Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analyzing Policy Change: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations

  • Chapter
Advocacy Coalitions and Democratizing Media Reforms in Latin America

Part of the book series: Contributions to Political Science ((CPS))

  • 598 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter is concerned with the analysis of policy change. It lays out a grounded theoretical concept [the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)] suitable for our interest in regulatory media reforms and, on that basis, constructs an analytical framework that helps answer the central research question. In addition, this chapter discusses methodological issues of case selection, operationalization, and data collection for the comparative case study at hand.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The policy cycle understands policy-making as a process of five sequential steps: agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, implementation, evaluation, then starting again with agenda setting (Knill and Tosun 2008: 500).

  2. 2.

    The original authors of the ACF first identified “at least two basic premises” (Sabatier 1987: 651, emphasis added), then “at least three basic premises” (Sabatier 1988: 151, emphasis added) and later a set of five “premises” or “assumptions” (Sabatier 1998: 99; Weible et al. 2009: 122). However, even the most recent systematization of five assumptions is logically not strictly coherent in an axiomatic sense and can rather be understood as a mix of axiomatic assumptions and derived principles to understand how the framework can be used to explain policy change—the same intention I have here.

  3. 3.

    In a later revision, Sabatier and Weible (2007: 204ff) included two additional paths for policy change: “internal subsystems events” (occurring within the subsystem but leading to a change in core beliefs) and “negotiated agreements” involving at least two coalitions. However, the former is not specific enough to constitute a separate path, while the latter can also be conceptualized as a specific form of policy-oriented learning. Because of this—and because other applications of the ACF have rarely referred to these two additional paths—I will confine myself to discussing the original two paths.

  4. 4.

    This does not contradict the constructivist frame that rejects the dichotomization of facts and values (Shanahan et al. 2011: 538). It only emphasizes that actors tend to treat data coming with an aura of objectivity differently from apparently normative information.

  5. 5.

    Examples of these adjectives include “illiberal,” “electoral,” “parliamentary,” or “restrictive” (Collier and Levitsky 1997: 440; see also O’Donnell 1994).

  6. 6.

    Other authors have given different names to much the same idea (see previous paragraph).

  7. 7.

    Strictly speaking, a “case” denotes the policy subsystem of media policy in a specific country, and not the country itself. It is, however, common in social research to refer solely to the countries as cases.

  8. 8.

    In Chile, the center-left coalition “Concertación” has governed since the return of democracy in 1990. The Concertación, however, consists of several parties, the largest two being the Christian Democrats and the Socialist Party. Ricardo Lagos, elected in 2000, was the first socialist president since the coup against Allende in 1973, followed by Michelle Bachelet (2006–2010).

  9. 9.

    Striking, but still an exception, was one experience with a high government official. When I asked if I could record the conversation strictly for personal use, the interviewee agreed by exclaiming “Of course!” The interview itself was quite disappointing, as the politician gave more of a “propaganda talk,” pretending that no conflict existed in debates about media policy. When the talk came to an end, we said goodbye and, already approaching the door, I stopped the recording. Suddenly, the interviewee started talking again, saying that with the recording shut off, he could tell me a couple of things—which, no wonder, were of far greater interest than the official government position I already knew.

  10. 10.

    Ames himself points to several pitfalls by relating his experience of interviewing federal deputies in Brazil: “The first couple of times you make an appointment, the deputy cancels or simply fails to show up. The third time you wait an hour or two until the deputy arrives. When the interview finally begins, the deputy assumes you need a lecture on Brazilian history, so the conversation starts with the 1930 revolution. When you get past the history lesson, lies begin” (Ames 2001: 34). This is, of course, a pointed example, and in my experience, much depended on the interviewee’s relation to other actors, for example the government. In Brazil, I did not get an interview with a deputy but had the chance to speak to several assistants, who where more free to give background information.

  11. 11.

    This is also consistent with the advocacy coalition framework, which explicitly considers (natural and social) scientists to be part of advocacy coalitions—just like politicians, activists, lobbyists, or any other actor (Sabatier and Weible 2007: 196). It would be implausible to assume that I, a researcher using the ACF, am any different from the scientists that I analyze within the same framework.

References

  • Ainuson, K. (2009). An advocacy coalition approach to water policy change in Ghana: A look at belief systems and policy oriented learning. Journal of African Studies and Development, 1(2), 16–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albright, E. A. (2011). Policy change and learning in response to extreme flood events in Hungary: An advocacy coalition approach. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 485–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, B. (2001). The deadlock of democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, F. E. (2003). Native forest policy in Chile: understanding sectoral process dynamics in a country with an emerging economy. International Forestry Review, 5(4), 317–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandelow, N. (1999). Lernende Politik. Advocacy-Koalitionen und politischer Wandel am Beispiel der Gentechnologiepolitik. Berlin: Edition Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2007). Case study methods in the international relations subfield. Comparative Political Studies, 40(2), 170–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braig, M. (1999). Fraueninteressen in Entwicklungstheorie und -politik. Von "Woman in Development" zu "Mainstreaming Gender". Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit (10), 281–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G. (2009). Understanding policy change as an epistemological and theoretical problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(1), 7–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, G. O. (2001). Metallurgical development in the Caraja’s area: A case study of the evolution of environmental policy formation in Brazil. Society and Natural Resources, 14(2), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49(3), 430–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dela Santa, E. (2012). The politics of implementing Philippine tourism policy: A policy network and advocacy coalition framework approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. doi:10.1080/10941665.2012.717958, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eimer, T. R., Lütz, S., & Schüren, V. (2013). Norm diffusion through Advocacy Coalitions: Implementing international intellectual property norms in India and Brazil. Paper presented at the ISA 54th annual convention 2013, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellner, S. (2013). Latin America’s radical left in power. Complexities and challenges in the twenty-first century. Latin American Perspectives, 40(3), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenger, M., & Klok, P.-J. (2001). Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: A contribution to the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 34(2), 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, R., Gärtner, M., Köhnen, M., & Scheele, S. (2013). Gender, Wissenschaftlichkeit und Ideologie. Argumente im Streit um Geschlechterverhältnisse. Berlin: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganghof, S. (2005). Kausale Perspektiven in der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft: X-zentrierte und Y-zentrierte Forschungsdesigns. In S. Kropp & M. Minkenberg (Eds.), Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft (pp. 76–93). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, B. (2003). Paradigms and sand castles. Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hague, R., Harrop, M., & Breslin, S. (1992). Political science: A comparative introduction. New York: St Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A. (2003). Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative research. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 373–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, A. D. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, A. (Ed.). (1993). Policy-Analyse. Kritik und Neuorientierung (PVS-Sonderheft 24). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervieu, B., & Samson, E. (2010). Media volatility and the risky regulation: Investigation on ecuador. Paris: Reporters Without Borders.

    Google Scholar 

  • IACmHR. (2009). Democracy and human rights in Venezuela. Country report, inter-American commission on human rights. http://www.cidh.org/pdf%20files/VENEZUELA%202009%20ENG.pdf. Accessed 05/28/2014.

  • Ingold, K. (2011). Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in swiss climate policy. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 435–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jegen, M., & Audet, G. (2011). Advocacy coalitions and wind power development: Insights from Quebec. Energy Policy, 39(11), 7439–7447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1990). Democratic politics and policy analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The study of public policy processes. In P. A. Sabatier & H. C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 1–9). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khagram, S., Riker, J. V., & Sikkink, K. (2002). From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational advocacy groups restructuring world politics. In S. Khagram, J. V. Riker, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), Restructuring world politics. Transnational social movements, networks, and norms (pp. 3–23). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitzberger, P. (2009). Las relaciones gobierno-prensa y el giro político en América Latina. PostData, 14, 157–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2008). Policy-making. In D. Caramani (Ed.), Comparative politics (pp. 495–519). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kübler, D. (2001). Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework: an application to Swiss drug policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 623–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landes, J. B. (1998). The public and the private sphere: A feminist reconsideration. In J. B. Landes (Ed.), Feminism, the public and the private (pp. 135–163). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, T. (2008). Issues and methods in comparative politics. An introduction (3rd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, J. B., Vrangbæk, K., & Traulsen, J. M. (2006). Advocacy coalitions and pharmacy policy in Denmark—Solid cores with fuzzy edges. Social Science and Medicine, 63(1), 212–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macrory, R. (2013). Dilemmas of democratisation: Media regulation and reform in Argentina. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 32(2), 178–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. (2007). Qualitative methodology and comparative politics. Comparative Political Studies, 40(2), 122–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. (2010). After KKV: The new methodology of qualitative research. World Politics, 62(1), 120–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mato, D. (2000). Not "Studying the Subaltern", but studying with "Subaltern" social groups, or, at least, studying the hegemonic articulations of power. Nepantla: Views from South, 1(3), 479–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matti, S., & Sandström, A. (2011). The rationale determining advocacy coalitions: Examining coordination networks and corresponding beliefs. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 385–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Arnell, R. J., & Hathaway, P. L. (2007). The intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory. The Policy Studies Journal, 35(1), 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, T. J. (1999). Case studies and the statistical worldview: Review of King, Keohane, and Verba’s designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. International Organization, 53(1), 161–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montpetit, É. (2011). Scientific credibility, disagreement, and error costs in 17 biotechnology policy subsystems. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 513–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nohrstedt, D. (2011). Shifting resources and venues producing policy change in contested subsystems: A case study of swedish signals intelligence policy. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 461–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nohrstedt, D. (2013). Advocacy coalitions in crisis resolution: Understanding policy dispute in the european volcanic ash cloud crisis. Public Administration, 91(4), 964–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, G. (1994). Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickel, G., & Pickel, S. (2009). Qualitative interviews als Verfahren des Ländervergleichs. In S. Pickel, G. Pickel, H.-J. Lauth, & D. Jahn (Eds.), Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft: Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen (pp. 441–464). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. J. (2011). Coalition stability and belief change: Advocacy coalitions in U.S. Foreign policy and the creation of Israel, 1922–44. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 411–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozbicka, P. (2013). Advocacy coalitions: Influencing the policy process in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 838–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rüdig, W. (2000). Phasing out nuclear energy in Germany. German Politics, 9(3), 43–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change: An advocacy coalition framework. Science Communication, 8(4), 649–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (Ed.). (1999). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework. An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 189–222). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Zafonte, M. (2001). Policy knowledge: Advocacy organizations. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 17, pp. 11563–11568). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, D. (1995). Behavioural analysis. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science (pp. 58–75). London: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (2006). Interaktionsformen. Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus in der Politikforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, E. (1995). Policy making and collective action: Defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 28(3), 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49(3), 651–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2011). Policy narratives and policy processes. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 535–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivak, G. C. (2008). Can the Subaltern Speak? Postkoloniale und subalterne Artikulation. Wien: Turia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D., & DeLeon, P. (2011). A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: An introduction to the special issue. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zafonte, M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2004). Short-term versus long-term coalitions in the policy process: Automotive pollution control, 1963–1989. The Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 75–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (1995). Comparing lenses in comparative public policy. The Policy Studies Journal, 23(2), 378–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Otto-Suhr-Institute for Political Science (International Political Economy), Free University Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Christof Mauersberger

Authors
  1. Christof Mauersberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mauersberger, C. (2016). Analyzing Policy Change: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations. In: Advocacy Coalitions and Democratizing Media Reforms in Latin America. Contributions to Political Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21278-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation