Advocacy Coalition Framework
examining internal shocks is expected , given that this notion was first introduced in the 2007 version of the framework .
ACF hypotheses regarding policy change were tested empirically in five applications . Moderately strong support was found relating external events as a driver of policy change ( Elliot and Schlaepfer 2001b ; Nohrstedt 2007 ; 2009 ; 2011 ; Ulmanen , Swartling , and Wallgren 2015 ); however , disagreement remains more broadly over the specific mechanisms by which external events or shocks may impact the policy process . Three applications also tested the impact of policy-oriented learning as a mechanism for policy change , with results indicating moderate support for this hypothesis ( Elliot and Schlaepfer 2001a ; 2001b ; Ullmanen et al . 2015 ).
Policy-Oriented Learning
The ACF ’ s hypotheses related to policy-oriented learning have received varying levels of attention and empirical support . For example , some studies on the connection between learning and policy change find a strong connection ; others describe a weak connection , while some studies question if there is a connection at all ( Weible , Sabatier , and McQueen 2009 ). Thus , learning remains an area that needs further testing and development in the ACF ( Jenkins-Smith et al . 2014 ). In this study , we asked first if learning was the focus of the application and , second , if learning was identified among or between coalitions . Seven applications focused on learning as the main theoretical emphasis within the research ; an additional eight applications explored learning among or between coalitions as a mechanism for policy change . There was agreement among the applications that learning was important in the policy process but that work remains to be done regarding the more specific characteristics and determinants of learning within and between coalitions , and what impact that might have on subsystem dynamics .
Main |
Framework |
or |
Supplemental |
Theory ? |
|
|
|
Other reviews demonstrate that the ACF has frequently been applied in conjunction with other frameworks and theories ( e . g ., Weible , Sabatier , and McQueen 2009 ; Weible et al . 2011 ). We considered whether the ACF was the main framework used , and if so , how was it used in applications involving Swedish cases . The results show that the ACF was the only framework used in nine of the 25 applications . It was the main framework in an additional nine applications and was used as a supplementary , largely descriptive framework in the remaining seven applications . The extent to which an application utilized the framework was coded to reflect ( i ) descriptive usage , such as actor constellations described as coalitions with shared beliefs , ( ii ) conceptual analysis , for example borrowing key terms such as learning or policy change , and ( iii ) hypothesis testing . Note again that multiple uses are possible . The results show that 20 percent of the applications drew only descriptive analysis from the ACF ( n = 5 ). Half of the applications ( n = 12 ) went one step beyond , directly applying ACF terms such as “ learning ” or “ advocacy coalition ”. The remaining eight applications directly explored and tested ACF hypotheses . This pattern corroborates findings reported elsewhere — that more than half of the
32