Advertisement

Advocacy Coalition Politics and Strategies on Hydraulic Fracturing in Sweden

  • Daniel Nohrstedt
  • Kristin Olofsson
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter depicts the politics of hydraulic fracturing in Sweden through the lens of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). The objective is to describe how the hydraulic fracturing issue in Sweden escalated from being a non-issue in 2011 into a controversial public issue involving hundreds of actors three years later. We structure the analysis using concepts and assumptions derived from the ACF regarding advocacy coalition behavior in emergent policy subsystems. The chapter is organized around the questions relating to policy and coalition status as well as the propensity for change. By answering these questions, we seek to shed light on the dynamics of policy subsystem development. As our analysis will show, the case of hydraulic fracturing in Sweden is an example of an emergent policy subsystem.

Keywords

Hydraulic Fracture Social Network Analysis Affiliation Network Green Party Advocacy Coalition 
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. Baldersheim, H., and K. Ståhlberg. 2002. From Guided Democracy to Multi-Level Governance: Trends in Central-Local Relations in the Nordic countries. Local Government Studies 28(3): 74–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, V., and A. Werner. 2014. One Step Forward, One Step Back: Shale Gas in Denmark and Sweden. Journal of European Management & Public Affairs Studies 1(2): 23–30.Google Scholar
  3. Beverwijk, J., L. Goedegebuure, and J. Huisman. 2008. Policy Change in Nascent Subsystems: Mozambican Higher Education Policy, 1993–2003. Policy Sciences 41(4): 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosson, P. 2013. Sweden: Shale What? MSL Group blog. December 3. http://blog.mslgroup.com/sweden-shale-what/Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. 1960. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Committee of Industry and Trade. 2012/13:NU14. Mineralpolitiska frågor [in Swedish]. Näringsutskottet, betänkande.Google Scholar
  7. Committee of Industry and Trade. 2013/14:NU14. Mineralpolitiska frågor [in Swedish]. Näringsutskottet, betänkande.Google Scholar
  8. Christiansen, P., A. Nørgaard, H. Rommetvedt, T. Svensson, G. Thesen, and P. Öberg. 2010. Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 21(1): 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elgin, D., and Chris Weible. 2013. A Stakeholder Analysis of Colorado Climate Change and Energy Issues Using Policy Analytical Capacity and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Review of Policy Research 30(1): 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erlström, Mikael. 2014. Skiffergas och biogen gas i alunskiffern i Sverige, förekomst och geologiska förutsättningar [in Swedish]. SGU-rapport 2014:19. Uppsala: Geological Survey of Sweden.Google Scholar
  11. Faust, K. 1997. Centrality in Affiliation Networks. Social Networks 19: 157–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fidelman, P., L. Evans, S. Foale, C. Weible, F. von Heland, and D. Elgin. 2014. Coalition Cohesion for Regional Marine Governance: A Stakeholder Analysis of the Coral Triangle Initiative. Ocean & Coastal Management 95: 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer, M., K. Ingold, P. Sciarini, and F. Varone. 2012. Impacts of Market Liberalization on Regulatory Network: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Swiss Telecommunications Sector. Policy Studies Journal 40(3): 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freelon, D. 2013. ReCal OIR: Ordinal, Interval, and Ratio Intercoder Reliability as a Web Service. International Journal of Internet Science 8(1): 10–16.Google Scholar
  15. Heikkila, T., J. Pierce, S. Gallaher, J. Kagan, D. Crow, and C. Weible. 2014. Understanding a Period of Policy Change: The Case of Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Policy in Colorado. Review of Policy Research 31(2): 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hesse, J. (ed.). 1991. Local Government and Urban Affairs in an International Perspective. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellshaft.Google Scholar
  17. Hirschi, C., and T. Widmer. 2010. Policy Change and Policy Stasis: Comparing Swiss Foreign Policy Toward South Africa (1968–94) and Iraq (1990–91). Policy Studies Journal 38(3): 537–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ingold, K. 2011. Network Structures Within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. International Energy Agency. 2013. Energy Policies of IEA countries – Sweden 2013 Review. Paris: IEA.Google Scholar
  20. Jenkins-Smith, H., and P. Sabatier. 1993. Methodological Appendix: Measuring Longitudinal Change in EliteBeliefs Using Content Analysis of Public Documents. In Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, eds. P. Sabatier and H. Jenkins-Smith, 237–256. Boulder CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins-Smith, H., D. Nohrstedt, C. Weible, and P. Sabatier. 2014. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Ongoing Research. In Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd ed, ed. P. Sabatier and C. Weible, 183–223. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  22. Jordan, A., and D. Liefferink. 2004. Environmental Policy in Europe: The Europeanization of National Environmental Policy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones, M., and H. Jenkins-Smith. 2009. Trans Subsystem Dynamics: Policy Topography, Mass Opinion and Policy Change. Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 37–58.Google Scholar
  24. Lindblom, C. 1979. Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. Public Administration Review 39(6): 517–526.Google Scholar
  25. Ministry of Environment. 2014. Meddelande om skiffergas [in Swedish]. Faktapromemoria 2013/14:FPM58.Google Scholar
  26. Ministry of Industry and Trade. 2012. Undersökningstillstånd och arbetsplaner [in Swedish]. Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2012:73.Google Scholar
  27. Mintrom, M., and P. Norman. 2009. Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change. Policy Studies Journal 37(4): 649–667.Google Scholar
  28. Montin, S. 2000. Between Fragmentation and Coordination: The Changing Role of Local Government in Sweden. Public Management 2(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mot. 2010/11:N439. Modernisering av minerallagen och förbud mot utvinning av kol, fossilgas och olja [in Swedish]. Party motion, Green Party.Google Scholar
  30. Mot. 2013/14:MJ468. Klimaträttvisa inför Warszawa och dess efterföljare [in Swedish]. Party motion, Left Party.Google Scholar
  31. Mot. 2013/14:N253. Förbud mot s.k. frackning, prospektering och utvinning av fossila bränslen [in Swedish]. Party motion, Left Party.Google Scholar
  32. Mot. 2013/14:N349. Förbjud utvinning av skiffergas [in Swedish]. Party motion, Ms. Sara Karlsson, Social Democratic Party.Google Scholar
  33. Mot. 2013/14:N398. Kommunal vetorätt mot prospektering av alunskiffer [in Swedish]. Party motion, Social Democratic Party.Google Scholar
  34. Mot. 2013/14:N425. Energi [in Swedish]. Party motion, Social Democratic Party.Google Scholar
  35. Mot. 2013/14:U316. En grön politik för global utveckling [in Swedish]. Party motion, Green Party.Google Scholar
  36. Naurin, D. 2000. Det nya styrelseskicket: en studie av “medialobbying” i det post-korporativa Sverige. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift 103(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
  37. Nilsson, M. 2006. The Role of Assessments and Institutions for Policy Learning: A Study on Swedish Climate and Nuclear Policy Formation. Policy Sciences 38: 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nohrstedt, D. 2011. Shifting Resources and Venues Producing Policy Change in Contested Subsystems: A Case Study of Swedish Signals Intelligence Policy. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 461–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Olsen, J. 2002. The Many Faces of Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies 40(5): 921–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pralle, S. 2003. Venue Shopping, Political Strategy, and Policy Change: The Internationalization of Canadian Forest Advocacy. Journal of Public Policy 23(3): 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pralle, S. 2006. Branching Out, Digging in: Environmental Advocacy and Agenda Setting. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sabatier, P., and H. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An assessment. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. P. Sabatier, 117–166. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  43. Schlager, E. 1995. Policy Making and Collective Action: Defining Coalitions Within the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy Sciences 28(3): 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swedish Government. 2009. En sammanhållen klimat- och energipolitik [in Swedish]. Government Bill, prop. 2008/09:163.Google Scholar
  45. Swedish Government. 2011. Översyn av vissa frågor i minerallagen [in Swedish]. Kommittédirektiv Dir. 2011:73.Google Scholar
  46. Swedish Government. 2014. Bättre information och tydligare ansvar vid mineralprospektering [in Swedish]. Government Bill, prop. 2013/14:159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Nohrstedt
    • 1
  • Kristin Olofsson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of GovernmentUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.School of Public AffairsUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations