This article outlines recent debates over nuclear energy and wind farms in an age of growing concern about climate change. Proponents of these technologies have used “trade‐off” frames to promote these technologies in the face of current and potential opposition to them. This article examines the nature and limits of the trade‐off frames being used and their probability of success. We argue that using the language of trade‐offs is generally a suboptimal framing strategy: trade‐off frames remind the public of the costs associated with particular policies, and therefore play into the hands of policy opponents. However, policy advocates may turn to them when the costs of a technology are well known and are perceived as high. In such cases, trade‐off frames may help to justify controversial policy solutions. Like any frames, the trade‐off frames used in the debate over climate change solutions both illuminate and obscure the deeper issues involved in energy policy reform.

John Kingdon sets out a multiple streams approach to policymaking, whereby problems, solutions, and politics develop independently of one another. Kingdon's work suggests that advocates with pet policies may continually search the problem stream, looking for prominent issues to attach to their preferred solutions. I call this process "problem surfing." This paper provides an empirical test of problem surfing through the use of a case study of environmental advocacy. The paper examines Wilderness Society and Sierra Club advocacy for sustainable forestry practices from 1971 to 1994 through an analysis of articles in member magazines and interview data. Problem surfing is revealed to be a complex strategic process. I find evidence that advocacy groups adjust the problems they associate their solutions with over time to take advantage of salient issues. However, problem surfing appears to be influenced by more than just problem salience.

Policy scholars recognize that most policy arenas are characterized by competition among interests advancing different problem frames with conflicting problem definitions and/or solutions. At the same time, there is little research that empirically analyzes the dynamics of such framing contests. Using a case study of energy policy advocacy by the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund across three decades, I examine the tactics that interest groups employ when faced with agenda conflict. Contrary to what most policy research suggests, I find that interest groups do not avoid public clashes with their competitors; rather, they often willingly engage in confrontational framing techniques. I call this activity frame contestation, and it involves attempts at discrediting opponents' factual claims, policy ideas, and/or group character. The study reveals interesting differences between groups in the specific types of frame contestation employed. In particular, the use of character frames that attack an opponents' reputation appears to be linked to group ideology and orientation toward the business community. These findings enhance our understanding of advocacy group decision making and focus our attention on the role of frame contestation in agenda setting and policymaking outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract