By: Amanda Porter
In this week’s lead post Jason Rochford charged us with the task of comparing and contrasting the classic stages model with the other models of decision-making and to discuss the limitations of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). In my post, I plan to discuss the Stages Approach using Howlett, Ramesh and Perl’s outline of Brewer’s policy process, Jenkins-Smith et.al. Chapter in the Theories of the Policy Process book in reference to the ACF approach and deLeon’s piece synthesizing the two. I will take a deeper dive into Rochford’s example of the Fracking Ban in New York State, argue that one approach is not necessarily “better” than the other and instead show how the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Depending on the topic of analysis, motivation of researcher, unit of analysis or policy parameters one is looking to analyze, one framework may be better suited than the other or, in fact, elements of both may lead to a robust, holistic analysis.
In his piece, deLeon suggests, “there is some doubt as to whether they and the advocacy coalition framework have broken out of the paradigm created by the policy process orientation” (pg. 26). I would go further and say that, instead of thinking of these two frameworks in terms of strict comparison, perhaps it would be more useful to think of Sabatier’s policy process framework as embedded within the stages approach—specifically in the estimation, selection, and implementation and evaluation stages. It seems that the Stages Approach serves as a loose framework, a jumping off point for more complex theory which is most useful in disaggregating and mapping out the policy process into manageable steps in both in concept and operation (deLeon, pg. 21). Whereas, Sabatier’s ACF model is a more ambitious, complicated and empirical compared to the Stages framework that matches the complexity of the problems at hand. Sabatier’s camp takes a few of the stages outlined by the Lasswell camp and creates a research program meant to synthesize approaches to implementation and empirically test hypotheses. Both the Stages Approach and the ACF can be seen as inherently iterative frameworks that change and fluctuate with new contributions from researchers and scholars and changes in the reality of policy making and both have their limitations, which are detailed by deLeon and clearly summarized by Rochford.
Gary Brewer in 1974 created an even more simplified version of the policy process, comprised of six stages. I will use Brewer’s framework, which was built off of Lasswell’s in order to extend Rochford’s fracking example and show briefly how it might be applicable to the Stages Approach: (1) Invention/initiation is, according to Brewer, the earliest stage when a problem would initially be sensed and (sometimes ill) defined and potential solutions put forth (Howlett et. Al. 2009, pg. 11). Although fracking has been used commercially in the oil and gas industry since the 1950’s, it has only begun to be defined as a problem much more recently. Specifically when the industry changed their fracking techniques, increasing the use of chemicals along with the initiating a move to engage in commercial fracking in areas (like New York State) that have a relatively high population density--they brought the problem to the people (Rapier, 2015). (2) Estimation or the calculation of the risks, costs and benefits associated with different solutions. In this stage, technical evaluation and normative choices are weighed. With the problem of fracking, one major technical evaluation came from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) who issued the "Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement" which took more than six years to produce, as public comments on drafts and the burgeoning literature on the various effects of fracking led to repeated revisions of the study (Banerjee 2015).” To be sure, the normative values and public opinion (especially of voters and the special interests groups and coalitions mentioned by Rochford) were also weighed. (3) Selection. When Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the prohibition of fracking in New York State, as Rochford noted, “making it the first state with substantial natural gas reserves to do so” (Banerjee, 2015) this decision fits squarely into stage 3 of Brewer’s framework, where actors adopt or reject some combination of solutions that were put forth and debated during the “estimation” stage. (4) Implementation. Once Cuomo passed the legally binding ban in December 2014, the DEC was tasked with implementing the policy change. (5) Evaluation. Because this ban is relatively new and the ban itself is one of the first state authorized sanctions on fracking, evaluations will likely be long-term and continuous. However, as early as February of 2015, “In a report titled “License to Dump,” the group Environmental Advocates of New York (EANY) accused seven state landfills of accepting potentially hazardous waste from Pennsylvania’s fracked oil and gas wells” (Think Progress 2015). This same group pointed to the report to pressure the DEC to include provisions to prevent landfills from accepting toxic waste from other states into the ban to make it more comprehensive and incorporate an aspect of the policy problem that one coalition group feels was overlooked. (6) Termination. This fracking policy has yet to be terminated, which is the last stage in Brewer’s policy process framework (Howlett et. Al. 2009, pg. 11).
As evidenced by Jenkins-Smith’s et.al. own estimation of the utility of the framework, the ACF approach is most used (though not by any means exclusively used) in the application of environmental policy (and, by far, most used in North America and Europe). In terms of fracking, the model does well to parse out the complexity of different actors, coalitions, power dynamics, and politics involved at a granular level. I think that Rochford’s analysis using ACF could be couched in and used to bolster the analysis of the Stages Approach, especially in the “estimation” and “selection” stages. The ACF seems to analyze policy from the unit of analysis of the individual, with reliance on the rational economic man model, along with the group level “coalition” analysis and overlapping belief systems and finally at the political subsystem, arguably still a group (different groups of actors) unit of analysis. To conclude, I would argue that different models can do well to analyze a policy problem, depending on how the researcher chooses to analyze the policy problem. While it is useful to compare and contrast, there is clearly no “one size fits all” policy framework to address the varying and complex policy problems that exist at different times and in different geographic and political spaces.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Rapier, Robert. 2015. Fracking Has Been around since 1949, Why the Recent Controversy? Global Energy Affairs. http://globalenergyinitiative.org/insights/58-fracking-has-been-around-since-1949-why-the-recent-controversy.html
Think Progress. Feb 6, 2015.New York Banned Fracking, But 460,000 Tons Of Fracking Waste Have Been Dumped There. https://thinkprogress.org/new-york-banned-fracking-but-460-000-tons-of-fracking-waste-have-been-dumped-there-1621d1c232aa#.l3vwkk1b9
In this week’s lead post Jason Rochford charged us with the task of comparing and contrasting the classic stages model with the other models of decision-making and to discuss the limitations of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). In my post, I plan to discuss the Stages Approach using Howlett, Ramesh and Perl’s outline of Brewer’s policy process, Jenkins-Smith et.al. Chapter in the Theories of the Policy Process book in reference to the ACF approach and deLeon’s piece synthesizing the two. I will take a deeper dive into Rochford’s example of the Fracking Ban in New York State, argue that one approach is not necessarily “better” than the other and instead show how the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Depending on the topic of analysis, motivation of researcher, unit of analysis or policy parameters one is looking to analyze, one framework may be better suited than the other or, in fact, elements of both may lead to a robust, holistic analysis.
In his piece, deLeon suggests, “there is some doubt as to whether they and the advocacy coalition framework have broken out of the paradigm created by the policy process orientation” (pg. 26). I would go further and say that, instead of thinking of these two frameworks in terms of strict comparison, perhaps it would be more useful to think of Sabatier’s policy process framework as embedded within the stages approach—specifically in the estimation, selection, and implementation and evaluation stages. It seems that the Stages Approach serves as a loose framework, a jumping off point for more complex theory which is most useful in disaggregating and mapping out the policy process into manageable steps in both in concept and operation (deLeon, pg. 21). Whereas, Sabatier’s ACF model is a more ambitious, complicated and empirical compared to the Stages framework that matches the complexity of the problems at hand. Sabatier’s camp takes a few of the stages outlined by the Lasswell camp and creates a research program meant to synthesize approaches to implementation and empirically test hypotheses. Both the Stages Approach and the ACF can be seen as inherently iterative frameworks that change and fluctuate with new contributions from researchers and scholars and changes in the reality of policy making and both have their limitations, which are detailed by deLeon and clearly summarized by Rochford.
Gary Brewer in 1974 created an even more simplified version of the policy process, comprised of six stages. I will use Brewer’s framework, which was built off of Lasswell’s in order to extend Rochford’s fracking example and show briefly how it might be applicable to the Stages Approach: (1) Invention/initiation is, according to Brewer, the earliest stage when a problem would initially be sensed and (sometimes ill) defined and potential solutions put forth (Howlett et. Al. 2009, pg. 11). Although fracking has been used commercially in the oil and gas industry since the 1950’s, it has only begun to be defined as a problem much more recently. Specifically when the industry changed their fracking techniques, increasing the use of chemicals along with the initiating a move to engage in commercial fracking in areas (like New York State) that have a relatively high population density--they brought the problem to the people (Rapier, 2015). (2) Estimation or the calculation of the risks, costs and benefits associated with different solutions. In this stage, technical evaluation and normative choices are weighed. With the problem of fracking, one major technical evaluation came from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) who issued the "Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement" which took more than six years to produce, as public comments on drafts and the burgeoning literature on the various effects of fracking led to repeated revisions of the study (Banerjee 2015).” To be sure, the normative values and public opinion (especially of voters and the special interests groups and coalitions mentioned by Rochford) were also weighed. (3) Selection. When Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the prohibition of fracking in New York State, as Rochford noted, “making it the first state with substantial natural gas reserves to do so” (Banerjee, 2015) this decision fits squarely into stage 3 of Brewer’s framework, where actors adopt or reject some combination of solutions that were put forth and debated during the “estimation” stage. (4) Implementation. Once Cuomo passed the legally binding ban in December 2014, the DEC was tasked with implementing the policy change. (5) Evaluation. Because this ban is relatively new and the ban itself is one of the first state authorized sanctions on fracking, evaluations will likely be long-term and continuous. However, as early as February of 2015, “In a report titled “License to Dump,” the group Environmental Advocates of New York (EANY) accused seven state landfills of accepting potentially hazardous waste from Pennsylvania’s fracked oil and gas wells” (Think Progress 2015). This same group pointed to the report to pressure the DEC to include provisions to prevent landfills from accepting toxic waste from other states into the ban to make it more comprehensive and incorporate an aspect of the policy problem that one coalition group feels was overlooked. (6) Termination. This fracking policy has yet to be terminated, which is the last stage in Brewer’s policy process framework (Howlett et. Al. 2009, pg. 11).
As evidenced by Jenkins-Smith’s et.al. own estimation of the utility of the framework, the ACF approach is most used (though not by any means exclusively used) in the application of environmental policy (and, by far, most used in North America and Europe). In terms of fracking, the model does well to parse out the complexity of different actors, coalitions, power dynamics, and politics involved at a granular level. I think that Rochford’s analysis using ACF could be couched in and used to bolster the analysis of the Stages Approach, especially in the “estimation” and “selection” stages. The ACF seems to analyze policy from the unit of analysis of the individual, with reliance on the rational economic man model, along with the group level “coalition” analysis and overlapping belief systems and finally at the political subsystem, arguably still a group (different groups of actors) unit of analysis. To conclude, I would argue that different models can do well to analyze a policy problem, depending on how the researcher chooses to analyze the policy problem. While it is useful to compare and contrast, there is clearly no “one size fits all” policy framework to address the varying and complex policy problems that exist at different times and in different geographic and political spaces.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Rapier, Robert. 2015. Fracking Has Been around since 1949, Why the Recent Controversy? Global Energy Affairs. http://globalenergyinitiative.org/insights/58-fracking-has-been-around-since-1949-why-the-recent-controversy.html
Think Progress. Feb 6, 2015.New York Banned Fracking, But 460,000 Tons Of Fracking Waste Have Been Dumped There. https://thinkprogress.org/new-york-banned-fracking-but-460-000-tons-of-fracking-waste-have-been-dumped-there-1621d1c232aa#.l3vwkk1b9