By Jason Rochford
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the stages model of policymaking served as the paradigm for public policy research. Policy scholars and practitioners utilized the stages model – also referred to as the policy process, the policy cycle, and the stages heuristic – because it (1) simplified the complex process of policymaking into a series of delineated, sequential stages and (2) offered a new approach to think about public policy both in concept and operation (deLeon, 1999, p. 21). Nonetheless, as the field of policy studies progressed, the stages model was challenged for its unrealistic portrayal of the policy process as a rational and linear sequence of steps, its lack of predictive capabilities, its top-down approach, and its neglect for the role of ideas (deLeon, p. 22).
The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was one of the policy process theories that emerged to address the limitations of the stages model (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2014). Using the 2014 decision to ban hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) in New York State, this essay aims to illustrate how the ACF is a far more sophisticated analytical tool than the stages model, but that it also has its own limitations. Furthermore, although the ACF was designed as an alternative to the stages model, I support deLeon’s claim that the stages model should not be ignored because it still serves as “a valuable heuristic in both policy research and programmatic operations” (p. 26).
ACF and the Fracking Ban
In December 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the prohibition of fracking in New York State, making it the first state with substantial natural gas reserves to do so (Banerjee, 2015). Fracking is a technique designed to recover natural gas and oil from shale rock, which requires drilling up to 8,000 feet below the earth’s surface using advanced technologies (Cohen & Small, 2013). Since it presents both huge economic benefits as well as environmental and public health concerns, fracking is one of the most polarizing environmental questions today. The controversial decision to either regulate or ban fracking in New York was dragged out for several years until the release of the DEC’s environmental assessment report, which detailed many health and climate concerns and ultimately recommended the fracking ban (Banerjee, 2015).
The ACF is a complicated research program most useful for explaining and understanding high conflict situations involving coalitions, learning and policy change. ACF’s unit of analysis is the policy subsystem, which is shaped by external changes and stable system parameters. The ACF is based on the idea that change is largely driven by people, not organizations; thus, it synthesizes aspects of top-down and bottom-up approaches to policy implementation. It has clearly defined assumptions (e.g. individuals are rationally motivated yet bound by imperfect information), testable hypotheses, causal drivers, and generalizability (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2014). Considering the time, space, and information constraints of this essay, I will highlight only a snapshot application of the ACF from when Governor Cuomo took office in January 2011 until the fracking ban was announced in December 2014.
A policy subsystem is defined by its geographical boundary, a substantive topic, and actors from all levels of government, multiple interest groups, the media, and research groups (Weible & Sabatier, 2006). The geographic boundary in this instance is New York State and the contested topic is the economic benefits versus the environmental and public health costs of fracking. The actors include numerous influential participants including the Department of Health, the Department of Environmental Conservation, state legislators, local governments, the oil and gas industry, landowners, environmental groups, think tanks and researchers, the local workforce, and media outlets.
The ACF assumes that most of these actors join advocacy coalitions to increase their influence and chances of success. Advocacy coalitions are formed based on similar policy core beliefs and ease of coordination (Weible, 2006). There were two main policy advocacy coalitions surrounding the fracking debate in New York: New Yorkers Against Fracking and the oil and gas industry. The former was a coalition organized of 250 environmental, health, religious and other groups nationwide that grew in size and influence during the years-long delay of the release of the environmental assessment report (Weltman, 2015). The latter coalition had both strong financial and political clout, particularly as one of Governor Cuomo’s most prolific campaign donors (Hakim, 2012).
Governor Cuomo was the most powerful policy broker in this context. Upon taking office in 2011, Cuomo, a democrat, had established a record as a socially progressive, fiscally centrist politician. Accordingly, the fracking debate was a politically complicated matter for him: it could provide good jobs to economically struggling regions of the state, yet many of his supporters were liberal, anti-fracking voters. Interestingly, the findings from the environmental assessment report – the most vital of the resources – were released one month after Cuomo was reelected (WSJ, 2014). The provocative documentary Gasland (2010) was another important resource that influenced public opinion over the course of time and provided the anti-fracking movement with considerable momentum.
The ACF identifies four mechanisms that lead to policy change: external shocks, internal events, policy-oriented learning, and negotiated agreements (Jenkins et al.). Through this snapshot application of the ACF, it appears policy-oriented learning – specifically (1) Gasland, (2) the growth of the anti-fracking movement over time, and (3) the environmental assessment report’s findings – was the most salient mechanism that occasioned the fracking ban.
Concluding Remarks
Overall, I found this short exercise to be a promising sign of ACF’s usability for policy research, analysis, and advocacy. Unlike the stages heuristic, the ACF is a dynamic approach that offers both top-down and bottom-up perspectives of the policy process. My most pressing reservations about its future use are that (1) it is a very intricate framework whereby a more comprehensive application might require an abundance of data, time, and resources; and (2) it doesn’t seem as widely applicable as advertised, especially pertaining to policy subsystems that might consist of less defined advocacy coalitions or only one dominant coalition (Weible, 2006). Moreover, while the ACF better captures and explains the bigger picture of the policy process, its complexity gives value to the stages model as a complementary reference guide, particularly for novice analysts, researchers, and organizers.
Discussion Questions
Reference List
Banerjee, N. (2015, May 15). Why did NY ban fracking? The report is now public. Inside Climate News.
Cohen, S. & Small, C. (2013). Case Study: Hydraulic Fracturing in New York State. Columbia University’s Earth Institute.
deLeon, P. (2014). The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going? In P.A. Sabatier & C.M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.
Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 23-31.
Hakim, D. (2012, September 30). Shift by Cuomo on gas drilling prompts both anger and praise. The New York Times.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Perl, A. (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford University Press. (3rd Ed.)
Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C.M., & Sabatier, P.A. (2014). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundation, Evolution, and Ongoing Research. In P.A. Sabatier & C.M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through". Public Administration Review, 79-88.
The Wall Street Journal. (2014, December 18). Cuomo bans fracking: safely re-elected, New York’s Governor hides behind bad science and hurts upstate jobs. Review & Outlook section.
Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2006). A Guide to the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, 123.
Weltman, E. (2015, February 27). How New York activists banned fracking. In These Times.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the stages model of policymaking served as the paradigm for public policy research. Policy scholars and practitioners utilized the stages model – also referred to as the policy process, the policy cycle, and the stages heuristic – because it (1) simplified the complex process of policymaking into a series of delineated, sequential stages and (2) offered a new approach to think about public policy both in concept and operation (deLeon, 1999, p. 21). Nonetheless, as the field of policy studies progressed, the stages model was challenged for its unrealistic portrayal of the policy process as a rational and linear sequence of steps, its lack of predictive capabilities, its top-down approach, and its neglect for the role of ideas (deLeon, p. 22).
The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was one of the policy process theories that emerged to address the limitations of the stages model (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2014). Using the 2014 decision to ban hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) in New York State, this essay aims to illustrate how the ACF is a far more sophisticated analytical tool than the stages model, but that it also has its own limitations. Furthermore, although the ACF was designed as an alternative to the stages model, I support deLeon’s claim that the stages model should not be ignored because it still serves as “a valuable heuristic in both policy research and programmatic operations” (p. 26).
ACF and the Fracking Ban
In December 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the prohibition of fracking in New York State, making it the first state with substantial natural gas reserves to do so (Banerjee, 2015). Fracking is a technique designed to recover natural gas and oil from shale rock, which requires drilling up to 8,000 feet below the earth’s surface using advanced technologies (Cohen & Small, 2013). Since it presents both huge economic benefits as well as environmental and public health concerns, fracking is one of the most polarizing environmental questions today. The controversial decision to either regulate or ban fracking in New York was dragged out for several years until the release of the DEC’s environmental assessment report, which detailed many health and climate concerns and ultimately recommended the fracking ban (Banerjee, 2015).
The ACF is a complicated research program most useful for explaining and understanding high conflict situations involving coalitions, learning and policy change. ACF’s unit of analysis is the policy subsystem, which is shaped by external changes and stable system parameters. The ACF is based on the idea that change is largely driven by people, not organizations; thus, it synthesizes aspects of top-down and bottom-up approaches to policy implementation. It has clearly defined assumptions (e.g. individuals are rationally motivated yet bound by imperfect information), testable hypotheses, causal drivers, and generalizability (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2014). Considering the time, space, and information constraints of this essay, I will highlight only a snapshot application of the ACF from when Governor Cuomo took office in January 2011 until the fracking ban was announced in December 2014.
A policy subsystem is defined by its geographical boundary, a substantive topic, and actors from all levels of government, multiple interest groups, the media, and research groups (Weible & Sabatier, 2006). The geographic boundary in this instance is New York State and the contested topic is the economic benefits versus the environmental and public health costs of fracking. The actors include numerous influential participants including the Department of Health, the Department of Environmental Conservation, state legislators, local governments, the oil and gas industry, landowners, environmental groups, think tanks and researchers, the local workforce, and media outlets.
The ACF assumes that most of these actors join advocacy coalitions to increase their influence and chances of success. Advocacy coalitions are formed based on similar policy core beliefs and ease of coordination (Weible, 2006). There were two main policy advocacy coalitions surrounding the fracking debate in New York: New Yorkers Against Fracking and the oil and gas industry. The former was a coalition organized of 250 environmental, health, religious and other groups nationwide that grew in size and influence during the years-long delay of the release of the environmental assessment report (Weltman, 2015). The latter coalition had both strong financial and political clout, particularly as one of Governor Cuomo’s most prolific campaign donors (Hakim, 2012).
Governor Cuomo was the most powerful policy broker in this context. Upon taking office in 2011, Cuomo, a democrat, had established a record as a socially progressive, fiscally centrist politician. Accordingly, the fracking debate was a politically complicated matter for him: it could provide good jobs to economically struggling regions of the state, yet many of his supporters were liberal, anti-fracking voters. Interestingly, the findings from the environmental assessment report – the most vital of the resources – were released one month after Cuomo was reelected (WSJ, 2014). The provocative documentary Gasland (2010) was another important resource that influenced public opinion over the course of time and provided the anti-fracking movement with considerable momentum.
The ACF identifies four mechanisms that lead to policy change: external shocks, internal events, policy-oriented learning, and negotiated agreements (Jenkins et al.). Through this snapshot application of the ACF, it appears policy-oriented learning – specifically (1) Gasland, (2) the growth of the anti-fracking movement over time, and (3) the environmental assessment report’s findings – was the most salient mechanism that occasioned the fracking ban.
Concluding Remarks
Overall, I found this short exercise to be a promising sign of ACF’s usability for policy research, analysis, and advocacy. Unlike the stages heuristic, the ACF is a dynamic approach that offers both top-down and bottom-up perspectives of the policy process. My most pressing reservations about its future use are that (1) it is a very intricate framework whereby a more comprehensive application might require an abundance of data, time, and resources; and (2) it doesn’t seem as widely applicable as advertised, especially pertaining to policy subsystems that might consist of less defined advocacy coalitions or only one dominant coalition (Weible, 2006). Moreover, while the ACF better captures and explains the bigger picture of the policy process, its complexity gives value to the stages model as a complementary reference guide, particularly for novice analysts, researchers, and organizers.
Discussion Questions
- Are there other limitations to the Advocacy Coalition Framework?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various models of decision-making from this week’s readings?
- Compare and contrast the classic stages model, the other models of decision-making, and the Advocacy Coalition Framework.
Reference List
Banerjee, N. (2015, May 15). Why did NY ban fracking? The report is now public. Inside Climate News.
Cohen, S. & Small, C. (2013). Case Study: Hydraulic Fracturing in New York State. Columbia University’s Earth Institute.
deLeon, P. (2014). The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going? In P.A. Sabatier & C.M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.
Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 23-31.
Hakim, D. (2012, September 30). Shift by Cuomo on gas drilling prompts both anger and praise. The New York Times.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Perl, A. (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford University Press. (3rd Ed.)
Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C.M., & Sabatier, P.A. (2014). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundation, Evolution, and Ongoing Research. In P.A. Sabatier & C.M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through". Public Administration Review, 79-88.
The Wall Street Journal. (2014, December 18). Cuomo bans fracking: safely re-elected, New York’s Governor hides behind bad science and hurts upstate jobs. Review & Outlook section.
Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2006). A Guide to the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, 123.
Weltman, E. (2015, February 27). How New York activists banned fracking. In These Times.