IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v39y2022i4p387-410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Polarization and frames of advocacy coalitions in South Korea's nuclear energy policy

Author

Listed:
  • Aerang Nam
  • Christopher M. Weible
  • Kyudong Park

Abstract

This study explores the structure of advocacy coalitions and frames over time in South Korea's adversarial nuclear energy policy subsystem. It relies on the Advocacy Coalition Frameworks and Discourse Network Analysis to guide data collection from 1149 policy statements in 502 newspaper articles of South Korea spanning four years. Using E‐I Index, modularity index, and coalition polarization for data analysis, it finds an alignment of advocacy coalitions with increasing polarization through external events and the ongoing adaptation of frames to these events. The findings contribute insights into the characteristics of distinct, stable, and polarized coalitions and their frames in the high‐conflicted policy areas in tumultuous times in the context of non‐Western countries.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:39:y:2022:i:4:p:387-410
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12466
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12466?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. B. Timothy Heinmiller & Kevin Pirak, 2017. "Advocacy Coalitions in Ontario Land Use Policy Development," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(2), pages 168-185, March.
    2. Juniper Katz, 2018. "The Space Between: Demonization of Opponents and Policy Divergence," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(2), pages 280-301, March.
    3. Colette S. Vogeler & Nils C. Bandelow, 2018. "Mutual and Self Perceptions of Opposing Advocacy Coalitions: Devil Shift and Angel Shift in a German Policy Subsystem," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(5), pages 717-732, September.
    4. Sangbum Shin & Taedong Lee, 2021. "Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 97-112, January.
    5. Junseop Shim & Chisung Park & Mark Wilding, 2015. "Identifying policy frames through semantic network analysis: an examination of nuclear energy policy across six countries," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(1), pages 51-83, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Dallas J. Elgin & Christopher M. Weible, 2013. "A Stakeholder Analysis of C olorado Climate and Energy Issues Using Policy Analytical Capacity and the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(1), pages 114-133, January.
    8. Jill Yordy & Jongeun You & Kyudong Park & Christopher M. Weible & Tanya Heikkila, 2019. "Framing Contests and Policy Conflicts over Gas Pipelines," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 36(6), pages 736-756, November.
    9. Andrew Pattison, 2018. "Factors Shaping Policy Learning: A Study of Policy Actors in Subnational Climate and Energy Issues," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(4), pages 535-563, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder & Colette S. Vogeler, 2022. "Hydraulic fracturing, polarization, and environmental policy implementation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 384-386, July.

    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. 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.
    2. Andrew Pattison & William Cipolli & Jose Marichal, 2022. "The devil we know and the angel that did not fly: An examination of devil/angel shift in twitter fracking “debates” in NY 2008–2018," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(1), pages 51-72, January.
    3. Rachael M. Moyer, 2022. "Images of controversy: Examining cognition of hydraulic fracturing among policy elites and the general public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 441-467, July.
    4. Simon Fink & Eva Ruffing & Tobias Burst & Sara Katharina Chinnow, 2023. "Emotional citizens, detached interest groups? The use of emotional language in public policy consultations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 469-497, September.
    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. Segantin, Stefano & Testoni, Raffaella & Zucchetti, Massimo, 2019. "The lifetime determination of ARC reactor as a load-following plant in the energy framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 66-75.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Mockshell, Jonathan & Birner, Regina, 2020. "Who has the better story? On the narrative foundations of agricultural development dichotomies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Payán, Denise D. & Lewis, LaVonna B. & Cousineau, Michael R. & Nichol, Michael B., 2017. "Advocacy coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs, resources, and strategies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 78-86.
    12. Joshua Newman & Emi Patmisari & Ida Widianingsih, 2022. "Policy analytical capacity and "Eastern" styles of policy analysis: evidence from West Java Province, Indonesia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 469-485, September.
    13. Aurore Flipo & Madeleine Sallustio & Nathalie Ortar & Nicolas Senil, 2021. "Sustainable Mobility and the Institutional Lock-In: The Example of Rural France," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    14. Gwen Arnold, 2022. "A threat-centered theory of policy entrepreneurship," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 23-45, March.
    15. Laura Cervi & Santiago Tejedor & Mónica Gracia Villar, 2023. "Twitting Against the Enemy: Populist Radical Right Parties Discourse Against the (Political) “Other”," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(2), pages 235-248.
    16. Chisung Park & Jooha Lee, 2020. "Stakeholder framing, communicative interaction, and policy legitimacy: anti-smoking policy in South Korea," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 637-665, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Xiaoping Zhou & Xiaotian Li & Wei Song & Xiangbin Kong & Xiao Lu, 2021. "Farmland Transitions in China: An Advocacy Coalition Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, January.
    19. Chai, Song & Liu, Qiyun & Yang, Jin, 2023. "Renewable power generation policies in China: Policy instrument choices and influencing factors from the central and local government perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    20. Antje Witting, 2017. "Insights from ‘policy learning’ on how to enhance the use of evidence by policymakers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9, December.

    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:bla:revpol:v:39:y:2022:i:4:p:387-410. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    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.