IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v54y2021i4d10.1007_s11077-021-09439-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public contestation over agricultural pollution: a discourse network analysis on narrative strategies in the policy process

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Schaub

    (Heidelberg University)

Abstract

The overuse of fertilizers in agriculture and their entry into freshwater has many negative impacts on biodiversity and poses problems for drinking water resources in Germany. In response to exceeding levels of nitrate concentrations in groundwater in parts of the country, an intense public dispute evolved and a significant policy change in fertilizer regulation occurred in 2020. Based on the German case of agricultural water pollution, this study demonstrates in an innovative way how discourse network analysis is a fruitful method for the integrated study of actor coalitions and their use of narrative strategies in public debate. Theoretically, the study draws on the narrative policy framework (NPF) to explain how actor coalitions use narrative strategies to attempt to influence policymaking on water pollution by agricultural activities. The empirical analysis builds on newspaper articles and press releases disseminated between 2010 and 2020. The results demonstrate how two opposing actor coalitions with congruent policy beliefs formed in the struggle over fertilizer regulation. These not only diverged in their policy beliefs but also differed in their use of narrative strategies to try to expand or contain the policy issue. More precisely, the coalitions adapted their narratives over time in response to changes in the likelihood to win or lose. Furthermore, the results suggest the coalition in favor of stricter fertilizer regulation was more sophisticated in its effort to mobilize specific target groups. Overall, the article provides a valuable contribution to the literature on the NPF by combining research on coalition formation and policy narratives.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Schaub, 2021. "Public contestation over agricultural pollution: a discourse network analysis on narrative strategies in the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 783-821, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-021-09439-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-021-09439-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-021-09439-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-021-09439-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jale Tosun & Herman Lelieveldt & Trevelyan S. Wing, 2019. "A Case of ‘Muddling Through’? The Politics of Renewing Glyphosate Authorization in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Adrian Rinscheid, 2020. "Business Power in Noisy Politics: An Exploration Based on Discourse Network Analysis and Survey Data," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 286-297.
    3. Jessica E. Boscarino, 2019. "From Three Mile Island to Fukushima: the impact of analogy on attitudes toward nuclear power," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 21-42, March.
    4. Simon Schaub & Florence Metz, 2020. "Comparing Discourse and Policy Network Approaches: Evidence from Water Policy on Micropollutants," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 184-199.
    5. Druckman, James N. & Fein, Jordan & Leeper, Thomas J., 2012. "A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 430-454, May.
    6. Monika Mühlböck & Jale Tosun, 2018. "Responsiveness to Different National Interests: Voting Behaviour on Genetically Modified Organisms in the Council of the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 385-402, March.
    7. Philip Leifeld, 2020. "Policy Debates and Discourse Network Analysis: A Research Agenda," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 180-183.
    8. Felix Bossner & Melanie Nagel, 2020. "Discourse Networks and Dual Screening: Analyzing Roles, Content and Motivations in Political Twitter Conversations," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 311-325.
    9. Christopher M. Weible & Kristin L. Olofsson & Daniel P. Costie & Juniper M. Katz & Tanya Heikkila, 2016. "Enhancing Precision and Clarity in the Study of Policy Narratives: An Analysis of Climate and Air Issues in Delhi, India," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(4), pages 420-441, July.
    10. Mark McBeth & Elizabeth Shanahan & Paul Hathaway & Linda Tigert & Lynette Sampson, 2010. "Buffalo tales: interest group policy stories in Greater Yellowstone," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 43(4), pages 391-409, December.
    11. Livia Johannesson & Noomi Weinryb, 2021. "How to blame and make a difference: perceived responsibility and policy consequences in two Swedish pro-migrant campaigns," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 41-62, March.
    12. Jale Tosun & Simon Schaub, 2017. "Mobilization in the European Public Sphere: The Struggle Over Genetically Modified Organisms," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(3), pages 310-330, June.
    13. Hannes R. Stephan, 2020. "Shaping the Scope of Conflict in Scotland’s Fracking Debate: Conflict Management and the Narrative Policy Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 64-91, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philip Leifeld, 2020. "Policy Debates and Discourse Network Analysis: A Research Agenda," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 180-183.
    2. Hannes R. Stephan, 2020. "Shaping the Scope of Conflict in Scotland’s Fracking Debate: Conflict Management and the Narrative Policy Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 64-91, January.
    3. Mijailoff, Julián Daniel & Burns, Sarah Lilian, 2023. "Fixing the meaning of floating signifier: Discourses and network analysis in the bioeconomy policy processes in Argentina and Uruguay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. Tomáš Lintner & Tomáš Diviák & Barbora Nekardová & Lukáš Lehotský & Michal Vašečka, 2023. "Slovak MPs’ response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in light of conspiracy theories and the polarization of political discourse," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Simon Schaub & Florence Metz, 2020. "Comparing Discourse and Policy Network Approaches: Evidence from Water Policy on Micropollutants," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 184-199.
    6. Jensen, Carsten & Naumann, Elias, 2016. "Increasing pressures and support for public healthcare in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 698-705.
    7. Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna & Maraseni, Tek & Pathak, Bhoj Raj, 2022. "Navigating policy debates of and discourse coalitions on Nepal's Scientific Forest Management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    8. Caroline Schlaufer & Marina Pilkina & Tatiana Chalaya & Tatiana Khaynatskaya & Tatiana Voronova & Aleksandra Pozhivotko, 2022. "How do civil society organizations communicate in an authoritarian setting? A narrative analysis of the Russian waste management debate," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 730-751, November.
    9. Ann Hillier & Ryan P Kelly & Terrie Klinger, 2016. "Narrative Style Influences Citation Frequency in Climate Change Science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-12, December.
    10. J. Michael Angstadt, 2020. "Applying Stone in a Western Landscape: Ranchers, Conservationists, and Causal Stories in the “American Serengeti”," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(2), pages 244-259, March.
    11. Stefan Wallaschek & Kavyanjali Kaushik & Monika Verbalyte & Aleksandra Sojka & Giuliana Sorci & Hans-Jörg Trenz & Monika Eigmüller, 2022. "Same Same but Different? Gender Politics and (Trans-)National Value Contestation in Europe on Twitter," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(1), pages 146-160.
    12. Nancy Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Flavia Donadelli, 2023. "A computational approach to study the gap and barriers between science and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    13. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin & Zhonghua Li, 2020. "Determinants of Firm‐Level Lobbying and Government Responsiveness in Agricultural Biotechnology in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(2), pages 201-220, March.
    14. Hawkins, Christopher V. & Chia-Yuan, Yu, 2018. "Voter support for environmental bond referenda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 193-200.
    15. Jungrav-Gieorgica, Natalia, 2020. "Narrative Policy Framework - polityka publiczna jako walka opowieści," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 1-27, July.
    16. Elena Rosculete & Elena Bonciu & Catalin Aurelian Rosculete & Elena Teleanu, 2018. "Detection and Quantification of Genetically Modified Soybean in Some Food and Feed Products. A Case Study on Products Available on Romanian Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, April.
    17. Rosa M. Sanchez Salgado, 2023. "The many faces of the politics of shame in European policymaking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 525-547, September.
    18. Jale Tosun, 2017. "On the sustained importance of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits in policy studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 563-572, December.
    19. Jonathan W. A. Ruff & Gregory Stelmach & Michael D. Jones, 2022. "Space for stories: legislative narratives and the establishment of the US Space Force," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 509-553, September.
    20. Veronika Villnow & Meike Rombach & Vera Bitsch, 2019. "Examining German Media Coverage of the Re-Evaluation of Glyphosate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, March.

    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:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-021-09439-x. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.