Jonathan J. Pierce

Foes to Friends: Changing Contexts and Changing Intergroup Perceptions

Abstract To advance the study of comparative public policy there must be stronger methodological and theoretical descriptions and explanations of the development of policies and the actors, events, and contexts surrounding their development. Using the social construction and advocacy coalition frameworks, this study compares intergroup perceptions in adversarial and collaborative contexts in the Lake Tahoe Basin, United States. The results suggest one of the benefits of collaborative compared to adversarial contexts is improved intergroup perceptions. However, years may be needed for improved intergroup perceptions to take effect, and these effects may indicate the continuation of relative group positions.

Exploring the Policy Narratives and Politics of Hydraulic Fracturing in New York

David Fenton, the founder of Fenton Communications, in an interview with the Grist online, recently suggested that in order for environmental organizations to successfully influence public opinion or policy, they need to pay closer attention to the “marketing” and communication of their concerns and interests (Smith 2014). He notes that people trained in marketing know the importance of “moral narratives and imagery” for influencing public opinion. Fenton, whose company managed a campaign by Yoko Ono in New York to oppose the issue of hydraulic fracturing, indicates in the interview that relating the issues to people, rather than the “environment,” may be key to the success of the environmental movement. However, whether that is the case on the issue of hydraulic fracturing is an empirical question. Hydraulic fracturing is arguably one of the most contentious policy issues on many state and local agendas today, and perhaps one of the most widely debated environmental issues in recent history. Yet, how the policy narratives surrounding hydraulic fracturing are being developed is an understudied area of research. Moreover, such research can provide valuable insights on how the political opinions and policy dialogue are being shaped around this issue.

Research Design and the Narrative Policy Framework

Theories of public policy identify policy actors as playing an important role in the policy process. In the study of policy actors, there are a myriad of foci including how they overcome collective action issues (Ostrom 1990), how they form coalitions and learn from each other (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993), the important role of individual entrepreneurs (Kingdon 1984), and how policy actors use policy images (Baumgartner and Jones 1993) or framing (Rochefort and Cobb 1994) to gain favor for a policy position. These empirical research agendas in part examine how policy actors influence public policy, but in their examination, they do not critically examine the role of policy narratives. Policy narratives have been identified by other policy scholars from an interpretive standpoint (e.g., Stone 1989; Fischer and Forester 1993; Roe 1994) as being highly influential in the development of public policy. By combining the empirical methodologies of various policy process research agendas and the recognition of the importance of policy narratives, the narrative policy framework (NPF) (McBeth et al. 2005; Jones and McBeth 2010; and Shanahan et al. 2013) fills an important niche in the body of policy process theories by explicitly and empirically examining the policy narratives used by actors in the policy process.

The Role of Ideas in Evaluating and Addressing Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations

Many policy scholars have promoted and studied the influence of paradigms and ideas on politics and policy (Beland, 2009, 2010; Blyth, 2001; Campbell, 1998; Goldstein & Keohane, 1993; Hall, 1993; Jacobs, 2009; Parsons, 2002). The study of ideas is based on the observation that most political debates involve arguments about which actions to take and how these actions correspond to outcomes. Set within a dominant paradigm or competing paradigms, such arguments are ideational as participants depend on reasoning, utilize concepts, apply their values, and examine evidence about alternative policy options (John, 2012). In this chapter, we examine the effect of different types of ideas on the evaluation of current regulatory policy as well as the perception of future policy proposals.