideas such as equity. However, ACF's elements that allow a deeper exploration of narratives were missing. Future studies should include interviews with coalition members and compare state policies to assess strategies. Future policy initiatives could integrate feedback from community organizations into policy strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food systems governance regimes have long been spaces of "thick legitimacy" (Montenegro de Wit & Iles, 2016), where embedded norms benefit productivist agricultural practices. Within governance regimes, the science-policy interface and the scientists who occupy this space are integral in today's public policy processes. Often treated as objective science, technical disciplines have become a powerful source of legitimatizing in decision-making. Without the contextualization of lived experience or diverse ways of knowing, these siloed spaces can lead policymakers towards an action bias (e.g., a rush to short-term solutions) that neglects the underlying causes and concerns of our current crises. Current governance arrangements in the science-policy interface demonstrate the bias toward technical science (e.g. economics) and short-term solutions. However, by challenging productivist agriculture norms reformed public policy processes may shift from a space of repression to one of possibility. This reform can happen through investigatiing dominant actor coalitions and identifying tools to reconfigure these power arrangements. Public policy theory, such as the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), helps organize relations within current agricultural policy arenas. The work of practitioners and other disciplines offer tools that can support transformative action by food systems advocates in the pursuit of changing the way public policy is made. In part, understanding how power is organized and who may influence policy processes is critical to change. This reflective essay ends with tools and strategies for those wishing to engage governments in this shift. The proposed tools and strategies focus on how people (e.g. policy champions), processes (e.g. policy leverage points), and partnerships (e.g. allyship) generate ways in which advocates can, and do, engage governments in transformative change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines the policy-making system of Lake Urmia based on the advocacy coalition framework. So, active coalitions of the sub-system of policy-making of Lake Urmia, their beliefs and source of powers have been identified based on the qualitative approach in this research. The population of this research was experts who were familiar with the Urmia Lake policy-making system and documents in this field. Snowball sampling has been used as the method of sampling. Interviews and studying documents were the main instruments for gathering data. Content analysis has been used for analyzing data. The most important results of this research are the identification of three advocacy coalitions consisting of the supporter of local environmental management, the Supporter of the engineering approach, and the potential coalition of environmental NGOs. The results indicate that the type of activity of these three coalitions can be explained by the features of the adversarial subsystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, known as the Istanbul Convention or IC, is a contested issue in Central and Eastern Europe. This article investigates this matter further by focusing specifically on Bulgaria and Poland using the most similar systems design; the former country has not ratified the convention, but the latter has. In this article, we draw on the literature on gender politics and public policy and on law and society studies to refine the advocacy coalition framework and propose a novel perspective on (non-)ratification that accentuates the role of anti-gender and feminist advocacy coalitions. Specifically, this article links the (non-)ratification of the IC to the complex modes of interaction between partisan, societal, and legal actors who make up adversarial advocacy coalitions. This article also highlights that deep core beliefs widen the cultural cleavage, with the traditional being pitted against the feminist in this case, thereby instigating "culture wars" in both countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts (SOGICE) do not work. • Applying the advocacy coalition framework explains how scientists can and have influenced policy. • Cognitive and behavioral professionals are crucial to efforts to end SOGICE. • SOGICE continues today, and scientists must remain committed to advocacy for LGBTQIA+ people. After over 50 years of research and debate, the cognitive and behavioral scientific community has overwhelmingly condemned attempts to change a person's gender identity or sexuality. Despite evidence that conversion practices are ineffective and harmful, politicians debate the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals while change efforts continue. Using the advocacy coalition framework, this paper discusses the influence of research, policy, and debate in the context of larger social and political change. As members of a policy advocacy coalition, cognitive and behavioral practitioners have the power to influence laws and other forms of policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There has been increasing concern over opioid-related harms across the world. In Australia in 2018, codeine-containing products were up-scheduled from over-the-counter access at pharmacies, to requiring a prescription. The drug regulator’s decision to up-schedule was contentious and widely debated, due to the potentially large impact on consumers and healthcare professionals. This study aimed to analyse influences on the codeine up-scheduling policy. Methods This retrospective policy analysis used the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to understand how policy actors with shared beliefs formed adversarial coalitions to shape policy. Data were drawn from documents (regulator policy documents, public submissions, news reports, organisational media releases and position statements) and semistructured interviews with 15 key policy actors. Codes were generated relating to policy processes and actor beliefs; broad themes included the role of health professionals, perceptions of opioids, impact on consumers, and the role of government in healthcare. Results Two coalitions in this policy subsystem were identified: (1) supportive [with respect to the up-scheduling], and (2) opposing. The key evident beliefs of the supportive coalition were that the harms of codeine outweighed the benefits, and that government regulation was the best pathway for protecting consumers. The opposing coalition believed that the benefits of codeine accessible through pharmacists outweighed any harms, and consumers should manage their health without any more intervention than necessary. The policy decision reflected the influence of the supportive coalition, and this analysis highlighted the importance of their public health framing of the issue, the acceptability of their experts and supporting evidence, and the perceived legitimacy of the up-scheduling process. Conclusion Understanding these coalitions, their beliefs, and how they are translated through existing policy processes and institutions provides insight for those interested in influencing future health policy. Specific lessons include the importance of strategic frames and advocacy, and engagement with formal policy processes.

Many political actors lack the power or competencies to impact policy outputs and outcomes on their own. This is why they join forces to multiply their impact. Following the advocacy coalition framework, they do so based on joint beliefs and shared policy preferences. Therefore, to understand cooperation or conflict among political actors, including the potential for policy compromises or stalemates, it seems crucial to know the allies and opponents in a political subsystem. Although many studies have investigated advocacy coalitions of like‐minded actors in various political subsystems and policy fields around the globe, not much is known about the dynamics at the origin of joint belief or common preference building. In this context, we ask: How and when do actors develop similar beliefs and joint policy preferences with others in a political subsystem? To answer this question, we investigate the early stage of policy making—a so‐called nascent subsystem—when a new issue arrives on the political agenda. We argue that it is at this stage that actors start developing joint beliefs and identifying their allies. We use expert interviews and survey data to investigate pesticide regulation, a new topic on Uganda's political agenda. We conducted a three‐step approach and selected the types of beliefs and preferences that mattered in a nascent policy setting. We then presented an extensive list of possible regulatory instruments to the stakeholders and selected those evaluated as the most relevant or conflictive. Based on this selection, we calculated belief and preference similarity and clustering to identify groups of like‐minded actors. Finally, via regression analysis, we show that joint beliefs are the result of either trust or a similar problem perception, depending on whether the actor is part of a more or less developed belief cluster. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: California's failed attempts to enact a statewide sugary beverage tax presents an opportunity to advance understanding of advocacy coalition behavior. We investigate the participation of advocacy coalitions in California's statewide sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax policy debate. Design: Document analysis of legislative bills and newspaper articles collected in 2019. Setting: California. Method: A total of 11 SSB tax-related bills were introduced in California's legislature between 2001-2018 according to the state's legislative website. Data sources include legislative bill documents (n = 94) and newspaper articles (n = 138). Guided by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we identify advocacy coalitions involved in California's SSB tax debate and explore strategies and arguments used to advance each coalitions' position. Results: Two coalitions (public health, food/beverage industry) were involved in California's statewide SSB tax policy debate. The public health coalition had higher member participation and referred to scientific research evidence while the industry coalition used preemption and financial resources as primary advocacy strategies. The public health coalition frequently presented messaging on the health consequences and financial benefits of SSB taxes. The industry coalition responded by focusing on the potential negative economic impact of a tax. Conclusion: Multiple attempts to enact a statewide SSB tax in California have failed. Our findings add insight into the challenges of enacting an SSB tax considering industry interference. Results can inform future efforts to pass evidence-based nutrition policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emissions trading schemes (ETS) have spread across the globe to tackle climate change. However, limited attention has been given to how ETS characteristics and designs differ and why. We use the concept of institutional complementarity to explore how the EU ETS and South Korea's ETS (K‐ETS) adapt to complement established political economy. The EU ETS is characterized as a market with stakeholder ownership, while the K‐ETS is more regulatory in nature with government leadership. The EU ETS complements a decentralized political system with liberalized energy market, and the K‐ETS became compatible with the centralized majoritarian politics and a regulated electricity market. The ETSs have evolved incrementally, and they are not likely to link in the foreseeable future due to divergence. We suggest a strong focus on "how to adapt" an ETS to its own institution rather than adopting the established blueprint model in countries with a strong regulatory style of governance. Related Articles: Caliskan, Cantay. 2020. "The Influence of Elite Networks on Green Policy Making." Politics & Policy 48(6): 1104–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12382. Tanaka, Yugo, Andrew Chapman, Tetsuo Tezuka, and Shigeki Sakurai. 2020. "Multiple Streams and Power Sector Policy Change: Evidence from the Feed‐In Tariff Policy Process in Japan." Politics & Policy 48(3): 464–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12357. von Malmborg, Fredrik. 2023. "Combining the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Argumentative Discourse Analysis: The Case of the 'Energy Efficiency First' Principle in EU Energy and Climate Policy." Politics & Policy 51(2): 222–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12525. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The co-legislators of the EU adopted in July 2023 a revised version of the Energy Efficiency Directive, implying that the ‘energy efficiency first’ (EE1) principle is made legally binding for member states, to apply in policy, planning and investment decisions exceeding euro 100 million each and euro 175 million for transport infrastructure projects. The EE1 principle complements two other guiding principles of EU energy and climate policy: cost-effectiveness and consumer protection. This article analyses the policy process and politics leading to the adoption of the EE1 principle as a legal institute in EU energy and climate policy. Policy core and secondary beliefs of four different advocacy coalitions are identified, and explained what are the paths to policy change. Lines of dispute among the coalitions related to (i) the purpose and meaning of energy efficiency policy, (ii) the size of projects covered (all projects or only very large projects) and (iii) which sectors to be covered (the public sector or both the public and private sectors). The adoption of the EE1 principle as a binding provision follows an ‘external shock’ to the political subsystem of energy efficiency, namely the Paris Agreement and the subsequent adoption of an EU climate law strengthening the EU climate targets for 2030 and 2050. In addition, it is a ‘negotiated agreement’ between the Council and the Parliament, undertaken as a deliberative problem-solving exercise rather than bargaining. The deliberative nature of the negotiations opened for ‘policy-oriented learning’ across belief systems in the subsystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The government recently promotes education subsidy policy in order to achieve the policy goals that enhance the educational equity, improve the quality of education, and reduce the burden of parenting on families. While the central government sets policy, the local government adjusts the policies based on the features of the local. The implementations of the policies result in policy-oriented learning and subsidy program changes. This study used Sabatier's perspective of synthetic approach to explore early childhood education subsidy policy in terms of policy sub-system, problems that occurred during the implementations, policy learning, and the direction of subsidy programs changes again in the future among 14 preschool educators and educational administrators. The research reaches the following major findings. The beliefs of the education subsidy policy are consistent with the philosophy of preschool educators; hence such consistence is conducive to promote the implementation of subsidy policy. The policy network structure of the central government, local governments, and preschools are collaborated one another in the process of implementing the subsidy. The complexity of the subsidy operation resulted into different levels of problems. In order to solve the problems, policy learning was enacted and therefore it affected policy change. Moreover, the changing of the education subsidy policy only modifies the way to achieve the goal, but not the core beliefs of the subsidy policy. The directions for policy changes include setting policy goals on educational purposes, enactment of social justice, calling for education quality, and provision of subsidies in addition to financial ones. Finally, suggestions are provided for policy planners, particularly collecting information on policy enacting, making policy changes through policy learning. The education administration authorities should act as policy brokers to communicate with different units and protect the rights and interests of relevant personnel. Policy planners should analyze the social environment and provide strong evidence to strengthen policies and goals. The suitability for the economically disadvantaged grants should be reexamined for its appropriateness and income tax laws should be modified in order to implement the core beliefs of the subsidy policy on preschoolers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sea‐level rise is a "nascent subsystem" with policy actors actively developing initial policy preferences through participation across multiple policy forums in a polycentric system. This paper uses item‐response models to empirically analyze how actors, perceived problems, and preferred policy solutions are related in a latent "policy space". We focus on California's San Francisco Bay region, where in the last decade, sea‐level rise emerged to become one of the most salient climate adaptation issues. We find that actors and policy preferences are arranged in a two‐dimensional space, with highly engaged actors more likely to consider environmental justice and ecological aspects of sea level rise. Our findings have implications for theories of nascent subsystems within the Advocacy Coalition Framework, and for understanding how a local policy subsystem develops to address and prioritize the multi‐faceted impacts of climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history of US biotechnology oversight for genetically modified plants is analyzed in the context of policy process theories to derive insights for contemporary governance of gene-edited plants. The Advocacy Coalition Framework sheds light on how opposing coalitions with different policy beliefs struggled to influence oversight, along with coalition disputes over the scope of issues that should be considered in regulatory policy-making. The Multiple Streams Approach and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory explain how focusing events arising from these struggles opened "windows of opportunity" to put issues on the public policy agenda and force changes to oversight over time. For example, nongovernmental organizations had a prominent role in bringing legal challenges through federal courts or in raising attention to risk issues in the media—efforts that prompted advancements in federal regulations, guidance documents, or risk-mitigation practices for biotechnology oversight. These policy dynamics depended on public information to bring controversies to light and elicit a policy response. However, recent biotech regulations allow for gene-edited crops to enter the marketplace without requirements for public disclosure or tracking. Lack of transparency jeopardizes the public legitimacy of gene-edited crops, venues for public participation in biotechnology oversight, and ultimately responsiveness to adapt oversight to future biotech products and emerging risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems & Community Development's spring-summer 2024 issue features commentaries from the 2023 Agroecology Summit in the U.S. These commentaries challenge the dominant global industrial food system and emphasize the need for unity among progressives in the agroecology movement. The issue also includes open-call papers on various topics, such as college student food security, emergency food assistance, and agrihood development. The journal aims to promote a more equitable and resilient global food system by encouraging collaboration and finding common ground. [Extracted from the article]

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) has provided policy scholars with a valuable method to gain empirical insight into the power of narratives in the policy process. However, a significant limitation of the NPF has been its ability to deploy this framework on large N datasets due to the labor‐intensive nature of collecting narrative data. In recent years, NPF scholars have turned to computational social science tools to address this challenge. This study builds upon this emerging body of literature and our previous work, which uses sentiment analysis, a natural language processing technique, to evaluate the use of the angel/devil shift across coalitions before and after a major policy change. We examined Tweets that included the terms "fracking" and "New York" before and after the introduction of a moratorium. While sentiment analysis allowed us to gain insight into the narrative structure of the fracking policy discourse space, the labor involved in hand‐coding Twitter users into neutral‐, pro‐, or anti‐fracking groups was onerous. This project aims to supplement our natural language processing method by employing supervised machine learning techniques to increase the universe of respondents. We hand‐coded 500 Twitter users into neutral‐, pro‐, or anti‐fracking groups and trained a much larger dataset using an extreme gradient boost algorithm to classify a broader corpus of Tweets. This enabled us to expand the number of Tweets used in the analyses. We then applied sentiment analysis on this newly classified larger dataset to reveal differences in the pro‐fracking and anti‐fracking advocacy coalitions. By using machine learning to classify pro and con Tweets, we gained the ability to achieve significantly greater insight into how these two subgroups employed different narrative and linguistic devices in their Twitter discussions about fracking. Related Articles: Merry, Melissa K. 2022. "Trump's Tweets as Policy Narratives: Constructing the Immigration Issue via Social Media." Politics & Policy 50(4): 752–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12487. Robles, Pedro, and Daniel J. Mallinson. 2023. "Catching Up with AI: Pushing toward a Cohesive Governance Framework." Politics & Policy 51(3): 355–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12529. Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Mark K. McBeth, and Paul L. Hathaway. 2011. "Narrative Policy Framework: The Influence of Media Policy Narratives on Public Opinion." Politics & Policy 39(3): 373–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2011.00295.x. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy change is inherently a complex and multidimensional process, and for this reason, one of the usual ways to explain it is to use policy change theories. The purpose of this article is to review and analyze the process of approving the " Ocupational Licensing Facilitation " law by using the Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith's Advocacy Coalition Framework. In this study, a qualitative research strategy based on textual data collection and thematic content analysis was used, and qualitative content analysis was used for data analysis. The aforementioned law consists of several parts, this article explains the part that is related to the change of the issuing attorney's license policy. The current research explains that the policy change process can be explained by the emergence of different coalitions, their competition with each other and dynamic changes in it in order to coordinate with external changes. The current research explains that the policy change process can be explained by the emergence of different coalitions, their competition with each other and dynamic changes in it in order to coordinate with external changes. This article explains how learning and changing the approach of policymakers towards the policy of issuing attorney's license has strengthened the coalition of supporters and finally approved and promulgated the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The Advocacy Coalition Framework focuses on beliefs external to policy networks. • Micro-structural network processes are also key drivers of informal policy networks. • We combine these approaches in an ERGM of a Canadian collaboration policy network. • Beliefs about carbon taxes, LNG and oil sands are related to tie formation. • Reciprocity, local connectivity and transitive closure are also related to tie formation. Extant research on policy networks tends to focus on explaining successes and/or failures of particular policy efforts. One commonly used theoretical framework – the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) – focuses on actor attributes external to policy networks. We argue this leads to an incomplete understanding of the social dynamics of climate change policy making. We incorporate a policy network analytic approach with the ACF in an ERGM of collaboration in a Canadian climate change policy network, showing the role micro-structural network processes play in giving rise to informal policy networks. We find certain policy beliefs are correlated with tie formation. We also find micro-structural network processes related to reciprocity, structural equivalence and transitive closure are correlated with tie formation. We argue combining these two prominent streams of policy network literature has potential to improve our understanding of climate change policy making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy agendas are often cast in semantic constructions that portray them as universally desirable outcomes. These semantic constructions protect and reinforce the power of dominant coalitions and make it hard to pursue alternatives. The semantic space is entirely occupied by the dominant concepts. At the same time, within the dominant coalition, ideational conflict is muted by decontesting concepts. Drawing on political theory, I show the presence of this double act of reducing the semantic space and decontesting concepts with the case of 'better regulation'. Then I briefly extend the argument to other terms such as policy coherence, agile governance, smart cities and social value judgements. The critical discussion of the implications of dominant language brings in transparency, allows other coalitions to articulate their vision in a discursive level-playing-field, and offers citizens the possibility to discuss what is really 'better' and 'for whom'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New discussions on carbon pricing are underway in Japan. In 2012, Japan introduced a nationwide carbon tax named the Global Warming Countermeasure Tax. However, a gap remains between the price level set by this tax and the levels needed for Japan to achieve its 2050 carbon neutrality goal. Combining perspectives from an Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) with insights on brokerage mechanisms in social network analysis (SNA), this study reviews the history of the carbon pricing debate in Japan and also analyzes the dynamics between different advocacy coalitions in the policy network. The evolution of the carbon-pricing debate in Japan is divided into four historical stages: (I) the first attempt to establish a carbon pricing system (from the early 2000s to 2015); (II) fierce debate on the necessity of readjusting the carbon pricing system (from 2016 to 2017); (III) efforts to sustain the carbon pricing discussion (from 2017 to 2019); and (IV) the reopened discussion on carbon pricing under new climate pledge (from 2020 to 2021). The unbridgeable gap between advocacy coalitions and the subsequent long-lasting political stalemate on carbon pricing, to some extent, reflects limited policy learning and related capacities that are deeply entrenched in Japan's vertically segmented bureaucracy. Barriers and challenges to advancing carbon pricing decisions are discussed together with recommendations on how to create better brokerage mechanisms to strengthen communication, facilitate policy learning and ultimately improve policy decisions. Two advocacy coalitions constitute two separate poles in Japan's climate policy networks. Weak brokerage and limited policy learning have led to a long-lasting political stalemate in Japan on carbon pricing. The strengthening of brokerage functions can improve inter-coalition communication and create a more centrist position, which will subsequently help to advance national carbon pricing systems in Japan. Brokerage mechanisms – facilitated by either governmental or non-governmental organizations – can be used to negotiate between different advocacy coalitions to promote learning and advance decision-making on contentious policies like carbon pricing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]