POLICY MAKING: NETWORKS AND COALITIONS

Posted: December 21st, 2022

POLICY MAKING: NETWORKS AND COALITIONS

Student’s Name

Class

Date

Policy Making: Networks and Coalitions

Greetings everyone? Have you ever wondered why policies are so difficult and challenging to create or change, and even when these is done, they hardly cover all the issues related to the problem or seem to leave out some critical issues you would think should have been addressed in the first place? Policy making is a complex undertaking involving more than just the regular policymakers in the legislature or industry leadership. It calls upon the involvement of numerous stakeholders, who in turn are organised as networks and coalitions to influence the policymaking and policy-changing processes.

I stand before you to discuss the topic of networks and coalitions and these concepts are related to policymaking and policy-changing processes. Although the concepts of networks and coalitions are not exhaustive in understanding the policymaking process, they provide a critical snippet into this process from a theoretical and evidence-based standpoint. I shall tackle two commonly used policy theories, which are the policy network theory and the advocacy coalition framework. After that, I will elucidate two empirical cases in which each theory can be used to explain the policymaking process therein. I will also compare and contrast the two theoretic approaches and their related empirical cases in the discussion section of this presentation. I hope that in the end, you will have a better understanding on how the two theoretical approaches are employed to formulate and change policies and their strengths and limitations in generating policies that address problems in contemporary society. I welcome you all to this presentation.

Policy Network Theory

The policy network theory recognizes that the policymaking, policy-changing and policy-implementation processes require several actors to work in concert. These actors are drawn from networks comprising formal and informal organizations and institutions drawn from the public and private sectors, interest groups, and nongovernmental organizations. The public, comprising the citizenry of a country, though usually informally constituted, are a critical constituency that must be involved, particularly in policies that require behavioural change for them to achieve their desired targets and succeed. Some networks transcend national boundaries when they draw from international agreements and are directed by regional and global resolutions.[1] For instance, the United Kingdom’s policies have largely been guided by European Union (EU) standards and directives, which are a product of multinational collaborative networks of the EU member states as well as other global bodies, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 

Environmental policies in the United Kingdom are largely guided by the EU directives promoting the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources and the Paris Agreement of climate change, an international treaty adopted in 2015 by COP 21. The United Kingdom has domesticated these regional and international directives and agreements of adopting renewable energy sources to help reduce emissions and slowdown global warming and the rate of climate change.

Empirical Case

The UK Net Zero Policy, which targets to make the United Kingdom net zero emission by 2050 is a classic demonstration of the application of the policy network theory in policymaking. Although it is an environmental directive policy that involves large networks such as, the Council for Science and Technology, the Aldersgate Group of business leaders, Climate Assembly UK, Energy UK, National Infrastructure Commission, the Trade Unions Congress Confederation of Business and Industry among many others, the policy has largely ignored the public as critical decision-makers and policy implementers.[2] In turn, the policy network theory in this case demonstrates its limitations by not accommodating the public s critical consumers of energy and makers of energy consumption decisions that can increase or lower the demand for cleaner energy sources. 

Advocacy Coalition Framework

The advocacy coalition framework posits that a policy topic generates interest which promotes coalition formation for an adversarial contest to decide whether a policy is adopted or rejected. In other words, the framework explains the two-sided approach to policymaking and policy-changing in which a coalition supporting the policy competes against an opposing coalition of stakeholders.[3] The framework suggests that this approach produces a winner and a loser, and therefore, often lacks a middle group position where the interests of both coalitions have been negotiated and incorporated in the final policy.

Empirical Case

GMO policy in Turkey, enacted as the Biosafety Law no. 5977 of 2010 demonstrates the application of the advocacy coalition framework. The regulatory regime in Turkey discourages locally sourced genetically modified organism for animal feeds, but does not outlaw those that are sourced outside the country. Consequently, the Turkish farmer is disadvantaged by the Biosafety Law, which discourages local production of genetically modified products.[4] The Turkish farmers were neither proponents or opposes of the policy because they lacked the technical knowledge to help them decipher the pros and cons of genetically modified organisms, which disabled them from participating meaningfully in the policymaking process.   

Discussion

Theoretical Approaches

The policy network theory and advocacy coalition framework draw their strengths from supporting the collaborative approach to policymaking, policy-changing, and policy implementation. They note that policies are likely to succeed when they involve multiple stakeholders who inject their diverse expertise and interest to enrich the quality of the policy product. However, both theoretical approaches have limitations that undermine their strengths. Specifically, policy network theory, when applied, focuses more on formal networks, ignoring the informal ones or constituencies that do not belong to any network.[5] Consequently, the public, who may have a critical interest in a policy, is often left out of the policymaking and policy-changing process because they lack a formal audience and participation avenue or forum. Similarly, the advocacy coalition framework suffers similar limitations when critical constituencies are left out of either coalition due to lack of information and empowerment, yet their participation would be critical in improving the policy quality and success.

Empirical Cases

Both policies discussed in the empirical cases address critical issues affecting human life. The UK Net Zero Policy promotes green energy sources that would help make the world more habitable, while the Turkey GMO policy helps prevent potential danger to human life by genetically modified organisms.[6] Both policies have been formulated from inputs from diverse sources configured as networks and coalitions. However, they have left out the most critical players expected to be the main beneficiaries of the policies. Specifically, the UK Net Zero Policy and the Turkey GMO policy have left out the public and farmers, respectively.

Conclusion

The policy network theory and the advocacy coalition framework are useful policy theories because they highlight the usefulness of collaboration in the policymaking and policy-changing processes. Similarly, the UK Net Zero policy and the Turkey GMO policy have demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of the policy network theory and the advocacy coalition framework, respectively. It has emerged that the greatest limitation of these two policy theories is the exclusion of critical stakeholders that are not in any network or coalition, often due to lack of awareness or empowerment.

This marks the end of this presentation. I hope that it has helped demystify the policymaking and policy-changing processes from a theoretical perspective and using real examples. Thank you for your patient audience. I now invite any questions that you may have.  

Bibliography

Committee on Climate Change. Policies for the Sixth Carbon Budget and Net Zero. 2020. https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Policies-for-the-Sixth-Carbon-Budget-and-Net-Zero.pdf

Henry, Adam Douglas, Karin Ingold, Daniel Nohrstedt, and Christopher M. Weible. “Policy change in comparative contexts: Applying the advocacy coalition framework outside of Western Europe and North America.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 16, no. 4 (2014): 299-312.

Marsh, David, and Martin Smith. “Understanding policy networks: Towards a dialectical approach.” Political Studies 48, no. 1 (2000): 4-21.

Yagci, Alper H. “Policy knowledge, collective action and advocacy coalitions: regulating GMOs in Turkey.” Journal of European Public Policy 26, no. 6 (2019): 927-945.

---

[1] David Marsh and Martin Smith. “Understanding policy networks: Towards a dialectical approach.” Political Studies 48, no. 1 (2000): 4-21.

[2] Committee on Climate Change. Policies for the Sixth Carbon Budget and Net Zero. 2020. https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Policies-for-the-Sixth-Carbon-Budget-and-Net-Zero.pdf

[3] Adam Douglas Henry, Karin Ingold, Daniel Nohrstedt, and Christopher M. Weible. “Policy change in comparative contexts: Applying the advocacy coalition framework outside of Western Europe and North America.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 16, no. 4 (2014): 299-312

[4] Yagci, Alper H. “Policy knowledge, collective action and advocacy coalitions: regulating GMOs in Turkey.” Journal of European Public Policy 26, no. 6 (2019): 927-945.

[5] David Marsh and Martin Smith. “Understanding policy networks: Towards a dialectical approach.” Political Studies 48, no. 1 (2000): 4-21.

[6] Committee on Climate Change. Policies for the Sixth Carbon Budget and Net Zero. 2020. https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Policies-for-the-Sixth-Carbon-Budget-and-Net-Zero.pdf