by Alexander Pechmann & Jochen Hinkel
In their recent article Self-interest within the Advocacy Coalition Framework: how material beliefs affect change in German munitions policy, authors Alexander Pechmann and Jochen Hinkel, examine how self-interest shapes coalition dynamics and policy change. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), the authors introduce the concept of material beliefs to better explain how actors motivated by self-interest interact with those driven by broader societal goals.
The article addresses a longstanding critique of the ACF. While the framework recognises that policy actors may be motivated by both societal goals and self-interest, empirical studies often focus primarily on purposive beliefs—those linked to wider societal objectives such as environmental protection or public health. Pechmann and Hinkel argue that this emphasis risks overlooking how actors’ material interests—such as financial gain or political influence—shape coalition behaviour and policy outcomes.
To address this gap, the authors conceptualise material beliefs as beliefs oriented towards short-term benefits for the actor or their affiliated group, while purposive beliefs concern longer-term goals that benefit society more broadly. By integrating material beliefs directly into the ACF belief hierarchy, the article offers a clearer framework for analysing how self-interest operates within policy subsystems.
Explaining policy change in German munitions policy
The authors apply this theoretical approach to a case study of policy change concerning sea-dumped Second World War munitions in German waters. Approximately 1.6 million tonnes of munitions were disposed of at sea after the war and continue to pose environmental and safety risks. Despite these risks, German policy long remained characterised by policy stasis, with only limited, reactive removal of munitions when immediate dangers arose.
Drawing on interviews with stakeholders and documentary analysis, the study traces developments in the policy subsystem between 2000 and 2021. During this period, the subsystem evolved from a unitary subsystem, dominated by a single coalition that maintained the status quo, to an adversarial subsystem with competing coalitions, and ultimately to a collaborative subsystem that enabled policy change.
A key finding is that material and purposive actors can collaborate under particular conditions. Initially, material beliefs—such as the pursuit of financial opportunities or political influence—helped sustain policy stasis. However, over time these interests began to align with purposive goals such as environmental protection and long-term societal benefits. When these different motivations converged, actors were able to form collaborative coalitions advocating systematic munitions clearance.
The authors also challenge a common assumption within ACF scholarship: that purposive actors are more constrained in expressing their beliefs than material actors. Instead, the study finds that actors of both types may be constrained when articulating beliefs associated with their own motivational type, but more flexible when engaging with the belief structures of others.
Rethinking collaboration within the ACF
The article makes two main contributions to ACF theory. First, it demonstrates the value of explicitly incorporating self-interest into the framework’s belief structure through the concept of material beliefs. Second, it shows that collaboration between coalitions may emerge not only through negotiation between opposing groups, but also through the dissolution of coalitions, the entry of new actors, and the alignment of beliefs across groups.
By highlighting how self-interest and societal goals can interact in complex ways, the study provides new insights into coalition dynamics and the processes through which policy change can emerge—even in long-stable policy subsystems.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at
Pechmann, A., & Hinkel, J. (2026). Self-interest within the Advocacy Coalition Framework: how material beliefs affect change in German munitions policy. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2026) from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2026D000000086
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading:
Nowlin, M. C. (2024). Policy beliefs, belief uncertainty, and policy learning through the lens of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy & Politics, 52(4), 675-695 from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000002
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 