Advertisement

Assessments and Aspirations

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

Abstract

The conclusion of this book highlights the major insights surrounding the comparative study of advocacy coalitions and public policies on hydraulic fracturing across seven countries. Based on the chapter findings, it discusses insights into factors influencing the structure and functioning of policy subsystems, the characteristics of advocacy coalitions, and the nature of public policies on hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore, the conclusion presents critical challenges to the comparative study of policy processes and public policy. Finally, it offers a discussion of the contributions to hydraulic fracturing politics and three recommendations for future advocacy coalition framework research: the incorporation of subsystem contexts, the development of methodological best practices, and a focus on coalition resources and strategies.

Keywords

Policy Actor Coalition Structure Coalition Activity Policy Output Swiss Canton 
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. Bomberg, Elizabeth. 2015. Shale We Drill? Discourse Dynamics in UK Fracking Debates. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning: 1–17. Google Scholar
  2. Boudet, Hilary, Christopher Clarke, Dylan Bugden, Edward Maibach, Connie Roser-Renouf, and Anthony Leiserowitz. 2014. “Fracking” Controversy and Communication: Using National Survey Data to Understand Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing. Energy Policy 65: 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Elgin, Dallas J., and Christopher M. Weible. 2013. A Stakeholder Analysis of Colorado Climate and Energy Issues Using Policy Analytical Capacity and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Review of Policy Research 30(1): 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fischer, Manuel. 2014. Coalition Structures and Policy Change in a Consensus Democracy. Policy Studies Journal 42(3): 344–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Henry, Adam Douglas. 2011. Ideology, Power, and the Structure of Policy Networks. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Howarth, Robert W., Anthony Ingraffea, and Terry Engelder. 2011. Natural Gas: Should Fracking Stop? Nature 477(7364): 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Nohrstedt, Daniel. 2008. The Politics of Crisis Policymaking: Chernobyl and Swedish Nuclear Energy Policy. Policy Studies Journal 36(2): 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nohrstedt, Daniel, and Christopher M. Weible. 2010. The Logic of Policy Change After Crisis: Proximity and Subsystem Interaction. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 1(2): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Pralle, Sarah B. 2003. Venue Shopping, Political Strategy, and Policy Change: The Internationalization of Canadian Forest Advocacy. Journal of Public Policy 23(3): 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Sabatier, Paul A. 1991. Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process. PS: Political Science and Politics 24(2): 147–156.Google Scholar
  15. Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  16. Sabatier, Paul A., and H.C. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  17. Sabatier, Paul A., and Christopher M. Weible. 2007. The Advocacy Coalition Framework. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier, 189–222. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  18. Weible, Christopher M. 2005. Beliefs and Perceived Influence in a Natural Resource Conflict. An Advocacy Coalition Approach to Policy Networks. Political Research Quarterly 58(3): 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weible, Christopher M. 2014. Advancing Policy Process Research. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier, 391–409. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  20. Weible, Christopher M., Paul A. Sabatier, and Kelly McQueen. 2009. Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. The Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zafonte, Matthew, and Paul Sabatier. 1998. Shared Beliefs and Imposed Interdependencies as Determinants of Ally Networks in Overlapping Subsystems. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4): 473–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin Ingold
    • 1
    • 4
  • Manuel Fischer
    • 2
    • 4
  • Tanya Heikkila
    • 3
  • Christopher M. Weible
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Political Science and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change ResearchUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.School of Public AffairsUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA
  4. 4.Department of Environmental Social Sciences, EawagDübendorfSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations