Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory
Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory
复制标题
走向联盟转变和政策变化的认知理论：将倡导联盟框架与文化理论联系起来
DOI：
10.1007/s11077-015-9235-8
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
5.3
通讯作者：
G. Winkel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Sotirov;G. Winkel
摘要
倡导联盟框架已发展成为决策过程的综合理论方法。然而，实证研究结果提出了挑战，在了解重要的问题，如确定宣传联盟，解释的可能性和来源的联盟，以及剥削联盟在政策变化中的作用。我们认为，整合相关方面的文化理论（CT）到ACF提供了答案，这些开放的问题。首先，这两种观点的理论综合表明了四种不同的政策行为者的文化偏见的详尽类型学。在环境和自然资源政策中，它们主要通过关于物理性质的神话来表达，这些神话可以被理解为深层的核心信念，这些信念在政策子系统中引发、引导和约束政策核心信念。第二，联系ACF和CT允许不同的宣传联盟之间的战略跨文化联盟的认知机制的概念化，这是通过具体的共享或互补的核心信念。第三，综合提供了一个解释剥削联盟谁利用外部和内部的破坏性事件引发的问题，通过战略问题（重新）框架和转移联盟，连同意识形态一致性有关的否决权和机构的球员，使重大的政策变化成为可能。为了说明我们的理论论点，我们提出了一个长期的分析政策变化，通过林业部门改革和森林认证在德国和保加利亚。最后，我们强调的前景相结合的ACF和CT的解释力，为基础，制定一个更全面的认知理论的决策环境和自然资源管理的背景下。
Abstract
The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) has developed into a comprehensive theoretical approach to the policymaking process. Empirical findings have however posed challenges in understanding important questions about the identification of advocacy coalitions, explanations for possibilities and sources of shifting coalitions, and the role of exploitive coalitions in policy change. We argue that the integration of relevant aspects of cultural theory (CT) into the ACF provides answers to these open questions. First, the theoretical synthesis of both perspectives suggests an exhaustive typology of four distinct sets of policy actors’ cultural biases. In environmental and natural resource policy, they are mainly expressed by myths about physical nature that can be understood as deep core beliefs that entail, guide, and constrain policy core beliefs in the policy subsystem. Second, linking ACF and CT allows for the conceptualization of cognitive mechanisms for strategic cross-cultural alliances between different advocacy coalitions, which are enabled through specific shared or complementary core beliefs. Third, the synthesis provides an explanation for exploitive coalitions who take advantage of issues triggered by external and internal disruptive events through strategic issue (re-)framing and shifting coalitions that, together with ideological congruence related to veto and institutional players, make major policy change possible. To illustrate our theoretical arguments, we present a long-term analysis of policy change through forest sector reforms and forest certification in Germany and Bulgaria. We conclude by underlining the promising explanatory power of combining ACF and CT as a basis for developing a more comprehensive cognitive theory of policymaking in the context of environmental and natural resource management.