Paul A. Sabatier

Policy change and learning : an advocacy coalition approach

* The Study of Public Policy Processes Hank C. Jenkins-Smith and Paul A. Sabatier. The Advocacy Coalition Framework * Policy Change over a Decade or More P. A. Sabatier. * The Dynamics of Policy-Oriented Learning H. C. Jenkins-Smith and P. A. Sabatier. Qualitative Case Studies Of Policy Change And Learning * An Advocacy Coalition Approach to Change in Canadian Education Hanne B. Mawhinney. * Competing Advocacy Coalitions, Policy Evolution, and Airline Deregulation Anthony E. Brown and Joseph Stewart Jr. * California Water Politics: Explaining Policy Change in a Cognitively Polarized Subsystem John F. Munro. * Managing Technological Change in Federal Communications Policy: The Role of Industry Advisory Groups Richard P. Barke. Quantitative Analyses Of Policy Change * The Politics of Offshore Energy: Empirically Testing the Advocacy Coalition Framework H. C. Jenkins-Smith and Gilbert K. St. Clair. * From Vague Consensus to Clearly Differentiated Coalitions: Environmental Policy at Lake Tahoe, 19641985 P. A. Sabatier and Anne M. Brasher. Conclusion * The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Assessment, Revisions, and Implications for Scholars and Practitioners P. A. Sabatier and H. C. Jenkins-Smith. Methodological Appendix * Measuring Longitudinal Change in Elite Beliefs Using Content Analysis of Public Documents H. C. Jenkins-Smith and P. A. Sabatier. *

AN ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK OF POLICY CHANGE AND THE ROLE OF POLICY-ORIENTED LEARNING THEREIN

There has been a great deal of research in recent years concerning the use of substantive policy analysis in public policy-making. This paper seeks to integrate those findings - e.g., the ‘enlightenment function’ of policy research - into a more general model of policy-making over periods of a decade or more. The conceptual framework focuses on the belief systems of advocacy coalitions within policy subsystems as the critical vehicle for understanding the role of policy analysis in policy-oriented learning and the effect, in turn, of such learning on changes in governmental programs.

Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis

This paper first reviews the implementation literature of the past fifteen years, with particular emphasis on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches. It also argues that the 4–6 year time-frame used in most implementation research misses many critical features of public policy-making. The paper then outlines a conceptual framework for examining policy change over a 10–20 year period which combines the best features of the ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches with insights from other literatures.

The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe

ABSTRACT The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) has generated considerable interest among European policy scholars. This article summarizes some of the more important findings concerning, and changes to, the ACF since the last major revision in 1993. These include: (1) a much clearer model of the individual; (2) a clearer, more integrated concept of ‘policy subsystem;’ (3) much greater attention to the problematic nature of collective behavior among people who share policy beliefs; and (4) some suggestions concerning methods of ascertaining the existence and membership of advocacy coalitions. The article also briefly addresses the ACFs applicability to parliamentary systems, to the countries of Eastern Europe, and to the dynamic politics of the European Union.

Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning, and Policy Change An Advocacy Coalition Framework

There has been a great deal of research in recent years concerning the use of substantive policy analysis in public policymaking. This article seeks to integrate those findings—e.g., the “enlightenment function” of policy research—into a more general model of policymaking over periods of a decade or more. The conceptual framework focuses on the belief systems of advocacy coalitions within policy subsystems as the critical vehicle for understanding the role of policy analysis in policy-oriented learning and the effect, in turn, of such learning on changes in governmental programs.

Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was developed to provide a causal theory of the policy process which would serve as one of several alternatives to the familiar stages heuristic, with its recognized limitations. This paper first summarizes the central features of the ACF, including a set of underlying assumptions and specific hypotheses. We next review the implications for the framework of six case studies by various authors dealing with Canadian education and with American transportation, telecommunications, water, environmental, and energy policy. While generally supportive of the ACF, the case studies also suggest several revisions.

Social movements and regulatory agencies: Toward a more adequate—and less pessimistic—Theory of “clientele capture”

Many regulatory agencies were established during the Progressive Era and the New Deal, in part out of faith in their capacity to regulate industry in an apolitical and “scientific” fashion. A number of observers—most notably Marver Bernstein—have noted that many regulatory agencies eventually become “captured” by the very interests they are supposedly regulating. This paper first examines the notion of “clientele capture,” focusing in particular on the development of an operational classification of regulatory policies. It then builds upon Bernsteins suggestion that the cycle of decay commences with the demise of the constituency supporting regulation. Through case studies an effort is made to explore (1) the conditions under which a regulatory agency is likely to actively attempt to develop a supportive constituency and (2) the conditions under which a constituency supportive of aggressive regulation is able to effectively monitor regulatory policy (and to be instrumental in preventing slippage) after the decline in public concern with the issue.

The acquisition and utilization of technical information by administrative agencies.

Through a review and integration of the heretofore rather distinct literatures dealing with (1) policy making in administrative agencies, (2) the use of scientific and technical information in public policy, and (3) the utilization of policy research, this paper develops preliminary conceptual frameworks of the variables affecting the acquisition and the utilization of technical information by administrative agencies. Although previous research, based largely upon case studies of a few decisions within a single agency, has resulted in numerous bivariate hypotheses, the number of variables involved and recognized problems of generalizing the results suggest that future research be oriented toward a number of strategies capable of simultaneously examining the effect of numerous variables over large numbers of cases.

Political Science and Public Policy

Political scientists who are policy scholars often trace their lineage back to the pioneering work of Lerner and Lasswell (1951). But public policy did not emerge as a significant subfield within the discipline of political science until the late 1960s or early 70s. This resulted from at least three important stimuli: (1) social and political pressures to apply the professions accumulated knowledge to the pressing social problems of racial discrimination, poverty, the arms race, and environmental pollution; (2) the challenge posed by Dawson and Robinson (1963), who argued that governmental policy decisions were less the result of traditional disciplinary concerns such as public opinion and party composition than of socioeconomic factors such as income, education, and unemployment levels; and (3) the efforts of David Easton, whose Systems Analysis of Political Life (1965) provided an intellectual framework for understanding the entire policy process, from demand articulation through policy formulation and implementation, to feedback effects on society. Over the past twenty years, policy research by political scientists can be divided into four types, depending upon the principal focus: 1. Substantive area research . This seeks to understand the politics of a specific policy area, such as health, education, transportation, natural resources, or foreign policy. Most of the work in this tradition has consisted of detailed, largely atheoretical, case studies. Examples would include the work of Derthick (1979) on social security, Moynihan (1970) on antipoverty programs, and Bailey and Mosher (1968) on federal aid to education. Such studies are useful to practitioners and policy activists in these areas, as well as providing potentially useful information for inductive theory building. In terms of the profession as a whole, however, they are probably less useful than theoretical case studies—such as Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) on implementation or Nelson (1984) on agenda-setting—which use a specific case to illustrate or test theories of important aspects of the policy process. 2. Evaluation and impact studies . Most evaluation research is based on contributions from other disciplines, particularly welfare economics (Stokey and Zeckhauser 1978; Jenkins-Smith 1990). Policy scholars trained as political scientists have made several contributions. They have broadened the criteria of evaluation from traditional social welfare functions to include process criteria, such as opportunities for effective citizen participation (Pierce and Doerksen, 1976). They have focused attention on distributional effects (MacRae, 1989). They have criticized traditional techniques of benefit-cost analysis on many grounds (Meier, 1984; MacRae and Whittington, 1988). Most importantly, they have integrated evaluation studies into research on the policy process by examining the use and non-use of policy analysis in the real world (Wildavsky, 1966; Dunn, 1980; Weiss, 1977). 3. Policy process . Two decades ago, both Ranney (1968) and Sharkansky (1970) urged political scientists interested in public policy to focus on the policy process, i.e. the factors affecting policy formulation and implementation, as well as the subsequent effects of policy. In their view, focusing on substantive policy areas risked falling into the relatively fruitless realm of atheoretical case studies, while evaluation research offered little promise for a discipline without clear normative standards of good policy. A focus on the policy process would provide opportunities for applying and integrating the disciplines accumulated knowledge concerning political behavior in various institutional settings. That advice was remarkably prescient; the first paper in this symposium attempts to summarize what has been learned. Policy design . With roots in the policy sciences tradition described by deLeon (1988), this approach has recently focused on such topics as the efficacy of different types of policy instruments (Salamon 1989; Linder and Peters 1989). Although some scholars within this orientation propose a quite radical departure from the behavioral traditions of the discipline (Bobrow and Dryzek 1987), others build upon work by policy-oriented political scientists over the past twenty years (Schneider and Ingram 1990) while Miller (1989) seeks to integrate political philosophy and the behavioral sciences.

Incorporating Multiple Actors and Guidance Instruments into Models of Regulatory Policymaking An Advocacy Coalition Framework

Models of policymaking by regulatory agencies need (1) to avoid focusing on a single causal factor, and (2) include analyses of the costs and efficacy of a variety of instruments—law, budgetary review, appointments, direct participation, evaluative studies—by which external actors can influence agency policy. The article proposes a conceptual framework focusing on advocacy coalitions—that is, actors from a variety of institutions who share a belief system—as a means of dealing with these considerations and as an alternative to the dominant institutional/organizational perspective for understanding policymaking by regulatory agencies.