IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v53y2020i4d10.1007_s11077-020-09394-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder framing, communicative interaction, and policy legitimacy: anti-smoking policy in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Chisung Park

    (Chung-Ang University)

  • Jooha Lee

    (Dongguk University)

Abstract

Since the emergence of the argumentative turn in critical policy studies, increasing attention has been paid to the crucial role played by language, context, and communicative practices in the policy process. This study aims to investigate communicative interaction between state elites and societal stakeholders in South Korea with a focus on the anti-smoking policies of two different administrations: the Roh administration (2003–2008) and the Park administration (2013–2017). As a theoretical base, this paper proposes a stakeholder-oriented approach to legitimacy, which incorporates a policy frame analysis with the concept of a three-tier policy structure (i.e., policy goals, policy tools, and tool settings). In assessing policy legitimacy, the stakeholder-oriented approach examines whether there is congruence between the three-tier policy structure and the corresponding stakeholder framing. In the Roh administration, the policy frames among the three tiers of policy structure were centered on public health promotion, whereas in the Park administration, they expanded to the domain of tax policy. The empirical findings underscore the importance of two-way communication between the government and societal stakeholders, which can be evidenced using policy frame analysis. Ultimately, the results show that policy legitimacy is more likely to be guaranteed if there is no hidden or predetermined policy intention that can be detected by stakeholder framing analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:53:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-020-09394-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-020-09394-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-020-09394-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-020-09394-z?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. 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.
    2. Chisung Park & Jooha Lee & Changho Chung, 2015. "Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 319-338, September.
    3. Dryzek, John S., 1983. "Don't Toss Coins in Garbage Cans: A Prologue to Policy Design," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(4), pages 345-367, October.
    4. Paul Cairney & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 619-627, December.
    5. Michael Howlett, 2014. "From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 187-207, September.
    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. Christopher M. Weible & Paul Cairney & Jill Yordy, 2022. "A diamond in the rough: digging up and polishing Harold D. Lasswell’s decision functions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 209-222, March.
    2. Ferretti, Valentina & Pluchinotta, Irene & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2019. "Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 353-363.
    3. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    4. Moshe Maor, 2020. "Policy over- and under-design: an information quality perspective," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 395-411, September.
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. Colebatch H.K., 2017. "Policy, learning and regime change: Western concepts and CEE experience," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 11(2), pages 2-10, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    11. Polzin, Friedemann & Egli, Florian & Steffen, Bjarne & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2019. "How do policies mobilize private finance for renewable energy?—A systematic review with an investor perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1249-1268.
    12. José Nederhand & Erik-Hans Klijn & Martijn Steen & Mark Twist, 2019. "The governance of self-organization: Which governance strategy do policy officials and citizens prefer?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 233-253, June.
    13. Matthew Retallack, 2020. "Paradigmatic policy change or unintended subordination of rural autonomy: the case of source water protection in Ontario, Canada," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 85-100, March.
    14. Franco-Torres, Manuel & Kvålshaugen, Ragnhild & Ugarelli, Rita M., 2021. "Understanding the governance of urban water services from an institutional logics perspective," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    15. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    16. Caner Bakir & Sinan Akgunay & Kerem Coban, 2021. "Why does the combination of policy entrepreneur and institutional entrepreneur roles matter for the institutionalization of policy ideas?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 397-422, June.
    17. Kidjie Saguin & Michael Howlett, 2022. "Enhancing Policy Capacity for Better Policy Integration: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in a Post COVID-19 World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-13, September.
    18. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Philipp Trein, 2023. "Pathways to policy integration: a subsystem approach," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 9-27, March.
    19. Le Anh Nguyen Long & Megan Foster & Gwen Arnold, 2019. "The impact of stakeholder engagement on local policy decision making," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 549-571, December.
    20. Brydie Clarke & Janelle Kwon & Boyd Swinburn & Gary Sacks, 2021. "Understanding the dynamics of obesity prevention policy decision-making using a systems perspective: A case study of Healthy Together Victoria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, January.

    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:53:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-020-09394-z. 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.