Advertisement

Introduction

  • Christopher M. Weible
  • Tanya Heikkila
  • Karin Ingold
  • Manuel Fischer
Chapter

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing is one of the most contentious issues in environmental and energy politics today. This chapter offers an introduction to the nature of this debate, the rationale for studying the coalitions and public policies surrounding hydraulic fracturing from a comparative perspective, and a description of how the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) can guide such a comparison. In doing so, it provides a discussion of key features of the ACF, including policy subsystems, policy actors and coalitions, and policy change or continuation. Finally, this chapter presents an overview of the hydraulic fracturing subsystems from North America and Europe, which the remainder of this book explores through the lens of the ACF.

Keywords

Hydraulic Fracture Policy Actor Coalition Structure Coalition Member Coalition Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Cairney, Paul, and Tanya Heikkila. 2014. A Comparison of Theories of the Policy Process. In Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd ed, eds. Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible, 363–389. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  2. Dahl, Robert A. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. de Melo-Martín, Immaculada, Jake Hays, and Madelon L. Finkel. 2014. The Role of Ethics in Shale Gas Policies. Science of the Total Environment 470: 1114–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elgin, Dallas, and Christopher M. Weible. 2013. Stakeholder Analysis of Colorado Climate and Energy Issues Using Policy Analytical Capacity and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Review of Policy Research 30(1): 116–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feldman, Elliot J. 1978. Comparative Public Policy: Field or Method? Comparative Politics 10(2): 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischer, Manuel. 2014. Coalition Structures and Policy Change in a Consensus Democracy. The Policy Studies Journal 42(3): 344–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer, Manuel, Karin Ingold, Pascal Sciarini, and Frédéric Varone. 2016. Dealing with Bad Guys: Actor- and Process-level Determinants of “Devil Shift” in Policymaking. Journal of Public Policy 36: 309–334.Google Scholar
  8. Fisk, Jonathan M. 2013. The Right to Know? State Politics of Fracking Disclosure. Review of Policy Research 30(4): 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gupta, Kuhika. 2012. Comparative Public Policy: Using the Comparative Method to Advance Our Understanding of Policy Process. Policy Studies Journal 40(s1): 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gupta, Kuhika. 2014. A Comparative Policy Analysis of Coalition Strategies: Case Studies of Nuclear Energy and Forest Management in India. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 16(4): 356–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Han, Heejin, Brendon Swedlow, and Danny Unger. 2014. Policy Advocacy Coalitions as Causes of Policy Change in China? Analysing Evidence from Contemporary Environmental Politics. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 16(4): 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heclo, Hugh. 1972. Policy Analysis. British Journal of Political Science 2(1): 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heintz, Jr, H. Theodore, and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1988. Advocacy Coalitions and the Practice of Policy analysis. Policy Sciences 21(2–3): 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heidenheimer, Arnold J., Hugh Heclo, and Carolyn Teich Adams. 1990. Comparative Public Policy: The Politics of Social Choice in America, Europe, and Japan, 3rd ed. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  15. Henry, Adam Douglas, Karin Ingold, Daniel Nohrstedt, and Christopher M. Weible. 2014. Policy Change in Comparative Contexts: Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework Outside of Western Europe and North America. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 16(4): 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holahan, Robert, and Gwen Arnold. 2013. An Institutional Theory of Hydraulic Fracturing Policy. Ecological Economics 94: 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howarth, Robert W., Anthony Ingraffea, and Terry Engelder. 2011. Natural Gas: Should Fracking Stop? Nature 477(7364): 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howarth, Robert W., Renee Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea. 2012. Venting and Leaking of Methane from Shale Gas Development: Response to Cathles et al. Climatic Change 113(2): 537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes, J. David. 2013. Energy: A Reality Check on the Shale Revolution. Nature 494(7437): 307–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ingold, Karin. 2011. Network Structures within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingold, Karin, and Federic Varone. 2012. Treating Policy Brokers Seriously: Evidence from the Climate Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(2): 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson, Robert B., Vengosh Avner, J. William Carey, Richard J. Davies, Thomas H. Darrah, Francis O’Sullivan, and Gabrielle Pétron. 2014. The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 39: 327–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkins-Smith, Hank. 1982. Professional Roles for Policy Analysts: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2(1): 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jenkins-Smith, Hank. 1990. Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  25. Jenkins-Smith, Hank, Gilbert St. Clair, and Brian Woods. 1991. Explaining Change in Policy Subsystems: Analysis of Coalition Stability and Defection over Time. American Journal of Political Science 35(November): 851–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenkins-Smith, Hank, Daniel Nohrstedt, Christopher M. Weible, and Paul A. Sabatier. 2014. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Ongoing Research. In Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd ed, eds. P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, 183–224. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky. 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krauss, C., and E. Lipton. 2012. U.S. Inches Toward Energy Independence. New York Times, March 22.Google Scholar
  29. Lasswell, Harold D. 1956. The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.Google Scholar
  30. Leach, William D., and Paul A. Sabatier. 2005. To Trust an Adversary: Integrating Rational and Psychological Models of Collaborative Policymaking. American Political Science Review 99(4): 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. McDougal, Myres S. 1952. The Comparative Study of Law for Policy Purposes: Value Clarification as an Instrument of Democratic World Order. The American Journal of Comparative Law 1(1/2): 24–57.Google Scholar
  33. Mooney, Chris. 2011. The Truth about Fracking. Scientific American 305(5): 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nohrstedt, Daniel. 2008. The Politics of Crisis Policymaking: Chernobyl and Swedish Nuclear Energy Policy. Policy Studies Journal 36(2): 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nordhaus, Ted, and Michael Shellenberger. 2014. Fracking’s War on Coal: Why Tech Innovation Matters Far More to the Environment than Regulations. The Breakthrough, June 4. http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus/frackings-war-on-coal.
  36. O’Sullivan, Francis, and Sergey Paltsev. 2012. Shale Gas Production: Potential Versus Actual Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Environmental Research Letters 7(4): 044030.Google Scholar
  37. Osborn, Stephen G., Avner Vengosh, Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson. 2011. Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(20): 8172–8176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ostrom, Elinor. 2007. Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier, 21–64. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pierce, Jonathan J., Jennifer Kagan, Tanya Heikkila, Christopher M. Weible, and Samuel Gallaher. 2013. A Summary Report of Perceptions of the Politics and Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in Colorado. Published October 25, 2013 by the School of Public Affairs University of Colorado Denver.Google Scholar
  41. Ripberger, Joseph, Hank Jenkins-Smith, and Kerry Herron. 2011. How Cultural Orientations Create Shifting National Security Coalitions on Nuclear Weapons and Terrorist Threats in the American Public. PS: Political Science & Politics 44(4): 715–719.Google Scholar
  42. Rochefort, David A., and Roger W. Cobb (eds.). 1994. The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sabatier, Paul A. 1988. An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein. Policy sciences 21(2–3): 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank Jenkins-Smith. 1999. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. P. Sabatier and H. Jenkins-Smith, 117–168. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sabatier, Paul A., Susan Hunter, and Susan McLaughlin. 1987. The Devil Shift: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Opponents. Western Political Quarterly 40: 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  48. Schmitt, Sophie. 2012. Comparative Approaches to the Study of Public Policy-Making. In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. eds. E. Araral Jr., S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, and X. Wu, 29–43. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Scott, Ian. 2012. Analyzing Advocacy Issues in Asia. Administration & Society 44(6s): 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones, and Mark K. McBeth. 2011. Policy Narratives and Policy Processes. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 535–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simon, Herbert A. 1985. Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science. American Political Science Review 79(June): 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stevens, Paul. 2010. The ‘Shale Gas Revolution’: Hype and Reality. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  53. Stevens, Paul. 2013. Shale Gas in the United Kingdom. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  54. Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tilly, Charles, and Sidney Tarrow. 2007. Contentious Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players – How Political Institutions Work. New York/Princeton: Russell Sage Foundation/Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2015. Drilling Productivity Report for Key Tight Oil and Shale Gas Regions. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/dpr-full.pdf.
  58. United States Energy Information Administration. 2013. Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/.
  59. Weible, Christopher M.2014. Introducing the Scope and Focus of Policy Process Research and Theory. In Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd edn, eds. P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, 3–21. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  60. Weible, Christopher M., and Daniel Nohrstedt. 2012. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Coalitions, Learning, and Policy Change. In Handbook of Public Policy, ed. E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, and X. Wu, 125–137. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Weible, Christopher M., Paul A. Sabatier, Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Daniel Nohrstedt, and Adam Douglas Henry. 2011a. A Quarter Century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weible, Christopher M., Saba N. Siddiki, and Jonathan J. Pierce. 2011b. Foes to Friends: Changing Contexts and Changing Intergroup Perceptions. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 13(5): 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zoback, Mark, Saya Kitasei, and Brad Copithorne. 2010. Addressing the Environmental Risks from Shale Gas Development, vol. 21. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher M. Weible
    • 1
  • Tanya Heikkila
    • 1
  • Karin Ingold
    • 2
    • 3
  • Manuel Fischer
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Public AffairsUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Political ScienceUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Environmental Social Sciences, EawagDübendorfSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations