The Advocacy Coalition Framework, while aptly explains change in the public policy process, fails to answer the Lasswellian question about the benefits and losses of policy change. The Social Construction Framework answers this question, but neglects to comprehensively conceptualize subsystems and institutions in the policy process. This micro-level case study applies these frameworks to analyze the passage of the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program Bill. Results of this study suggest an incremental shift from previous legislation, but a radical shift comes with the inclusion of “Northern Everglades.” Together, the frameworks capture this radical, non-incremental policy change with major implications for the (1) geographic boundary and political scope of future Everglades and water policies in Florida, and (2) implementation and policy outcomes of this new legislation. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research.
BaumgartnerF.R. & JonesB.D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
3.
BirklandT.A. (1997). After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
4.
BoinA., 't HartP., & McConnellA. (2009). Crisis exploitation: political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81–106.
5.
BurnettM., & DavisC. (2002). Getting out the Cut Politics and National Forest Timber Harvests, 1960–1995. Administration & Society, 34(2), 202–228.
6.
BurtR.S. (2002). The social capital of structural holes. In GuillénM. F. (ed). The New Economic Sociology: Developments in an Emerging Field (pp. 148–190). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
7.
CaffeyR.H. & SchexnayderM. (2003). Coastal Louisiana and south Florida: A comparative wetland inventory. In An Interpretative Topic Series on Louisiana Coastal Wetland Restoration, CWPPRA (eds). National Sea Grant Library, No. LSU-G-03, 8p.
8.
CairneyP., & HeikkilaT. (2014). A comparison of theories of the policy process. In SabatierP.A. & WeibleC.M. (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process: Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy (3rd Ed.) (pp. 363–390). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
9.
DudleyG. & RichardsonJ. (1996). Why does policy change over time? Adversarial policy communities, alternative policy arenas, and British trunk roads policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 3(1), 63–83.
10.
ElliotC. & SchlaepferR. (2001). The advocacy coalition framework: Application to the policy process for the development of forest certification in Sweden. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 642–661.
11.
EllisonB. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework and implementation of the Endangered Species Act: A case study in western water politics. Policies Studies Journal, 26(1), 11–29.
12.
EllisonB.A., & NewmarkA.J. (2010). Building the reservoir to nowhere: The role of agencies in advocacy coalitions. Policy Studies Journal, 38(4), 653–678.
13.
EstenozS., & BushE. (2015). Everglades restoration science and decision-making in the face of climate change: A management perspective. Environmental Management, 55(4), 876–883.
GerlakA.K., & HeikkilaT. (2011). Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 619–644.
20.
GoffmanE. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday.
21.
GonzalezG.A. (2005). The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan: Environmental or economic sustainability?Polity, 37(4), 466–490.
22.
GranovetterM.S. (1973). ‘The strength of weak ties.’The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
23.
GravesG., ThompsonM, & FikeD. (2002, July). St. Lucie River Estuary: Evidence of Impairment. Southeast District Water Quality Section, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Port St. Lucie.
24.
HajerM. (1995, August). Interpreting policy change: Discourse coalitions versus advocacy coalitions. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
25.
HeikkilaT., & GerlakA.K. (2014). Investigating Collaborative Processes Over Time A 10-Year Study of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. The American Review of Public Administration, DOI: 10.1177/0275074014544196.
26.
HinrichsenD. (1995). Waterworld: A hundred years of plumbing, plantations, and politics in the Everglades. The Amicus Journal, 17(2), 23–27.
27.
IngramM., & IngramH. (2005). Creating credible edibles: The organic agriculture movement and the emergence of US federal organic standards. In MeyerD., JennessV., & IngramH. (Eds.), Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy. (pp. 121–148). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
28.
IngramH., SchneiderA.L., & deLeonP. (2007). Social construction and policy design. In SabatierP.A. & WeibleC.M. (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process: Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy (2nd Ed.) (pp. 93–126). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
JannW. & WegrichK. (2007). Theories of the Policy Cycle. In FisherF., MillerG. J. and SidneyM. S. (eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. New York: CRC Press, pp. 43–62.
31.
Jenkins-SmithH., NohrstedtD., WeibleC., & SabatierP.A. (2014). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In SabatierP.A. & WeibleC.M. (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process: Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy (3rd Ed.) (pp. 183–223). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
32.
JordanA., & GreenawayJ. (1998). Shifting agendas, changing regulatory structures and the ‘new’ politics of environmental pollution: British Coastal water policy, 1955–1995. Public Administration, 76(4), 669–694.
33.
KingdonJ.W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies: Second Edition. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
34.
KnoxC. C. (2013). Distorted Communication in the Florida Everglades: A Critical Theory Analysis of “Everglades Restoration.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 15(2), 269–284.
35.
KochM.S., CoronadoC., MillerM.W., RudnickD.T., StabenauE., HalleyR.B., & SklarF.H. (2015). Climate change projected effects on coastal foundation communities of the greater Everglades using a 2060 scenario: need for a new management paradigm. Environmental Management, 55(4), 857–875.
36.
LeachW.D. (2006). Theories about consensus-based conservation. Conservation Biology, 20(2), 573–575.
37.
LeachW. D., & SabatierP. A. (2005). To trust an adversary: Integrating rational and psychological models of collaborative policymaking. American Political Science Review, 99(04), 491–503.
38.
LeschineT. M., LindK. A., & SharmaR. (2003). Beliefs, values, and technical assessment in environmental management: Contaminated sediments in Puget Sound. Coastal Management, 31(1), 1–24.
39.
LevinT. (2003). Liquid Land: A Journey Through the Florida Everglades. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
40.
LightS.S. & DineenJ.W. (1994). Water control in the Everglades: A historical perspective. In DavisS. & OgdenJ. (Ed.), Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration (pp. 47–84). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
41.
MacDonaldD.D., CarrR.S., CalderF.D., LongE.R., & IngersolC.G. (1996). Development and evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology, 5, 253–278.
42.
McBethM.K., ShanahanE.A., ArnellR. J., & HathawayP.L. (2007). The intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory. Policy Studies Journal, 35(1), 87–108.
MeijerinkS. (2005). Understanding policy stability and change: The interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945–2003. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 1060–1077.
45.
MenahemG. (1998). Policy paradigms, policy networks, and water policy in Israel. Journal of Public Policy, 18(3), 282–310.
46.
MintromM. (2000). Innovation in Education Policy and Policy Entrepreneurs. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
47.
MintromM., & VergariS. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. The Journal of Politics, 60(01), 126–148.
48.
National Research Council of the National Academies. (2008). Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
49.
NewmanS., SchuetteJ., GraceJ.B., RutcheyK., FontaineT., ReddyK.R., PietruchaM. (1998). Factors influencing cattail abundance in the northern Everglades. Aquatic Botany, 60(3), 265–280.
50.
NewtonL. (2005). It is not a question of being anti-immigration: Categories of deservedness in immigration policy making. In SchneiderA.L. & IngramH.M. (Eds), Deserving and Entitled: Social Construction of Public Policy. (pp. 35–62). Albany: University of New York Press.
51.
PetersonM.N., PetersonM.J., & PetersonT.R. (2005). Conservation and the myth of consensus. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 762–767.
52.
RichardsonL., KeefeK., HuberC., RacevskisL., ReynoldsG., ThourotS., & MillerI. (2014). Assessing the value of the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) in Everglades restoration: An ecosystem service approach. Ecological Economics, 107, 366–377.
53.
SabatierP.A. (Ed.) (1999). Theories of the Policy Process: Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
54.
SabatierP.A. & Jenkins-SmithH. (Eds). (1988). Special Issue: Policy change and policy-oriented learning: Exploring an Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy Sciences, 21, 123–278.
55.
SaltT., LangtonS., & DoyleM. (2008). The challenges of restoring the Everglades ecosystem. In DoyleM. & DrewC. A. (Eds), Large-scale Ecosystem Restoration: Five Case Studies from the United States. (pp. 5–33). Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
56.
SchneiderA. & IngramH. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347.
57.
SchneiderA.L. & IngramH. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
58.
SchneiderA.L., IngramH., & deLeonP. (2014). Social construction and policy design. In SabatierP. A. & WeibleC. M. (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process: Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy (3rd Ed.) (pp. 105–149). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
59.
SidneyM. (2005). Contested images of race and place: The politics of housing discrimination. In SchneiderA.L. & IngramH.M. (Eds), Deserving and Entitled: Social Construction of Public Policy. (pp. 111–138). Albany: University of New York Press.
60.
SobeckJ. (2003). Comparing policy process frameworks: What do they tell us about group membership and participation for policy development?Administration & Society, 35(3), 350–374.
StraussA. & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
66.
TaylorL. (2007). Stakeholders, advocacy coalitions and the policy process: Policy change in Everglades restoration. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(6), 236A. (UMI No. 3269308).
67.
WeibleC.M., SabatierP.A., McQueenK. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.
68.
WeisskoffR. (2005). The Economics of Everglades Restoration: Missing Pieces in the Future of South Florida. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
69.
YanowD. (1992). Silences in public policy discourse: Organizational and policy myths. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(4), 399–423.
70.
YinR. (1994). Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
