Discussion — Patterns of Swedish Policy Processes Through the Lens of the ACF
This analysis sets out from the observation that the terms for policymaking in Sweden have gone through some substantial changes in the past decades . While some core properties of corporatism remain , key changes in Swedish policymaking include a movement toward a more open , informal , and conflictual policy process . Scholars suggest that these changes have opened up possibilities for new actors to participate and influence policymaking . In addition , actors increasingly exploit alternative strategies for political influence , including lobbying , networking , and advocacy . Grasping the nature and scope of these changes as well as how they affect policy processes , including terms for policy change and stability , is essential to our understanding of public policymaking . We argue that the ACF is one candidate theoretical framework that can structure research into these questions .
So how can the ACF contribute to knowledge about Swedish policy processes ? Results reported in this review of Swedish ACF applications point to several specific patterns and observations .
Advocacy Coalition Framework
34
First , the studies reviewed here confirm the importance of advocacy coalitions as a form of political organization in the policy process . The majority of the studies reviewed here ( n = 19 , 76 percent ) identified two coalitions or more , including participants from up to nine different types of organizations . This insight applies across substantive issues and suggests that advocacy coalitions are a potentially important form of political organization in Sweden . However , in previous Swedish ACF applications , advocacy coalitions have been almost exclusively identified based on shared beliefs , while empirical evidence on coordination remains sparse . This pattern is at odds with our observation that some studies observing coalitions did not actually empirically identify the elements of actors ’ belief systems , which speaks to a tendency among applications to identify coalitions in a fairly superficial or ad hoc manner . This limitation is understandable , however , given the research challenges and costs involved with disentangling the belief systems and coordination of policy actors . This is nevertheless an important step toward developing the understanding of policy actors ’ behavior . In addition , many of the studies that focused on advocacy coalitions did not identify the coalition members . More empirical research is therefore warranted to assess the structure and internal dynamics of coalitions in terms of the structure of belief systems and coordination strategies . This begins with efforts to empirically document coalition membership . In addition , studying coordination is critical as a basis for examining the role of advocacy coalitions as a form of political organization vis-à-vis traditional corporatist networks involving horizontal interconnections between organized labor , business , and government and vertical ideologically based alliances between parties and organized interests ( see Lembruch 1984 ).
Second , our review provides mixed evidence of participation by new organized participants in Swedish policymaking , such as policy professionals , large companies , and think tanks ( cf . Öberg et al . 2011 ; Svallfors 2016 ). Our review suggests that many policy subsystems are still dominated by representatives of interest groups , public administrators , and elected politicians . When looking at the organizational affi-