The defining elements of advocacy coalitions: continuing the search for explanations for coordination and coalition structures

As the theoretical and practical interest in policy networks increases, so does the need for further research into how, and based on what rationales, actors within a policy subsystem engage in interorganizational collective action and form political coalitions. The aim of this paper is to continue the search for explanations for coordination and coalition structures in the setting of Swedish carnivore policy. Based on the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and a previous case study within the same policy subsystem, the study investigates a set of hypotheses regarding actors' coordinating behavior and the defining elements of coalitions. The empirical analysis indicates, in support of the ACF, that perceived belief correspondence is a better predictor of coordination than perceived influence. Moreover, the explanatory power of empirical policy core beliefs in general, and normative policy core beliefs in particular, is further reinforced, while deep core beliefs seemingly do not influence coalition structure. The relevance of more shallow beliefs for coalition formation cannot be dismissed and therefore calls for additional research. KEY WORDS: advocacy coalition framework, beliefs, carnivore management, collaborative management, governance, natural resource management, policy analysis, policy networks, social networks, social network analysis
Introduction Given a steadily increasing interest in the concept of policy networks, by scholars as well as practitioners, there is a need to further develop theoretically and empirically sound explanations [...]