Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:29:49.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding rationales for collaboration in high-intensity policy conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2017

Christopher M. Weible ,
Tanya Heikkila  and
Jonathan Pierce
Christopher M. Weible
Affiliation:
School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Tanya Heikkila
Affiliation:
School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Jonathan Pierce
Affiliation:
Institute of Public Service, Seattle University, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Why people collaborate to achieve their political objectives is one enduring question in public policy. Although studies have explored this question in low-intensity policy conflicts, a few have examined collaboration in high-intensity policy conflicts. This study asks two questions: What are the rationales motivating policy actors to collaborate with each other in high-intensity policy conflicts? What policy actor attributes are associated with these rationales? This study uses questionnaire data collected in 2013 and 2014 of policy actors from New York, Colorado and Texas who are actively involved with hydraulic fracturing policy debates. The results show that professional competence is the most important rationale for collaborating, whereas shared beliefs are moderately important, and financial resources are not important. Policy actor attributes that are associated with different rationales include organisational affiliation and extreme policy positions. This article concludes with a discussion on advancing theoretical explanations of collaboration in high-intensity policy conflicts.

Keywords

collaborationhydraulic fracturingpolicy conflictshale oil and gas
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2017 

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

Bacharach, M. and Gambetta, D. (2001) Trust in Signs. In Cook, K.S. (ed.), Trust in Society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 148–184.Google Scholar
Bel, G. and Warner, M. E. (2015) Inter-Municipal Cooperation and Costs: Expectations and Evidence. Public Administration 93(1): 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berardo, R. (2010) Sustaining Joint Ventures: The Role of Resource Exchange and the Strength of Interorganizational Relationships. In Scholz J. T. and Feiock R.C. (eds.), Self Organizing Federalism: Collaborative Mechanisms to Mitigate Institutional Collective Action Dilemmas. New York: Cambridge University Press, 204–228.Google Scholar
Berardo, R. and Scholz, J. T. (2010) Self‐Organizing Policy Networks: Risk, Partner Selection, and Cooperation in Estuaries. American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 632–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, T. and Caduff, L. (2004) In Whose Interest? Pressure Group Politics, Economic Competition and Environmental Regulation. Journal of Public Policy 24(1): 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudet, H. S. and Ortolano, L. (2010) A Tale of Two Sitings: Contentious Politics in Liquefied Natural Gas in the United States. Environmental Politics 20: 786–806.Google Scholar
Calanni, J. C., Siddiki, S. N., Weible, C. M. and Leach, W. D. (2014) Explaining Coordination in Collaborative Partnerships and Clarifying the Scope of the Belief Homophily Hypothesis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(3): 901–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. (1963) Modern Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Davis, C. (2012) The Politics of “Fracking”: Regulating Natural Gas Drilling Practices in Colorado and Texas. Review of Policy Research 29(2): 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1973) The Commons Dilemma Game: An N-Person Mixed Motive Game With a Dominating Strategy for Defection. ORI Research Bulletin 13(2): 1–12.Google Scholar
Elgin, D. (2015) Cooperative Interactions Among Friends and Foes Operating Within Collaborative Governance Arrangements. Public Administration 93(3): 769–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feiock, R. (2013) The Institutional Collective Action Framework. Policy Studies Journal 3(41): 397–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, R. F. and Stoutland, S. E. (1999) Reconceiving the Community Development Field. In Ferguson R. F. and Dickens W. T. (eds.), Urban Problems and Community Development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 33–76.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1962) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, M., Ingold, K., Sciarini, P. and Varone, F. (2015) Dealing With Bad Guys: Actor-and Process-Level Determinants of the “Devil Shift” in Policy Making. Journal of Public Policy 36(2): 1–26.Google Scholar
Fisk, J. M. (2013) The Right to Know? State Politics of Fracking Disclosure. Review of Policy Research 30(4): 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerlak, A., Heikkila, T. and Lubell, M. (2012) The Promise and Performance of Collaborative Governance. In Kamieniecki S. and Kraft M. E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Environmental Policy . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 413–434.Google Scholar
Gray, V. and Lowery, D. (1996) A Niche Theory of Interest Representation. The Journal of Politics 58(1): 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, B. W. and Alford, J. (2015) Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Administration & Society 47(6): 711–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkila, T. and Gerlak, A. K. (2005) The Formation of Large-Scale Collaborative Resource Management Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of Stakeholders, Science, and Institutions. Policy Studies Journal 33(4): 583–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkila, T. and Weible, C. (2016) Contours of Coalition Politics in the United States. In Weible, C. , Heikkila T. , Ingold K. and Fischer M. (eds.), Policy Debates on Hydraulic Fracturing: Comparing Coalition Politics in North America and Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkila, T., Weible, C. M. and Pierce, J. J. (2014) Exploring the Policy Narratives and Politics of Hydraulic Fracturing in New York. In McBeth, M. , Jones M. and Shanahan E. (eds.), The Science of Stories: Applications of the Narrative Policy Framework. New York: Palgrave, 185–206.Google Scholar
Henry, A. D. (2011) Power, Ideology, and Policy Network Cohesion in Regional Planning. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, K. and Fischer, M. (2014) Drivers of Collaboration to Mitigate Climate Change: An Illustration of Swiss Climate Policy Over 15 Years. Global Environmental Change 24: 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, K. (2010) The Politics of Partnerships: A Study of Policy and Housing Collaboration to Tackle Anti-Social Behavior on Australian Public Housing Estates. Public Administration 88(4): 928–942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins-Smith, H., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M. and Sabatier, P. A. (2014) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Ongoing Research. In Sabatier, P. and Weible C. M. (eds.), Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview, 183–224.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H. and St. Clair, G. (1993) The Politics of Offshore Energy: Empirically Testing the Advocacy Coalition Framework. In Sabatier P. and Jenkins-Smith H. (eds.), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 149–176.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1956) The Decision Process. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1971) A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Levi, M. (2000) When Good Defenses Make Good Neighbors. In Menard C. (ed.), Institutions, Contracts, and Organizations: Perspectives from New Institutional Economics. Chichester, UK: Edward Elgar, 137–157.Google Scholar
Levi, M. and Stoker, L. (2000) Political Trust and Trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 475–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubell, M. (2007) Familiarity Breeds Trust: Collective Action in a Policy Domain. Journal of Politics 69(1): 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matti, S. and Sandström, A. (2011) The Rationale Determining Advocacy Coalitions: Examining Coordination Networks and Corresponding Beliefs. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 385–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNutt, K. and Pal, L. A. (2011) Modernizing Government: Mapping Global Public Policy Networks. Governance 24(3): 439–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nohrstedt, D. and Bodin, O. (2014) Evolutionary Dynamics of Crisis Preparedness: Resources, Turbulence, and Network Change in Swedish Municipalities. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 5(2): 134–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Orcutt, M. (2011) How Much U.S. Shale Gas is There, Really?. MIT Technology Review, 31 August, http://www.technologyreview.com/article/425286/how-much-us-shale-gas-is-there-really/ (accessed 26 January 2017).Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1998) A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address American Political Science Association, 1997. American Political Science Review 92(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, H. H. and Rethemeyer, R. K. (2012) The Politics of Connections: Assessing the Determinants of Social Structure in Policy Networks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(2): 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, S. H., Chen, R. and Gallagher, S. (2002) Firm Resources as Moderators of the Relationship Between Market Growth and Strategic Alliances in Semiconductor Start-Ups. Academy of Management Journal 45: 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J. and Nowak, P. (1976) Joint Ventures and Interorganizational Interdependence. Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 398–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provan, K. G., Beyer, J. M. and Kruytbosch, C. (1980) Environmental Linkages and Power in Resource-Dependence Relations Between Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 25: 200–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R. (1976) The Comparative Study of Political Elites. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Richardson, N., Gottlieb, M., Krupnick, A. and Wiseman, H. (2013) The State of Shale Gas Regulation. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, http://www.rff.org/rff/documents/RFF-Rpt-StateofStateRegs_Report.pdf (accessed 26 January 2017).Google Scholar
Robinson, S. E. and Gaddis, B. S. (2012) Seeing Past Parallel Play: Survey Measures of Collaboration in Disaster Situations. Policy Studies Journal 40(2): 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (1988) An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences 21: 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (1991) Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process. PS: Political Science and Politics 24(2): 147–156.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A. and Matlock, M. (eds.) (2005) Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (eds.) (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. and Meyer, J. W. (1991) The Organization of Societal Sectors: Propositions and Early Evidence. In Powell W. W. and DiMaggio P. J. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Studies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 108–140.Google Scholar
Tilly, C. and Tarrow, S. (2007) Contentious Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
US Energy Information Administration (2014a) Colorado State Profile and Energy Analysis. US Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, http://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.cfm?sid=CO (accessed 26 January 2017).Google Scholar
US Energy Information Administration (2014b) Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production. US Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dcu_NUS_m.htm (accessed 26 January 2017).Google Scholar
US Energy Information Administration (2014c) Texas Field Production of Crude Oil (Data File). US Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPTX1&f=M (accessed 26 January 2017).Google Scholar
US Energy Information Administration (2015) Drilling Productivity Report for Key Tight Oil and Shale Gas Regions. US Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/dpr-full.pdf (accessed 26 January 2017).Google Scholar
Warner, B. and Shapiro, J. (2013) Fractured, Fragmented Federalism: A Study in Fracking Regulatory Policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43: 464–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weare, C., Lichterman, P. and Esparza, N. (2014) Collaboration and Culture: Organizational Culture and the Dynamics of Collaborative Policy Networks. Policy Studies Journal 42(4): 590–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weible, C. M. (2005) Beliefs and Policy Influence: An Advocacy Coalition Approach to Policy Networks. Political Research Quarterly 58(3): 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A. and Pattison, A. (2010) Harnessing Expert-Based Information for Learning and Sustainable Management of Complex Socio-Ecological Systems. Environmental Science and Policy 13: 522–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weible, C. and Heikkila, T. (2014) Fracking Resolution in New York – Escalation of Fracking Politics Across the Nation. The Conversation, 22 December, http://theconversation.com/fracking-resolution-in-new-york-escalation-of-fracking-politics-across-the-nation-35655#comment_548955 (accessed 26 January 2017).Google Scholar
Weible, C. and Heikkila, T. (2016) Policy Conflict Theory. Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, 7–10 April, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Weible, C. M. and Heikkila, T. (2017) Policy Conflict Framework. Policy Sciences, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zafonte, M. and Sabatier, P. A. (2004) Short‐Term Versus Long‐Term Coalitions in the Policy Process: Automotive Pollution Control, 1963–1989. Policy Studies Journal 32(1): 75–107.Google Scholar