Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:55:18.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutions and coalitions in policy processes: a cross-sectoral comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2014

Manuel Fischer
Manuel Fischer*
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Research and Technology Eawag and University of Berne, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Actors with joint beliefs in a decision-making process form coalitions in order to translate their goals into policy. Yet, coalitions are not formed in an institutional void, but rather institutions confer opportunities and constraints to actors. This paper studies the institutional conditions under which either coalition structures with a dominant coalition or with competing coalitions emerge. It takes into account three conditions, i.e. the degree of federalism of a project, its degree of Europeanisation and the openness of the pre-parliamentary phase of the decision-making process. The cross-sectoral comparison includes the 11 most important decision-making processes in Switzerland between 2001 and 2006 with a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Results suggest that Europeanisation or an open pre-parliamentary phase lead to a dominant coalition, whereas only a specific combination of all three conditions is able to explain a structure with competing coalitions.

Keywords

coalitionsinstitutionspolicy processQCASNASwitzerland
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , August 2015 , pp. 245 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adam, S. and Kriesi, H. (2007) The Network Approach. In Sabatier P. A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 129–154.Google Scholar
Batagelj, V. and Mrvar, A. (1996) PAJEK – Program for Large Network Analysis, http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (1991) Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems. The Journal of Politics 53(4): 1044–1074.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G. and Freeman, L. C. (2002) UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
Börzel, T. and Risse, T. (2000) When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Changes. European Integration Online Papers 4(15): 1–23.Google Scholar
Braun, D. (2009) Constitutional Change in Switzerland. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 39(2): 314–340.Google Scholar
Doreian, P. and Mrvar, A. (2009) Partitioning Signed Social Networks. Social Networks 31: 1–11.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. (2011) Social Network Analysis and Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Their Mutual Benefit for the Explanation of Policy Network Structures. Methodological Innovations Online 6(2): 27–51.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. (2012) Entscheidungsstrukturen in der Schweizer Politik zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. Zürich and Chur: Verlag Rüegger.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. and Sciarini, P. (2013) Europeanization and the Inclusive Strategies of Executive Actors. Journal of European Public Policy 20(10): 1482–1498.Google Scholar
Fischer, M., Sciarini, P. and Traber, D. (2010) The Silent Reform of Swiss Federalism: The New Consitutional Articles on Education. Swiss Political Science Review 16(4): 747–771.Google Scholar
Häusermann, S., Mach, A. and Papadopoulos, Y. (2004) From Corporatism to Partisan Politics: Social Policy Making Under Strain in Switzerland. Swiss Political Science Review 10(2): 33–59.Google Scholar
Heaney, M. (2006) Brokering Health Policy: Coalitions, Parties, and Interest Group Influence. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 31(5): 887–944.Google Scholar
Henry, A. D. (2011) Ideology, Power, and the Structure of Policy Networks. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 361–383.Google Scholar
Hojnacki, M. (1998) Organized Interests’ Advocacy Behavior in Alliances. Political Research Quarterly 51(2): 437–459.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2003) Unraveling the Central State, But How? Types of Multilevel Governance. The American Political Science Review 97(2): 233–243.Google Scholar
Immergut, E. M. (1990) Institutions, Veto Points and Policy Results: A Comparative Analysis of Health Care. Journal of Public Policy 10(4): 391–416.Google Scholar
Ingold, K. (2011) Network Structures Within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 435–459.Google Scholar
Knoke, D. (1993) Networks of Elite Structure and Decision Making. Sociological Methods & Research 22(1): 22–45.Google Scholar
Knoke, D. (2011) Policy Networks. In Carrington P. and Scott J. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis . London: SAGE Publications, 210–222.Google Scholar
Knoke, D., Pappi, F. U., Broadbent, J. and Tsujinaka, Y. (1996) Comparing Policy Networks – Labor Politics in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H. (1995) The Political Opportunity Structure of New Social Movements: Its Impact on Their Mobilization. In Jenkins J. C. and Klandermans B. (eds.), The Politics of Social Protest. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 167–198.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H. and Trechsel, A. H. (2008) The Politics of Switzerland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kübler, D. (2001) Understanding Policy Change With the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Application to Swiss Drug Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 8(4): 623–641.Google Scholar
Laver, M. and Schofield, N. (1990) Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leach, W. D., Pelkey, N. W. and Sabatier, P. A. (2002) Stakeholder Partnerships as Collaborative Policymaking: Evaluation Criteria Applied to Watershed Management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(4): 645–670.Google Scholar
Leifeld, P. and Schneider, V. (2012) Information Exchange in Policy Networks. American Journal of Political Science 53(3): 731–744.Google Scholar
Linder, W. (2005) Schweizerische Demokratie. Bern, Stuttgart and Wien: Haupt.Google Scholar
Lubell, M., Scholz, J., Berardo, R. and Robins, G. (2012) Testing Policy Theory With Statistical Models of Networks. The Policy Studies Journal 40(3): 351–374.Google Scholar
Mahoney, C. (2007) Networking vs. Allying: The Decision of Interest Groups to Join Coalitions in the US and the EU. Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 366–383.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1993) Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach. Journal of Common Market Studies 31: 473–523.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1994) Why the European Community Strenghtens the State: Domestic Politics and International Cooperation. Working Paper No. 52 Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, W. C. and Strom, K. (2000) Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nohrstedt, D. (2011) Shifting Resources and Venues Producing Policy Change in Contested Subsystems: A Case Study of Swedish Signals Intelligence Policy. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 461–484.Google Scholar
Nooy, W. D., Mrvar, A. and Batagelj, V. (2005) Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Actors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (1988) Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two Level Games. International Organization 42(3): 427–460.Google Scholar
Radaelli, C. M., Dente, B. and Dossi, S. (2012) Recasting Institutionalism: Institutional Analysis and Public Policy. European Political Science 11: 537–550.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. C. (1987) The Comparative Method. Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. C. (2008) Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy-Sets and Beyond. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C., Drass, K. A. and Davey, S. (2009) Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.5. http://www.u.arizona.edu/∼cragin/fsQCA/.Google Scholar
Rihoux, B. and Ragin, C. C. (2009) Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Thousand Oaks and London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (1987) Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning, and Policy Change: An Advocacy Coalition Framework. Science Communication 8: 649–692.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (1998) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and Relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 5(1): 98–130.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. and Weible, C. M. (2007) The Advocacy Coalition Framework. In Sabatier P. A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 189–222.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. W. (1988) The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration. Public Administration 66: 239–278.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. W. (2006) The Joint-Decision Trap Revisited. Journal of Common Market Studies 44(4): 845–864.Google Scholar
Schlager, E. C. (1995) Policy Making and Collective Action: Defining Coalitions Within the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy Sciences 28: 243–270.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. Q. and Grofman, B. (2006) It Might Look Like a Regression … But It’s Not! An Intuitive Approach to the Presentation of QCA and fs/QCA Results, COMPASSS Working Paper No. 39, http://www.compasss.org/wpseries.htm.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. Q. and Wagemann, C. (2010) Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets. Comparative Sociology 9: 397–418.Google Scholar
Schneider, M., Scholz, J., Lubell, M., Mindruta, D. and Edwardsen, M. (2003) Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science 47(1): 143–158.Google Scholar
Sciarini, P. (2006) Le processus législatif. In Klöti U., Knoepfel P., Kriesi H., Linder W., Papadopoulos Y. and Sciarini P. (eds.), Handbuch der Schweizer Politik. Zürich: Verlag NZZ, 491–525.Google Scholar
Sciarini, P., Fischer, A. and Nicolet, S. (2004) How Europe Hits Home: Evidence from the Swiss Case. Journal of European Public Policy 11(3): 353–378.Google Scholar
Sciarini, P., Nicolet, S. and Fischer, A. (2002) L’impact de l’internationalisation sur les processus de décision en Suisse: Une analyse quantitative des actes législatifs 1995–1999. Swiss Political Science Review 8(3/4): 1–34.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. S. (2001) Political Parties and Interest Groups: Shaping Democratic Governance. Boulder and London: Lyenne Rienner.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002) Veto Players – How Political Institutions Work. New York and Princeton: Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis. Methods and Applications . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weible, C. M. (2005) Beliefs and Perceived Influence in a Natural Resource Concflit: An Advocacy Coalition Approach to Policy Networks. Political Research Quarterly 58(3): 461–475.Google Scholar
Weible, C. M. and Sabatier, P. A. (2005) Comparing Policy Networks: Marine Protected Areas in California. The Policy Studies Journal 33(2): 181–201.Google Scholar
Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D. and Deleon, P. (2011) A Quarter Century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: Introduction to the Special Issue. The Policy Studies Journal 39: 349–360.Google Scholar