The contemporary trend within natural resource governance sees a strong increase in collaborative management. A successful turnout of these arrangements is, however, dependent upon the formation and characteristics of advocacy coalitions. Uncovering the rationale determining coalitions is therefore a key undertaking in policy analysis and the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) has been widely applied for this purpose. This article aspires to test several important hypotheses regarding the nature of coordination networks and the formation of coalitions, treating the ACF both as an inspiration and as a framework in need of further refinement. This is done in the context of a complex and conflict‐ridden policy subsystem: the Swedish carnivore‐management subsystem. The results indicate, firstly, that perceived belief correspondence, and not perceived influence, is the driving mechanism behind coordination; and, secondly, that the catalog of beliefs shared by actors within a coalition is composed by policy core beliefs, in particular, with a more normative content, while no connection between deep core beliefs and coordination is found.
This article investigates the dual role -exemplified by the ideal-types of the consumer and the citizen -individuals' face in contemporary environmental policy. As crowding-out theory highlights the implications of using 'wrong' incentives or controlling means, examining the match between policy and those value-systems guiding individuals' decision-making process in practice should indeed be a relevant undertaking. Sweden provides the empirical example for the article, in which a text analysis of policy documents is compared with the results of a mail-out survey to 4000 individuals in four different counties. The article finds that external motivations are perceived as being highly relevant for the promotion of ecological sustainability in Sweden and, thus, that the notion of the consumer-role as guiding individuals' behaviour in the environmental field is rather strong. However, at the same time people tend to ascribe the motivational values included in the Self-transcendence cluster (altruism) a far greater importance as guiding principles in life than the opposing values of Self-enhancement (egoism), indicating that the citizen-role indeed is important to account for in policy-making. Hence, clearly there is a mismatch between Sweden's contemporary policy documents and the general value orientation held by Swedish people in general.
A new structure for decision-making in relation to management of large carnivores is presently being implemented in Sweden through a system of regional Wildlife Management Delegations (WMD). Th e governing idea is that strengthened regional infl uence will increase the legitimacy of both the management system and its outcomes. We use this institutional change as a backdrop for analyzing the possibilities to apply deliberative practices to reduce confl ict and enhance legitimacy in the management of natural resources. We argue that structures alone do not determine the prospects of deliberative arrangements; the political context (i.e. the characteristics and relationships among participating actors) is equally important. An analytical framework is proposed that merges structural prospects for deliberation in co-management with stakeholder features, capturing the interests and beliefs of the actors involved. We illustrate the application of this framework by analysing original data from three Wildlife Management Delegations. Our fi ndings show that there are signifi cant diff erences in the beliefs among the actors within the system. Based on similarities in their beliefs, they can potentially form a relatively strong anti-carnivore/pro-WMD-coalition, opposing the pro-carnivore/anti-WMD-beliefs of the nature conservation interest. Furthermore, the structure is designed to meet vital deliberative criteria, yet we point at substantial diff erences between statutory and eff ective representation that, as it coincides with diverging beliefs, can aff ect decision-making. One qualitative criterion for successful deliberation stands out in our study Ϫ reasoned debate. Th e prospects for deliberation in WMDs to reduce confl ict levels among opposing interests seem to depend on the capacity for ensuring exchange of reasonable and informed arguments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.