IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v56y2023i3d10.1007_s11077-023-09502-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advancing scholarship on policy conflict through perspectives from oil and gas policy actors

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer A. Kagan

    (University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa)

  • Tanya Heikkila

    (University of Colorado Denver)

  • Christopher M. Weible

    (University of Colorado Denver)

  • Duncan Gilchrist

    (The Nature Conservancy)

  • Ramiro Berardo

    (The Ohio State University)

  • Hongtao Yi

    (The Ohio State University)

Abstract

While receiving more attention in the policy sciences in recent years, much remains unknown about policy conflicts. This research analyzes 48 in-depth qualitative interviews of people involved in, or familiar with, conflicts associated with shale oil and gas (aka “fracking”) policy proposals and decisions across 15 U.S. states. We ask the question: how do policy actors characterize policy conflicts? To guide interviews and data collection for this study, we rely on the Policy Conflict Framework (PCF). The PCF highlights how policy settings serve as the sources of conflict; the characteristics of policy conflict across settings, between policy actors, and over time; and the varying outcomes. Insights derived from interviews include that policy conflicts are far more complicated to portray than depicted in the literature, individuals shape and understand conflict through emotions and narratives, any descriptions of policy conflicts must account for time and their evolutionary nature, and conflicts involve diverse strategies of winning and mitigation. The conclusion links these findings to the literature to advance knowledge about policy conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer A. Kagan & Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible & Duncan Gilchrist & Ramiro Berardo & Hongtao Yi, 2023. "Advancing scholarship on policy conflict through perspectives from oil and gas policy actors," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 573-594, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:56:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-023-09502-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-023-09502-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-023-09502-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-023-09502-9?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. Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: a study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 179-193, June.
    2. Anna P. Durnová & Christopher M. Weible, 2020. "Tempest in a teapot? Toward new collaborations between mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 571-588, September.
    3. Wolf, Eva & Van Dooren, Wouter, 2021. "Fatal remedies. How dealing with policy conflict can backfire in a context of trust-erosion," SocArXiv z5uxy, Center for Open Science.
    4. Markus Hinterleitner & Fritz Sager, 2022. "Policy’s role in democratic conflict management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 239-254, June.
    5. Imrat Verhoeven & Tamara Metze, 2022. "Heated policy: policy actors’ emotional storylines and conflict escalation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 223-237, June.
    6. Wolf, Eva & Van Dooren, Wouter, 2017. "How Policies Become Contested: A Spiral of Imagination and Evidence in a Large Infrastructure Project," SocArXiv 8grp4, Center for Open Science.
    7. McCONNELL, ALLAN, 2010. "Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In-Between," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 345-362, December.
    8. Kristin L. Olofsson, 2022. "Winners and losers: Conflict management through strategic policy engagement," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(1), pages 73-89, January.
    9. Maloney, William A. & Jordan, Grant & McLaughlin, Andrew M., 1994. "Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Insider/Outsider Model Revisited," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 17-38, January.
    10. Fischer, Manuel & Ingold, Karin & Sciarini, Pascal & Varone, Frédéric, 2016. "Dealing with bad guys: actor- and process-level determinants of the “devil shift†in policy making," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 309-334, June.
    11. E. E. A. Wolf & Wouter Van Dooren, 2017. "How policies become contested: a spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 449-468, September.
    12. Christopher M. Weible & Tanya Heikkila, 2017. "Policy Conflict Framework," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 23-40, March.
    13. Christopher Weible & Tanya Heikkila & Peter deLeon & Paul Sabatier, 2012. "Understanding and influencing the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Jennifer Dodge, 2015. "The deliberative potential of civil society organizations: framing hydraulic fracturing in New York," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 249-266, May.
    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. Imrat Verhoeven & Tamara Metze, 2022. "Heated policy: policy actors’ emotional storylines and conflict escalation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 223-237, June.
    2. Graham Haughton & Phil McManus, 2022. "Becoming WestConnex – Becoming Sydney: Object-oriented politics, contested storylines and the multi-scalar imaginaries of building a motorway network in Sydney, Australia," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(4), pages 913-932, June.
    3. Iris Stucki & Fritz Sager, 2018. "Aristotelian framing: logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 373-385, September.
    4. Maarten Loopmans & Linde Smits & Anneleen Kenis, 2022. "Rethinking environmental justice: capability building, public knowledge and the struggle against traffic-related air pollution," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(3), pages 705-723, May.
    5. Kathleen S. Bailey & Hongtao Yi & Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2023. "Policy conflicts in shale development in China and the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(4), pages 589-605, July.
    6. Moshe Maor, 2014. "Policy persistence, risk estimation and policy underreaction," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 425-443, December.
    7. Lars Dorren & Wouter Dooren, 2021. "Chameleonic knowledge: a study of ex ante analysis in large infrastructure policy processes," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 289-312, June.
    8. Coppens, Tom & Van Dooren, Wouter & Thijssen, Peter, 2018. "Public opposition and the neighborhood effect: How social interaction explains protest against a large infrastructure project," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 633-640.
    9. van Helden, Jan & Caperchione, Eugenio & Pattaro, Anna Francesca, 2023. "Use and non-use of accounting information: The case of controversial projects in public and non-profit settings," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    10. Fienitz, Meike & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2023. "Latent, collaborative, or escalated conflict? Determining causal pathways for land use conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    11. Hongshan Yang & Hongtao Yi, 2023. "Frontiers of policy process research in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(4), pages 484-489, July.
    12. Ruth Mayne & Duncan Green & Irene Guijt & Martin Walsh & Richard English & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    13. Małgorzata Gałązka-Sobotka & Aldona Frączkiewicz-Wronka & Iwona Kowalska-Bobko & Hanna Kelm & Karolina Szymaniec-Mlicka, 2021. "HB-HTA as an implementation problem in Polish health policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-24, September.
    14. Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: a study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 179-193, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    17. Francesca Colli & Johan Adriaensen, 2020. "Lobbying the state or the market? A framework to study civil society organizations’ strategic behavior," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 501-513, July.
    18. FitzGerald Cathal & O’Malley Eoin & Broin Deiric Ó, 2019. "Policy success/policy failure: A framework for understanding policy choices," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 67(2), pages 1-24, May.
    19. 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.
    20. 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).

    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:56:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-023-09502-9. 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.