Shared Beliefs and Imposed Interdependencies as Determinants of Ally Networks in Overlapping Subsystems

Abstract

We add the concept of imposed interdependencies to components of the Advocacy Coalition Framework to derive four hypotheses regarding coordinated behavior in overlapping geographic and functional policy subsystems. More specifically, we address: (1) whether imposed interdependencies affect the extent to which shared beliefs are related to coordinated behavior; and (2) which types of beliefs are the principal `glue' of coordination. We then examine the implications of these hypotheses in an empirical analysis of ally networks in San Francisco Bay-Delta water policy. Our empirical results suggest that both belief congruence and functional interdependence are important for understanding coordination. Further, the types of beliefs critical to coordination are consistent with the underlying rationale - but not necessarily the specific hypotheses - of the Advocacy Coalition Framework.

Advocacy coalitions, REDD+, and forest governance in Papua New Guinea: how likely is transformational change?

“…Although governance is just one aspect of transformational change, we selected this focus because of PNG's history of poor forest governance and its documented relationship to the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation ( Because this study sought to identify and analyze the role of advocacy coalitions in REDD+ policy networks and policy change, we used perceived influence as a measure of reputational power (Kriesi et al 2006) and an indication of a coalition's power to translate its beliefs into formal policy. This approach has been effectively applied by several authors (Zafonte and Sabatier 1998, Weible 2005, 2006, Weible and Sabatier 2005. We used this measure because it allowed us to assess the potential for a coalition calling for transformational change to become dominant in PNG.…”

Insights from ‘policy learning’ on how to enhance the use of evidence by policymakers

“…This devil shift argument is then further developed to explain why individuals maintain collaborations with like-minded others. Studies have shown that the devil shift affects a wide array of individuals, ranging from interest group leaders to scientific experts (Ingold, 2011b;Zafonte and Sabatier, 1998).…”

Institutional Communication Revisited: Preferences, Opportunity Structures and Scientific Expertise in Policy Networks

“…Some of the more recent analyses have tried to assess the reasons why political actors establish contacts to some actors but not to others. Particularly ideology (Henry et al, 2010;Laumann et al, 1992), preference similarity on political issues (Weible and Sabatier, 2005;Zafonte and Sabatier, 1998;König 1 and Bräuninger, 1998;Carpenter et al, 2004), preference dissimilarity (Stokman and Zeggelink, 1996;Stokman and Berveling, 1998), functional or institutional interdependence (Zafonte and Sabatier, 1998;König and Bräuninger, 1998), social trust (Carpenter et al, 2004;Henry et al, 2010) and perceived influence (Weible and Sabatier, 2005;Stokman and Zeggelink, 1996;Stokman and Berveling, 1998) have been found to be drivers of tie formation in policy networks. These findings have been obtained by conducting quantitative case studies of several policy domains or subsystems like San Francisco Bay-Delta water policy (Zafonte and Sabatier, 1998), California marine protected area policy (Weible and Sabatier, 2005), the U.S. health policy and energy policy sectors (Carpenter et al, 2004;Laumann et al, 1992), U.S. agricultural policy and labor policy (Laumann et al, 1992), and the German labor policy domain (König and Bräuninger, 1998).…”