Examining experts' discourse in South Korea's nuclear power policy making: An advocacy coalition framework approach to policy knowledge

Abstract

In disputes over public policy, public debates often hinge on the argument involving policy knowledge. One approach for studying policy knowledge is the Advocacy Coalition Framework, which theorizes that advocacy coalitions form around coherent beliefs partly about policy knowledge and invest in policy knowledge by working with expert allies. This article examines the role of academics, a type of expert, in discourse about South Korea's adversarial nuclear energy policy debates. Using Discourse Network Analyzer, we collect and analyze text from 502 South Korean newspaper articles from 2016 through 2019. We find that academics align with distinctive discourse involving policy knowledge in coalitions. However, we also show that there exist weak or inconsistent associations between some academics' centrality and the intensity of policy conflict. The findings contribute to understanding policy knowledge, the distinctive discourse of experts, and a systematic study of controversial policy making in a non‐Western country. Related Articles Heo, Inhye. 2022. “Energy Democratization Policy without Democratization of Policy Governance in South Korea: A Participatory Democracy Perspective.” Politics & Policy 50(4): 834–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12480. Lantis, Jeffrey S. 2019. “‘Winning’ and ‘Losing’ the Iran Nuclear Deal: How Advocacy Coalitions and Competition Shape U.S. Foreign Policy.” Politics & Policy 47(3): 464–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12299. Nowlin, Matthew C., Maren Trochmann, and Thomas M. Rabovsky. 2022. “Advocacy Coalitions and Political Control.” Politics & Policy 50(2): 201–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12458.

Note from the Editors

“…继续政策知识和专家参与政策过程这一主题，Aerang Nam和Christopher M. Weible (2023) 在其文章中将倡导联盟框架(ACF)扩展应用到一个非西方情境，分析了学者在关于韩国的争议性核能政策辩论中的作用(另见Heo 2022)。他们发现，大多数学者在该国的核政策方面都与一个联盟保持一致(很少有人保持中立)，并且他们的话语与其他政策行动者不同，即话语往往更为专业、所涉及的范围更广。他们还指出，在亲核联盟中，学者在辩论中的中心性随着冲突的激烈程度而增加，但在反核联盟中则有所下降。…”

“…Siguiendo con el tema del conocimiento de políticas y la participación de expertos en el proceso de políticas, Aerang Nam y Christopher M. Weible (2023) ofrecen una bienvenida extensión del Marco de Coalición de Defensa (MCD) a un contexto no occidental en su examen del papel de académicos, en debates sobre la política adversaria de energía nuclear de Corea del Sur (ver también Heo 2022). Encuentran que la mayoría de los académicos se alinean con una coalición con respecto a la política nuclear en el país (muy pocos permanecen neutrales) y su discurso es distinto de otros actores políticos, tendiendo a ser más especializado y de mayor alcance.…”

“…Staying with the theme of policy knowledge and expert involvement in the policy process, Nam and Weible (2023) offer a welcome extension of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to a non‐Western context in their examination of the role of academics in debates about South Korea's adversarial nuclear energy policy (see also Heo, 2022). They find that most academics align with a coalition regarding nuclear policy in the country (very few remain neutral) and their discourse is distinct from other policy actors, tending to be more specialized and broader in range.…”