Treating Policy Brokers Seriously: Evidence from the Climate Policy
Author(s) -
Karin Ingold,
Frédéric Varone
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of public administration research and theory
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 4.154
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1477-9803
pISSN - 1053-1858
DOI - 10.1093/jopart/mur035
Subject(s) - veto , referendum , politics , public administration , public economics , administration (probate law) , complement (music) , empirical evidence , public policy , policy analysis , economics , empirical research , political science , business , law , biochemistry , chemistry , philosophy , epistemology , complementation , gene , phenotype
The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) pays special attention to ‘‘so-called’’ policy brokers when explaining policy change. However, this prominent policy approach neither clearly defines who the policy brokers are nor identifies under which institutional rules they have an influence on policy processes and outputs. This article thus formulates two theoretical hypotheses that complement the ACF and then proceeds to undertake the first empirical testing of these hypotheses within the Swiss climate policy (1990–2008). The empirical results show that, in the case under investigation, the strategic interest-based behavior of two policy brokers (i.e., one public administration and one political party), as well as two institutionalized veto points (i.e., optional referendum and parliamentary committee), are crucial factors explaining policy brokers’ influence on policy process and change
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom