Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)
ACF Citations - correct answer (Helco, 1974)
(Sabatier, 1988)
(Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier, 1993)
(Jenskins-Smith and Sabatier, 1994)
(Schlager, 1995)
(Fenger and Klok, 2011) - criticism of beliefs hierarchy
(Weible, 2006)
(Weible and Sabatier, 2007)
(Weible, et al, 2009)
(Weible, et al, 2011)
(Albright, 2011) - EM and ACF, criticism of scientific data types and importance
(Nohrstedt, 2013) - EM and ACF
(Sabatier and Weible, 2018)
ACF history, development, and key historical influences - correct answer Helco, 1974:
-A macro-level analysis only accounts for a small portion of policy changes
-2 factors that need to be explored: large-scale social change and strategic interactions among key policy
actors
Sabatier, 1988:
-Need to move away from the traditional ways of explaining and conceptualizing the policy process
-Scientific data plays a roll in the policy process and with the belief systems of policy actors within
coalitions
-The notion of Iron Triangles (congress, bureaucracy, and interest groups) is too simplistic
-Top-down approaches are not sufficient in explaining the policy process
, The initial description of the ACF by Sabatier, 1988 - correct answer -ACF is a synthesis of both top-down
and bottom-up approaches to policy implementation
-It is an approach to understanding regulatory policy making, particularly environmental policy
-Offers a general foundation for case studies of policy systems and comparative analyses
-Has since become one of the most utilized policy process frameworks, with US and international
implementations in research
-The best time frame to study policy is long-term, around a decade
Key influences in the foundation for ACF - correct answer -Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith were the founders
-Paradigmatic debates - concerns that the scientific attainment of knowledge was under threat, an effort
to reassert the importance
-Past shortcomings of policy research, including the lack of appreciation for the role of scientific
information and to better shed light on policy related conflicts
-The concept of the importance of belief systems - they matter, and exist within a hierarchical structure
-Our beliefs manifest into policy
advocacy coalitions - correct answer -Defined by actors who share policy core beliefs and coordinate
their actions to influence the policy subsystem
-ACF has 5 hypotheses regarding ACs:
1)When policy core beliefs are in dispute, the lineups of allies and opponents are stable over time
(around a decade or so)
2)Members tend to agree on the policy core beliefs, but less so on secondary aspects
3)Members will more readily give up secondary aspects than change policy core beliefs
4)Within a single coalition, administrative agencies tend to be more moderate than their interest group
counter-parts
5)Actors within purposive groups are more constrained in their actions than those from material groups
Note that H1-3 have been well researched and are founded, while 4-5 have received less attention and
are open to more debate.
The 4 general pathways to policy change (the 4 hypotheses) - correct answer 1 - An external shock, an
event outside of the control of the policy subsystem (like a natural disaster)
ACF Citations - correct answer (Helco, 1974)
(Sabatier, 1988)
(Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier, 1993)
(Jenskins-Smith and Sabatier, 1994)
(Schlager, 1995)
(Fenger and Klok, 2011) - criticism of beliefs hierarchy
(Weible, 2006)
(Weible and Sabatier, 2007)
(Weible, et al, 2009)
(Weible, et al, 2011)
(Albright, 2011) - EM and ACF, criticism of scientific data types and importance
(Nohrstedt, 2013) - EM and ACF
(Sabatier and Weible, 2018)
ACF history, development, and key historical influences - correct answer Helco, 1974:
-A macro-level analysis only accounts for a small portion of policy changes
-2 factors that need to be explored: large-scale social change and strategic interactions among key policy
actors
Sabatier, 1988:
-Need to move away from the traditional ways of explaining and conceptualizing the policy process
-Scientific data plays a roll in the policy process and with the belief systems of policy actors within
coalitions
-The notion of Iron Triangles (congress, bureaucracy, and interest groups) is too simplistic
-Top-down approaches are not sufficient in explaining the policy process
, The initial description of the ACF by Sabatier, 1988 - correct answer -ACF is a synthesis of both top-down
and bottom-up approaches to policy implementation
-It is an approach to understanding regulatory policy making, particularly environmental policy
-Offers a general foundation for case studies of policy systems and comparative analyses
-Has since become one of the most utilized policy process frameworks, with US and international
implementations in research
-The best time frame to study policy is long-term, around a decade
Key influences in the foundation for ACF - correct answer -Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith were the founders
-Paradigmatic debates - concerns that the scientific attainment of knowledge was under threat, an effort
to reassert the importance
-Past shortcomings of policy research, including the lack of appreciation for the role of scientific
information and to better shed light on policy related conflicts
-The concept of the importance of belief systems - they matter, and exist within a hierarchical structure
-Our beliefs manifest into policy
advocacy coalitions - correct answer -Defined by actors who share policy core beliefs and coordinate
their actions to influence the policy subsystem
-ACF has 5 hypotheses regarding ACs:
1)When policy core beliefs are in dispute, the lineups of allies and opponents are stable over time
(around a decade or so)
2)Members tend to agree on the policy core beliefs, but less so on secondary aspects
3)Members will more readily give up secondary aspects than change policy core beliefs
4)Within a single coalition, administrative agencies tend to be more moderate than their interest group
counter-parts
5)Actors within purposive groups are more constrained in their actions than those from material groups
Note that H1-3 have been well researched and are founded, while 4-5 have received less attention and
are open to more debate.
The 4 general pathways to policy change (the 4 hypotheses) - correct answer 1 - An external shock, an
event outside of the control of the policy subsystem (like a natural disaster)
