Advocacy coalitions, beliefs and climate change policy in the United States

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikelVetenskapligPeer review

Sammanfattning

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) asserts that disagreement over policy core beliefs divides organizations into competing coalitions. We apply Discourse Network Analysis to 1,410 statements in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and USA Today to investigate what kinds of beliefs contribute to coalition formation in the climate change policy debate in the news media in the United States. We find that the beliefs concerning the reality of anthropogenic climate change, the importance of ecology over economy and desirability of governmental regulation divide organizations into three advocacy coalitions: the economy, ecology and science coalitions. Policy preferences such as cap and trade do not; they find support across coalition lines. Based on these findings, we suggest that ACF theory could be clarified to better account for how beliefs concerning policy instruments contribute to coalition formation. In some policy domains, policy instruments are where opposing coalitions find agreement. In others, they are more divisive.
Originalspråkengelska
TidskriftPublic Administration
Volym95
Utgåva3
Sidor (från-till)713–729
Antal sidor17
ISSN0033-3298
DOI
StatusPublicerad - 3 maj 2017
MoE-publikationstypA1 Tidskriftsartikel-refererad

Vetenskapsgrenar

  • 517 Statsvetenskap

Citera det här

@article{537f11490880462b945aedf8b86b7bb8,
title = "Advocacy coalitions, beliefs and climate change policy in the United States",
abstract = "The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) asserts that disagreement over policy core beliefs divides organizations into competing coalitions. We apply Discourse Network Analysis to 1,410 statements in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and USA Today to investigate what kinds of beliefs contribute to coalition formation in the climate change policy debate in the news media in the United States. We find that the beliefs concerning the reality of anthropogenic climate change, the importance of ecology over economy and desirability of governmental regulation divide organizations into three advocacy coalitions: the economy, ecology and science coalitions. Policy preferences such as cap and trade do not; they find support across coalition lines. Based on these findings, we suggest that ACF theory could be clarified to better account for how beliefs concerning policy instruments contribute to coalition formation. In some policy domains, policy instruments are where opposing coalitions find agreement. In others, they are more divisive.",
keywords = "517 Political science",
author = "Kukkonen, {Anna Kristiina} and Yl{\"a}-Anttila, {Matti Tuomas} and Jeffrey Broadbent",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1111/padm.12321",
language = "English",
volume = "95",
pages = "713–729",
journal = "Public Administration",
issn = "0033-3298",
publisher = "Wiley Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Advocacy coalitions, beliefs and climate change policy in the United States. / Kukkonen, Anna Kristiina; Ylä-Anttila, Matti Tuomas; Broadbent, Jeffrey.

I: Public Administration, Vol. 95, Nr. 3, 03.05.2017, s. 713–729.

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikelVetenskapligPeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Advocacy coalitions, beliefs and climate change policy in the United States

AU - Kukkonen, Anna Kristiina

AU - Ylä-Anttila, Matti Tuomas

AU - Broadbent, Jeffrey

PY - 2017/5/3

Y1 - 2017/5/3

N2 - The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) asserts that disagreement over policy core beliefs divides organizations into competing coalitions. We apply Discourse Network Analysis to 1,410 statements in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and USA Today to investigate what kinds of beliefs contribute to coalition formation in the climate change policy debate in the news media in the United States. We find that the beliefs concerning the reality of anthropogenic climate change, the importance of ecology over economy and desirability of governmental regulation divide organizations into three advocacy coalitions: the economy, ecology and science coalitions. Policy preferences such as cap and trade do not; they find support across coalition lines. Based on these findings, we suggest that ACF theory could be clarified to better account for how beliefs concerning policy instruments contribute to coalition formation. In some policy domains, policy instruments are where opposing coalitions find agreement. In others, they are more divisive.

AB - The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) asserts that disagreement over policy core beliefs divides organizations into competing coalitions. We apply Discourse Network Analysis to 1,410 statements in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and USA Today to investigate what kinds of beliefs contribute to coalition formation in the climate change policy debate in the news media in the United States. We find that the beliefs concerning the reality of anthropogenic climate change, the importance of ecology over economy and desirability of governmental regulation divide organizations into three advocacy coalitions: the economy, ecology and science coalitions. Policy preferences such as cap and trade do not; they find support across coalition lines. Based on these findings, we suggest that ACF theory could be clarified to better account for how beliefs concerning policy instruments contribute to coalition formation. In some policy domains, policy instruments are where opposing coalitions find agreement. In others, they are more divisive.

KW - 517 Political science

U2 - 10.1111/padm.12321

DO - 10.1111/padm.12321

M3 - Article

VL - 95

SP - 713

EP - 729

JO - Public Administration

JF - Public Administration

SN - 0033-3298

IS - 3

ER -