To what extent do stakeholders in a conflict over natural resources interact with actors of congruent policy core beliefs or with actors who have perceived influence? The response to this question is structured principally by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) using questionnaire and interview data collected from stakeholders involved in California Marine Protected Area policy. The findings indicate that shared beliefs are the best predictor for policy network relationships, supporting the ACF. Perceived influence, while less important than shared beliefs, is another significant predictor.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bauer, Raymond, Ithiel de Sola Pool, and Lewis Dexter. 1963. American Business and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: Aldine Atherton.
2.
Carpenter, Daniel, Kevin Esterling, and David Lazer. 2004. “Friends, Brokers, and Transitivity: Who Informs Whom in Washington Politics?”The Journal of Politics66 (1): 224-246.
3.
Chisholm, Donald. 1989. Coordination Without Hierarchy: Informal Structures in Multiorganizational Systems. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
Heclo, Hugh. 1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In Anthony King, ed., The New American Political System. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
5.
Heinz, John P., Edward O. Laumann, Robert H. Salisbury, and Robert L. Nelson. 1990. “Inner Circles or Hollow Cores? Elite Networks in National Policy Systems.”Journal of Politics52 (2): 356-390.
6.
Hjern, Benny, and David Porter. 1981. Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis. Organizational Studies2: 211-227.
7.
Howlett, Michael. 2002. “Do Networks Matter? Linking Policy Network Structure to Policy Outcomes: Evidence from Four Canadian Policy Sectors 1990-2000.”Canadian Journal of Political Science35 (2): 235-267.
8.
Huckfeldt, Robert, and John Sprague. 1987. “Networks in Con-text: The Social Flow of Political Information.”American Political Science Review81 (4): 1197-2116.
9.
Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., Gilbert K. St. Clair, and Brian Woods. 1991. “Explaining Change in Policy Subsystems: Analysis of Coalition Stability and Defection over Time.”American Journal of Political Science35 (4): 851-880.
10.
John, Peter. 2003. “Is there Life After Policy Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, and Punctuations: Using Evolutionary Theory to Explain Policy Change?”Policy Studies Journal31 (4): 481-498.
11.
Knoke, David. 1983. “Organization Sponsorship and Influence of Social Influence Associations.”Social Forces61 (4): 1065-1087.
12.
Knoke, David. 1990. Political Networks: The Structural Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Knoke, David. 1998. “Who Steals My Purse Steals Trash: The Structure of Organizational Influence Reputation.”Journal of Theoretical Politics10 (4): 507-530.
14.
Knoke, David, Franz Urban Pappi, Jeffrey Broadbent, and Yutaka Tsujinaka. 1996. Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in the US, Germany, and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Long, J. Scott. 1997Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage..
16.
National Research Council. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations. New York: Harper and Row.
18.
Sabatier, Paul. 1986. “Top-Down and Bottom-Up Models of Policy Implementation: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis.”Journal of Public Policy6 (January): 21-48.
19.
Sabatier, Paul, and Anne Basher. 1993. “From Vague Consensus to Clearly - Differentiated Coalitions: Environmental Policy at Lake Tahoe 1964-1985.” In P. A. Sabatier and H Jenkins-Smith, eds., Policy Change and Learning, pp. 149-176. Boulder, CO: Westview.
20.
Sabatier, Paul, Susan Hunter, and Susan McLaughlin. 1987. “The Devil Shift: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Opponents.”Western Political Quarterly40 (3): 449-476.
21.
Sabatier, Paul, and Hank Jenkins-Smith. 1988. “Policy Change and Policy-Orientedd Learning: Exploring an Advocacy Coalition Framework.”Policy Sciences21: 123-177.
22.
Sabatier, Paul, and Hank Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.
23.
Sabatier, Paul, and Hank Jenkins-Smith. 1999. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment. In Paul Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview.
24.
Sabatier, Paul, and Mathew Zafante. 1999. “Are Bureaucrats and Scientists Members of Advocacy Coalitions? Evidence from an Intergovernmental Water Policy Subsystem.” In Paul Sabatier, ed., An Advocacy Coalition Lens on Environmental Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, forthcoming.
25.
Sabatier, Paul, and Mathew Zafante. 2004. “Are Bureaucrats and Scientists Members of Advocacy Coalitions? Evidence from an Intergovernmental Water Policy Subsystem.” In P. A. Sabatier, ed., An Advocacy Coalition Lens on Environmental Policy. Under review.
26.
Salisbury, Robert H., John P. Heinz, Edward O. Laumann, Robert L. Nelson. 1987. “Who Works with Whom? Interest Group Alliances and Opposition.”American Political Science Review81 (4): 1217-1234.
27.
Schlager, Edella, and William Bloomquist. 1996. “A Comparison of Three Emerging Theories of the Policy Process.”Political Research Quarterly49: 651-672.
28.
Schneider, Mark, John Scholz, Mark Lubell, Denisa Mindruta and Matthew Edwardsen. 2003. “Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program.”American Journal of Political Science47 (1): 143-158.
29.
Stokman, Frans, and Jaco Berveling. 1998. “Dynamic Modeling of Policy Networks in Amsterdam.”Journal of Theoretical Politics10 (4): 577-601.
30.
Thatcher, Mark. 1998. “The Development of Policy Network Analyses: From Modest Origins to Overarching Frameworks.”Journal of Theoretical Politics10 (4): 389-416.
31.
Zafonte, Matthew, and Paul Sabatier. 1998. “Shared Beliefs and Imposed Interdependencies as Determinants of Ally Networks in Overlapping Subsystems.”Journal of Theoretical Politics10(4): 473-505.
