Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-wdhn8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T09:32:43.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Hank C. Jenkins-Smith  and
Paul A. Sabatier
Hank C. Jenkins-Smith
Affiliation:
Political Science, University of New Mexico
Paul A. Sabatier
Affiliation:
Environmental Studies, University of California at Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was developed to provide a causal theory of the policy process which would serve as one of several alternatives to the familiar stages heuristic, with its recognized limitations. This paper first summarizes the central features of the ACF, including a set of underlying assumptions and specific hypotheses. We next review the implications for the framework of six case studies by various authors dealing with Canadian education and with American transportation, telecommunications, water, environmental, and energy policy. While generally supportive of the ACF, the case studies also suggest several revisions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 175 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aberbach, Joel., Putnam, Robert, and Rockman, Bert (1981). Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, James (1979). Public Policy-Making. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Anton, Thomas (1989). American Federalism and Public Policy: How the System Works, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Asmerom, H. K., Hoppe, R., and Jain, R. B., eds. (1992). Bureaucracy and Developmental Policies in the Third World. Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
Barke, Richard (1993). ‘Managing Technological Change in Federal Communications Policy: The Role of Industry Advisory Groups’, in Policy Change and Learning, ed. by Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H.. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, pp. 129–146.Google Scholar
Barke, Richard and Jenkins-Smith, Hank (1993). ‘Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perceptions, and Nuclear Waste Policy Risk Analysis (October):CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Susan and Fudge, Colin (1981). Policy and Action. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Berman, Paul (1978). ‘The Study of Micro- and Macro-Implementation’, Public Policy 26: 157–184.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Marver (1955). Regulating Business by Independent Commission. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Harold (1977). Perception, Theory, and Commitment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Anthony E. and Stewart, Joseph (1993). ‘Competing Advocacy Coalitions, Policy Evolution, and Airline Deregulation’, in Policy Change and Learning, ed. by Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H.. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, pp. 83–104.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean (1970). Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Castles, Francis G. (1989). ‘Explaining Public Education Expenditure in OECD Countries’, European Journal of Political Research 17: 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chubb, John and Moe, Terry (1990). Politics, Markets, and America's Schools. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Cobb, Roger, Ross, Jennie Keith, and Ross, Marc H. (1976). ‘Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process’, American Political Science Review 70 (March): 126—138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Robert. (1992). Washington at Work: Back Rooms and Clean Air. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip (1964). ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’, in Ideology and Discontent, ed. David, Apter. new York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cook, B. and Wood, B. Dan (1989). ‘Principal-Agent Models of Political Controls of the Bureaucracy’, American Political Science Review, 83 (September): 965–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, J. Clarence (1970). The Politics of Pollution. NY: Pegasus.Google Scholar
Davies, Charles and Davis, Sandra (1988). ‘Analyzing Change in Public Lands Policymaking: From Subsystems to Advocacy Coalitions’, Policy Studies Journal 17 (Fall): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, Patrick (1981). The Politics of Mass Housing in Britain: 1945–75. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Eisner, Marc A. and Meier, Kenneth J. (1990). ‘Presidential Control versus Bureaucratic Power: Explaining the Reagan Revolution in Antitrust’, American Journal of Political Science 34 (February): 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedson, Eliot (1971). The Professions and Their Prospects. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Gormley, William. (1987). ‘Regulatory Issue Networks in a Federal System’, Polity (Summer): 595–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustilo, Tracy and Sabatier, Paul (1992). ‘Who Do Policy Elites Look to for Advice and Information’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,Chicago,Sept. 3–6.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh (1974). Social Policy in Britain and Sweden. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh (1977). A Government of Strangers. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh (1978). ‘Issue Networks in the Executive Establishment’, in The New American Political System, ed. King, A.. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Heintz, Theodore (1988). ‘Advocacy Coalitions and the OSC Leasing Debate: A Case Study in Policy Evolution’, Policy Sciences 21: 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjern, Benny and Porter, David (1981). ‘Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis’, Organization Studies 2: 211—227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoflerbert, Richard (1974). The Study of Public Policy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hogwood, Brian and Peters, B. Guy (1983). Policy Dynamics. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Hull, Chris and Hjern, Benny (1987). Helping Small Firms Grow. London: Groom Helm.Google Scholar
Hundley, Norris (1992). The Great Thirst. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, Helen (1978). ‘The Political Ratioality of Innovation: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970’, in Approaches to Controlling Air Pollution, ed. Friedlaender, A.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 12–67.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, Hank (1988). ‘Analytical Debates and Policy Learning: Analysis and Change in the Federal Bureaucracy’, Policy Sciences 21: 169–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, Hank (1990) Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, Hank (1991) ‘Alternative Theories of the Policy Process: Reflections on Research Strategy for the Study of Nuclear Waste Policy’, PS: Political Science and Politics 24 (June): 157–166.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, Hank and St. Clair, Gilbert (1993). ‘The Politics of Offshore Energy: Empirically Testing the Advocacy Coalition Framework’, in Policy Change and Learning, ed. Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H.. Boulder, Co: Westview Press, pp. 149–176.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles (1975). Clean Air: The Policies and Politics of Pollution Control. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles (1977). An Introduction to the Study of Public Polity, 2nd Ed. Belmont, CA: Wads worth.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. G., and Richardson, J. J. (1983). ‘Policy Communities: British and European Style’ Policy Studies Journal, v. 11, (June): 603–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Kirst, Michael and Jung, Richard (1982). ‘The Utility of a Longitudinal Approach in Assessing Implementation: Title I, ESEA’, in Studying Implementation, ed. Williams, W.. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House, pp. 119–148.Google Scholar
Kiser, Larry and Ostrom, Elinor (1982). ‘The Three Worlds of Action’, in Strategies of Political Inquiry, ed. Ostrom, E.. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 179–222.Google Scholar
Knott, Jack and Miller, Gary (1987). Reforming Bureaucracy: The Politics of Institutional Choice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laffin, Martin (1986). Professionalism and Policy: The Role of Professions in the Central-Local Government Relationship. Aldershot, UK: Gower.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre (1978). ‘The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in Philosophical Papers, Vol. I, ed. Worrall, J. and Currie, G.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–101.Google Scholar
Lave, Charles and March, James (1975). An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Leichter, Howard (1979). A Comparative Approach to Policy Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lester, James and Hamilton, Michael (1988). ‘Intergovernmental Relations and Marine Policy Change: Ocean Dumping and At-Sea Incineration of Hazardous Waste’, in Ocean Resources and U.S. Intergovernmental Relations in the 1980s. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, pp. 197–220.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles and Cohen, David (1979). Usable Knowledge. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Liroff, Richard (1986). Reforming Air Pollution Regulation: The Toil and Trouble of EPA's Bubble. Washington, DC: Conservative Foundation.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore (1969). The End of Liberalism. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Lundqvist, Lennart (1980). The Hare and the Tortoise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew and Sullivan, Terry, eds. (1992). Congress: Structure and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico (1980). ‘Policies as Theories’, Omega 8: 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giandimerid, Majore and Wildavsky, Aaron (1978). ‘Implementation as Evolution’, in Policy Studies Review Annual: 1978, ed, Freeman, H.. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp.Google Scholar
Mawhinney, Hanne (1993). ‘An Advocacy Coalition Approach to Change in Canadian Education’, in Policy Change and Learning, ed. Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H.. Boulder, Co: Westview Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Mazmanian, Dan and Sabatier, Paul (1980). ‘A Multivariate Model of Public Policy-Making’, American Journal of Political Science 24 (August): 439–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazmanian, Dan and Sabatier, Paul (1989). Implementation and Public Policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. [Reprint of 1983 book published by Scott Foresman and Co.]Google Scholar
Mazur, Alan (1981). The Dynamics of Technical Controversy. Washington, DC: Communications Press.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J. (1985). Regulation: Politics, Bureaucracy and Economics. New York: St Martin's.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry (1980). The Organization of Interests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry (1984). ‘The New Economics of Organization’, American Journal of Political Science 28 (November): 739–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, John (1993). ‘California Water Politics: Explaining Policy Change in a Cognitively Polarized Subsystem’, in Policy Change and Learning, ed. Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H.. Boulder, Co: Westview Press, pp. 105–128.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Robert (1987). The Textbook Policy Process and Implementation Research', Policy Studies Review 1: 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Barbara (1984). Making an Issue of Child Abuse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor, Schroeder, Larry, and Wynne, Susan (1993). Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Peffley, Mark and Hurwitz, Jon (1985). ‘A Hierarchical Model of Attitude Constraint’, American Journal of Political Science 29 (November): 871–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, B. Guy (1986). American Public Policy, 2nd ed. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressman, Jeffrey and Wildavsky, Aaron (1973). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Primack, Joel and Von Hippel, Frank (1974). Advice and Dissent: Scientists and the Political Arena. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1988). Beyond Westminster and Whitehall. London: Unwin and Hyman.Google Scholar
Riker, William (1962). The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rodgers, Harrell and Bullock, Charles (1976). Coercion to Compliance. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul (1986). ‘Top-Down and Bottom-Up Models of Policy Implementation: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis’, Journal of Public Policy 6 (January): 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul (1988). ‘An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Chamge and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein’, Policy Sciences 21: 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul (1991) ‘Toward Better Theories of the Policy Progress’, PS 24 (June): 147–156.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul and Brasher, Anne (1993). ‘From Vague Consensus to Clearly-Differentiated Coalitions: Environmental Policy at Lake Tahoe, 1964–85’, in Policy Change and Learning, ed. Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H.. Boulder, Co: Westview Press, pp. 149–176.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul and Jenkins-Smith, Hank, eds. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul and Pelkey, Neil (1990). Land Development at Lake Tahoe. David, CA: Institute of Ecology.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul and Wertheimer, Ellen (1993). ‘France-Angleterre: Milage comparé’, Études foncières No. 61 (décembre): 22–37.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul, Hunter, Susan, and McLaughlin, Susan (1987). ‘The Devil Shift: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Opponents’, Western Political Quarterly 41 (September): 449–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, Robert (1969). ‘An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups’, Midwest Journal of Political Science 13: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, Robert (1984). ‘Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions’, American political Science Review 78 (March): 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schlager, Edella (1994). ‘Policy Making and Collective Action: Defining Coalitions within the Advocacy Coalition Framework’, Working Paper, School of Public Administration, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Scholtz, John, Twombly, James, and Headrick, Barbara (1991). ‘Street-Level Political Controls over Federal Bureaucracy’, American Political Science Review 85 (September): 829–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, L. J. (1984). ‘National and Subnational Government and Coordination’, in Guidance, Control and Evaluation in the Public Sector, ed. Kaufman, F, Ostrom, V., and Majone, G.Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stewart, Joseph (1991). ‘Policy Models and Equal Educational Opportunity’, PS 26 (June) 167–173.Google Scholar
Van Horn, Carl (1979). Policy Implementation in the Federal System. Lexington, Mass: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Van Muijen, Marie-Louise (1993). Better Safe than Provocative. Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, Carol (1977). ‘Research for Policy's Sake: the Enlightenment Function of Social Research’, Policy Analysis 3 (Fall): 531–545.Google Scholar
Weyent, John (1988). ‘Is There Policy-Oriented Learning in the Analysis of Natural Gas Policy Issues’? Policy Sciences 21 (Fall): 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. Dan, and Waterman, Richard (1991). ‘The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy’, American Political Science Review 85 (September): 801–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Deil (1988). Understanding Intergovernmental Relations. 3rd ed.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar