IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v39y2019i01p35-64_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating collaborative governance theory with the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Koebele, Elizabeth A.

Abstract

As collaborative governance processes continue to grow in popularity, practitioners and policy scholars alike can benefit from the development of methods to better analyse and evaluate them. This article develops one such method by demonstrating how collaborative governance theory can be integrated with the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to better explain coalition dynamics, policy-oriented learning and policy change in collaborative contexts. I offer three theoretical propositions that suggest alternate relationships among ACF variables under collaborative governance arrangements and illustrate these propositions using interview data from an original case study of a collaborative governance process in Colorado, USA. The integration of collaborative governance theory with the ACF improves its application in collaborative contexts and provides new theoretical insights into the study and practice of collaborative governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Koebele, Elizabeth A., 2019. "Integrating collaborative governance theory with the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 35-64, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:39:y:2019:i:01:p:35-64_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X18000041/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rijia Ding & Chongbao Ren & Suli Hao & Qi Lan & Mingbo Tan, 2022. "Polycentric Collaborative Governance, Sustainable Development and the Ecological Resilience of Elevator Safety: Evidence from a Structural Equation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-37, June.
    2. Giordono, Leanne, 2019. "The Slow Road to Big Change: Extending the Advocacy Coalition Framework with the Theory of Gradual, Institutional Change," OSF Preprints 98qdy, Center for Open Science.
    3. Neal D. Woods, 2021. "The State of State Environmental Policy Research: A Thirty‐Year Progress Report," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 347-369, May.
    4. Aerang Nam & Christopher M. Weible & Kyudong Park, 2022. "Polarization and frames of advocacy coalitions in South Korea's nuclear energy policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 387-410, July.
    5. Radtke, Jörg & Scherhaufer, Patrick, 2022. "A social science perspective on conflicts in the energy transition: An introduction to the special issue," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    6. Jens Nilsson & Annica Sandström & Daniel Nohrstedt, 2020. "Beliefs, social identity, and the view of opponents in Swedish carnivore management policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 453-472, September.
    7. Linhai Wu & Liwei Zhang & Yufeng Li, 2023. "Basis for fulfilling responsibilities, behavior, and professionalism of government agencies and effectiveness in public–public collaboration for food safety risk management," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Elizabeth A. Koebele, 2021. "When multiple streams make a river: analyzing collaborative policymaking institutions using the multiple streams framework," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 609-628, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:39:y:2019:i:01:p:35-64_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pup .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.