Comparing Policy Process Frameworks

Abstract

Theoretical models impose a framework for viewing the policy process. Some emphasize institutional rules. Others focus on beliefs and values. This research, using a case study of substance abuse policy development within a local community context, examines three frameworks: the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), bureaucratic politics framework, and institutional analysis and development framework (IADF). The frameworks examine an early stage of policy development emphasizing group membership and participation. The results show that membership and participation were best explained using the ACF and the IADF. Strengths and challenges in using each framework are discussed, as well as implications for local policy making.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.

Barclay, S., & Birkland, T. (1998). Law, policymaking, and the policy process: Closing the gaps. Policy Studies Journal, 26, 227-243.

Box, R. C. (1998). Citizen governance leading American communities into the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brownson, R. C., Newsschaffer, C. N., & Ali-Abarghoui, F. (1997). Policy research for disease prevention: Challenges and practical recommendations. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 335-339.

Dery, D. (1984). Problem definition in policy analysis. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Dievler, A., & Cassady, C. (1998). Politics and policy making. American Journal of Public Health, 88(5), 839-839.

Moe, T. (1990). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In O. Williamson (Ed.), Organizational theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond (pp. 116-153). New York: Oxford University Press.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Ostrom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 35-72). Boulder, CO: Westview.

12.

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

13.

Sabatier, P. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129-168.

14.

Sabatier, P. (1999). The need for better theories. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 3-17). Boulder, CO: Westview.

15.

Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning. Boulder, CO: Westview.

16.

Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117-168). Boulder, CO: Westview.

17.

Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

18.

Schlager, E. (1995). Policy making and collective action: Defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 28, 243-270.

19.

Schlager, E. (1999). A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy process. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 233-260). Boulder, CO: Westview.

20.

Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49, 651-672.

21.

Stewart, J. (1991). Policy models and equal education opportunity. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24, 167-173.

22.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.