by Raúl Gutiérrez-Meave
A central hypothesis in the influential policy process theory, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) posits that major policy change is unlikely if the coalition defending the status quo retains power. However, operationalising which coalition is in power has proven challenging.
In my recent article on this topic published in Policy and Politics, I argue that coalition power can be operationalised based on two dimensions: formal authority over decisions (hard power) and the ability to shape policy preferences through discourse (soft power). Employing discourse network analysis to capture the relative dominance of competing coalitions based on discourse interactions, I analysed the contentious 20-year-old debate surrounding the proposed liberalisation of the Mexican electricity generation sector.
The findings align with the ACF hypothesis; they show that the status quo coalition maintained consistent soft power when two reform attempts to liberalise the sector failed. This discursive dominance corresponded with continued policy stability, supporting the ACF hypothesis. However, major policy change occurred when the reforming coalition gained discursive influence and internal consensus, leading to a shift in soft power dynamics.
My research also suggests that power struggles between coalitions shape internal ideological positioning over time and, thus, the likelihood of major policy change. During the unsuccessful attempts to reform the sector, advocates adopted rhetorical positions closer to the status quo equilibrium, reducing the likelihood of disruptive policy decisions. However, increased polarisation between coalitions created new opportunities for transformative change.
Incorporating a multidimensional understanding of power that includes both authority and discourse influence can strengthen advocacy coalition explanatory models. By considering both hard and soft dimensions of power wielded by competing coalitions, further research can offer a more nuanced analysis of the dynamics that drive both policy stability and critical junctures of change.
This nuanced approach to operationalising coalition power has important theoretical and practical implications. Properly identifying the power dynamics between status quo defenders and those advocating for reform enables a better explanation and prediction of when meaningful policy changes are possible versus times when stability is enforced. These insights are valuable not only to scholars but also to policymakers and advocates who are dealing with ongoing debates, providing a more informed perspective on the complexities of policymaking.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at
Gutiérrez-Meave, R. (2024). Advocacy coalitions, soft power, and policy change in Mexican electricity policy: a discourse network analysis. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024) https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000005
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Heinmiller, B. T. (2023). Advocacy coalitions, power and policy change. Policy & Politics, 51(1), 28-46. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16569341758199
Nowlin, M. C. (2024). Policy beliefs, belief uncertainty, and policy learning through the lens of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024) https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000002
Osei-Kojo, A. (2023). Analysing the stability of advocacy coalitions and policy frames in Ghana’s oil and gas governance. Policy & Politics, 51(1), 71-90 https://doi.org/10.1332/030557322X16651632139992
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 