Shared Positions on Divisive Beliefs Explain Interorganizational Collaboration: Evidence from Climate Change Policy Subsystems in 11 Countries
Shared Positions on Divisive Beliefs Explain Interorganizational Collaboration: Evidence from Climate Change Policy Subsystems in 11 Countries
复制标题
对分歧信念的共同立场解释了组织间合作：来自 11 个国家气候变化政策子系统的证据
DOI：
10.1093/jopart/muac031
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Yla-Anttila Tuomas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Karimo Aasa;Wagner Paul M;Delicado Ana;Goodman James;Gronow Antti;Lahsen Myanna;Lin Tze-Luen;Schneider Volker;Satoh Keiichi;Schmidt Luisa;Yun Sun-Jin;Yla-Anttila Tuomas
公共行政组织与各利益攸关方之间的合作往往被视为解决当前复杂的治理问题（如气候变化）的一种可能办法。根据倡导联盟框架，共同的信念是合作的最重要驱动力之一。然而，调查信念在协作中的作用的研究显示了混合的结果。一些人认为，一般的规范和经验的政策信念的相似性eltered合作，而其他人则专注于有关政策工具的信念。提出一个新的分裂信念假设，我们认为，同意这些信念，有很大的分歧，在政策子系统是什么问题的合作。使用政策网络分析和11个国家（澳大利亚，巴西，捷克共和国，德国，芬兰，爱尔兰，日本，韩国，葡萄牙，瑞典和台湾）的气候政策子系统的数据测试我们的假设，我们发现信念相似性是一个更强的预测合作时，重点是分裂的信念，而不是规范和经验的政策信念或信念有关的政策工具。这种知识对于管理合作治理网络是有用的，因为它有助于识别潜在的竞争联盟，并在它们之间达成妥协。
Collaboration between public administration organizations and various stakeholders is often prescribed as a potential solution to the current complex problems of governance, such as climate change. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, shared beliefs are one of the most important drivers of collaboration. However, studies investigating the role of beliefs in collaboration show mixed results. Some argue that similarity of general normative and empirical policy beliefs elicits collaboration, while others focus on beliefs concerning policy instruments. Proposing a new divisive beliefs hypothesis, we suggest that agreeing on those beliefs over which there is substantial disagreement in the policy subsystem is what matters for collaboration. Testing our hypotheses using policy network analysis and data on climate policy subsystems in 11 countries (Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Sweden, and Taiwan), we find belief similarity to be a stronger predictor of collaboration when the focus is divisive beliefs rather than normative and empirical policy beliefs or beliefs concerning policy instruments. This knowledge can be useful for managing collaborative governance networks because it helps to identify potential competing coalitions and to broker compromises between them.