How Can Political Conflict in Adversarial Policy Networks Promote their Coordination?

by Jeongyoon Lee and David Lee

Policy actors often clash during policy processes, especially in contentious areas like climate change, gun control, and healthcare reform. These actors—including government agencies, private companies, and interest groups—frequently vie for influence, and political rivalries can lead to gridlock or policy failure. Understanding the drivers of these conflicts and how to manage them is crucial in order to propose strategies that can mitigate their effects, and enhance network coordination.

In our recent article published in Policy & Politics, we explore the causes of political competition and propose strategies for reducing it, using the case of local fracking policy processes in New York as an example. The fracking debate involves a wide range of actors, such as landowners, media organisations, oil and gas associations, environmental groups, city agencies, local governments, and legal organisations—all competing over whether fracking should be permitted in the state. But what drives these actors to clash so intensely? We explore the underlying reasons for these clashes, investigating whether competition arises from shared struggles for scarce resources, similar structural positions in resource-sharing relationships, differing policy beliefs or all three.

Continue reading

The UK government is pro-fracking and the Swiss authorities are against, so why is there very little difference in policy outcomes between the two? ask Paul Cairney (University of Stirling), Karin Ingold (University of Bern) and Manuel Fischer (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology)

paul-cairney-karin-ingold-manuel-fischer

At first glance, UK and Swiss fracking policy and policymaking seem very different. The UK government centralises policymaking and can impose policy from the top down, while in Switzerland many veto points  exist in its so-called  ‘consensus’ democracy. The UK government is pro-fracking, while Swiss authorities have come out against it. So it is striking that there seems to be very little  difference in their policy outcomes. Why, if the UK government has stated its position as ‘all out for shale’, has there been limited commercial development and very little challenge to policymaking done at regional rather than national level? Why is policy and policymaking surprisingly similar in the UK and Switzerland?   Continue reading