A Review of Applications of the Advocacy Coalition Framework in Swedish Policy Processes

Abstract

In recent decades, there has been a growing interest among public policy scholars to explore the applicability of policy process frameworks across political systems. One popular framework simplifying the complexity of public policy is the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Prior research suggests that the ACF is useful for identifying variables and relationships influencing the policy process but also that questions remain regarding its applicability in different political systems. This paper addresses some of these questions by conducting a review of empirical ACF applications in Sweden—a country where the ACF has received growing attention. We code 25 of the most complete applications across themes associated with advocacy coalitions, learning, and policy change. We also examine what research methods are employed, what comparisons are made between the ACF and other frameworks, and what modifications are suggested by scholars. The conclusion identifies strengths and limitations of the ACF in the context of the Swedish policy process and suggests directions for future research in Sweden and beyond.

Beliefs, social identity, and the view of opponents in Swedish carnivore management policy

“…This result is somewhat unexpected, as the investigated venues have at least one characteristic assumed to enhance cross-coalitional learning, i.e., being prestigious enough to attract concerned interest representation (cf. Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993), and are situated within a consensus-based national context (Nohrstedt and Olofsson 2017). Again, our data do not allow us to explain why this was the case, though we speculate that this has at least three explanations.…”

“…The devil shift concept was originally developed within the ACF (Sabatier et al 1987), which remains one of the most widely applied policy process frameworks (Nohrstedt and Olofsson 2017;Pierce et al 2017;Weible et al 2011). The ACF assumes that public policy is developed in policy subsystems, which include actors from various organizations concerned with a policy problem and that actively seek to influence public policy in that domain by translating their beliefs into policy.…”

“…The collaborative system is formalized, the venues are authorized to make decisions, and the system has been in place since 2009. Third, even though the political culture in Sweden has undergone significant changes over the past decades, the country has a long tradition of consultative processes and involvement of concerned interest organizations in public policy making (Nohrstedt and Olofsson 2017). This implies that the prospects for collaborative institutions to mitigate conflicts and decrease the presence of devil shift are particularly favorable in this case.…”

Infrastructure Policy Between Regional Interests and Societal Goals

“…本期 "欧洲政策分析" (European Policy Analysis, 简称EPA)包含三部分, 第一部分 是Robert Hoppe (2017) (Lindloff, 2016), 这使得政客将赌注压在电力 或其他替代性传动系统技术, 甚至是自主运输系统 (Bracher, Lindloff, & Hertel, 2017 (to be published))。这些都严重依赖物理、技术和数字基础设施。在 "智能城 市" (smart city)倡议背景下, 加之数字化进程的基础, 电力基础设施和运输基础设施 两部门之间的结合已经加速 (Libbe, 2014)。 Bandelow and Hornung (2017) 指出, "欧洲政策分析" 建立的目标是为政策分析 引入新的视角, 这些视角有时被大多数以美国为主导的话语所忽视 Bandelow, Sager, Schubert, & Biegelbauer, 2015Sager, Ingold, & Balthasar, 2017)。直到现在, 新视角的引入包括诸多欧洲观点和现 有方法的不同改编, 例如政策实践 (Hoppe & Colebatch, 2016)、倡议联盟框架 (Nohrstedt & Olofsson, 2016)和多层流框架 (Deruelle, 2016;Leeuw, Hoeijmakers, & Peters, 2016;Zohlnh€ ofer, Herweg, & R€ ub, 2015)。同样也 有关于实质性政策部门的文章, 例如福利(市场) (Ebbinghaus, 2015;Klenk, 2015)、医 疗和公共卫生 (Bandelow & Hartmann, 2014;Hunger & Neumann, 2016;Sager et al, 2015;Vecchione & Parkhurst, 2015) 和气候变化 (Fleig, Schmidt, & Tosun, 2017;Ingold & Pflieger, 2016)。 EPA目前还没有关于基础设施政策的 "交叉讨论" (cross-cutting discussion)。研 究此话题的先驱者之一是埃莉诺Á奥斯特罗姆 (Elinor Ostrom), 她为有关 "治理公共 事务" (governing the Commons) (Ostrom, 1990…”

“…Bandelow and Hornung (2017) have pointed out that European Policy Analysis (EPA) has been established with the goal of introducing new perspectives to policy analysis, which are sometimes neglected by the mostly US-dominated discourse (Bandelow, Sager, Schubert, & Biegelbauer, 2015Sager, Ingold, & Balthasar, 2017). Until now this has happened with respect to a number of European perspectives and adaptations of existing approaches, such as policy practices (Hoppe & Colebatch, 2016), the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Nohrstedt & Olofsson, 2016) and the Multiple Streams Framework (Deruelle, 2016;Leeuw, Hoeijmakers, & Peters, 2016;Zohlnh€ ofer, Herweg, & R€ ub, 2015). There have also been articles on substantive policy sectors, such as welfare (markets) (Ebbinghaus, 2015;Klenk, 2015), healthcare and public health (Bandelow & Hartmann, 2014;Hunger & Neumann, 2016;Sager et al, 2015;Vecchione & Parkhurst, 2015), or climate change (Fleig, Schmidt, & Tosun, 2017;Ingold & Pflieger, 2016).…”