Policy learning across advocacy coalitions : A policy network approach to the prospects of learning in collaborative management systems

The contemporary trend within natural resource governance sees a strong increase in collaborative management. The principal idea is that collaborative structures constitute effective arenas for problem solving, an institutional arrangement promoting deliberation and learning among opposing interests. In advisory policy subsystems that are characterized by the existence of many competing policy coalitions collaborative management is often regarded as a response to experienced legitimacy deficits. A successful outcome of such institutional reforms, however, requires that policy learning within and between coalitions take place. Thus the turnout of collaborative arrangements is dependent upon the characteristics of political coalitions for deliberation and learning to evolve across competing coalitions. Uncovering the mechanisms driving the formation and maintenance of coalitions is therefore a key undertaking in policy analysis and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has been widely applied for this purpose. This study aimed to explore policy coordination and coalition formation, both inspired by, and with a critical assessment, of the ACF. For this purpose, a case study analysis set within the Swedish game management policy was conducted, applying social network analysis as a tool to identify existing coalitions and a value-survey to capture the actors beliefs on a vide range of matters. The results indicate, firstly, that perceived belief correspondence constitute the rationale determining the formation of coalitions and, secondly, that the catalogue of beliefs shared by actors within a coalition is composed by policy beliefs, in particular the more empirically oriented, as no connection between deep core beliefs and coalitions was found. The study contribute to the theoretical puzzle concerning the driving forces behind coalition formation in general and to the specific area of collaborative game management in particular, as the prospects for learning across the defined coalitions was discussed. Natural resource governance sees a strong increase in collaborative management. The principal idea is that collaborative structures constitute effective arenas for problem solving, an institutional arrangement promoting deliberation and learning among opposing interests. In advisory policy subsystems that are characterized by the existence of many competing policy coalitions collaborative management is often regarded as a response to experienced legitimacy deficits. A successful outcome of such institutional reforms, however, requires that policy learning within and between coalitions take place. Thus the turnout of collaborative arrangements is dependent upon the characteristics of political coalitions for deliberation and learning to evolve across competing coalitions. Uncovering the mechanisms driving the formation and maintenance of coalitions is therefore a key undertaking in policy analysis and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has been widely applied for this purpose. This study aim to explore policy coordination and coalition formation both inspired by, and with a critical assessment, of the ACF. For this purpose, a case study analysis set within the Swedish game management policy was conducted, applying social network analysis as a tool to identify existing coalitions and a value-survey to capture the actors beliefs on a vide range of matters. Godkänd; 2011; 20111122 (annicas)