The Space Between: Demonization of Opponents and Policy Divergence

Abstract

Prior research on policy conflicts indicates a tendency among policy actors to misperceive the influence of actors engaged in policy debates based on the degree of distance between their relative policy positions. This research develops a measure for assessing the degree and direction of the misperception effect. This measure is then utilized as a dependent variable to assess the relationship between theoretically relevant factors and the degree to which actors will exaggerate the influence of their opponents and allies. The research uses original survey data of policy actors engaged in the debate over hydraulic fracturing in New York. The results indicate misperceptions of relative influence are prevalent and most associated with the experience of a policy loss and holding relatively extreme policy beliefs. The findings provide new insight into factors that influence the demonization of political opponents. These insights are timely in the context of polarized debates over environmental and energy policy in the United States.

Shaping the Scope of Conflict in Scotland’s Fracking Debate: Conflict Management and the Narrative Policy Framework

“…The original concept of the devil shift also sought to incorporate the perceived power of opponents, but has proved difficult to operationalize (Heikkila, Weible, et al, ; Merry, ). It is common for studies on public policy to concentrate on either the “evilness” or the “power” dimension of the devil–angel shift (e.g., see Katz, ; Vogeler & Bandelow, , p. 719).…”

“…A second part of this strategy, also consistent with Cobb and Ross's (1997) notion of symbolic placation, was to postpone decisions by invoking an evidence-based approach and by commissioning an expert-scientific panel (in 2013) and a series of detailed reports (in 2015). This ultimately ill-fated attempt to reassert control over the policy agenda by containing the scope of conflict was similar to the actions of governments in New York State (Katz, 2018) and Quebec (Montpetit, Lachapelle, & Harvey, 2016). The strategy's chances of success were further harmed by invoking more stringent Scottish fracking regulation for political gain-on the eve of the Scottish independence referendum (September 2014).…”

Framing Contests and Policy Conflicts over Gas Pipelines

“…Advocacy coalitions can include nonprofit organizations, for‐profit organizations, government‐affiliated organizations, academia, consulting firms, and individuals involved in informal mobilization. The particular composition of an advocacy coalition depends on a range of factors including the stakes involved in the policy decision, the extent that people and organizations are mobilizable, and the opportunity structures for potential influence (Heinmiller & Pirak, ; Jenkins‐Smith et al, ; Katz, ). Where competing coalitions exist around a policy issue, this often indicates the degree to which a significant number of actors have divergent policy positions and are engaging in coordinated political behaviors, which are characteristic of policy conflicts (Vogeler & Bandelow, ; Weible & Heikkila, ).…”

Mutual and Self Perceptions of Opposing Advocacy Coalitions: Devil Shift and Angel Shift in a German Policy Subsystem

“…Likewise, the level of trust between coalition camps with distant core beliefs is very limited (Leach & Sabatier, ). The idea that distorted perceptions are influenced by the peculiarities of actor's policy beliefs was tested by Katz () referring to the power dimension of the devil shift. Using the case of hydraulic fracturing in New York, she finds that extreme policy beliefs are associated with a stronger expression of devil shift.…”

“…Theories of the policy process contribute to the understanding of this phenomenon even though they originally are more interested in explaining varying policy output, impact, and outcome instead of focusing on varying processes. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) introduced the concept of a “devil shift” two decades ago, which started to raise broader attention by ACF scholars (Fischer, Ingold, Sciarini, & Varone, ; Katz, ; Leong, ; Sabatier, Hunter, & McLaughlin, ; Vogeler & Bandelow, ). The devil shift as a specific form of distorted perception originally contains two dimensions: first, the overestimation of the opposing camp's evilness, which is the dominant aspect and empirically more easily to interpret, and second a perceived dissymmetry of power between opposing camps.…”