How Patterns of Democracy Impact Policy Processes: When Lijphart and Sabatier Meet

IF 2.7 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Karin Ingold, Manuel Fischer, Rahel Freiburghaus, Daniel Nohrstedt, Adrian Vatter
{"title":"How Patterns of Democracy Impact Policy Processes: When Lijphart and Sabatier Meet","authors":"Karin Ingold,&nbsp;Manuel Fischer,&nbsp;Rahel Freiburghaus,&nbsp;Daniel Nohrstedt,&nbsp;Adrian Vatter","doi":"10.1002/epa2.70006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Policy process theories and institutional theories are two foundational strands in political science, both concerned with how people engage in politics. However, they differ in their focus, with policy process theories emphasizing the roles of actors, while institutional theories concentrate on the structures in which these actors are embedded. This paper bridges these two previously isolated strands, exploring how macro-institutions influence policy processes. Specifically, we investigated how political institutions, such as decentralization and corporatism, relate to coalition opportunity structures (COSs), a key concept within the advocacy coalition framework (ACF); we also investigated the role of minority coalitions and subsystem collaboration. Empirically, we based our analysis on prototypes selected according to Aranda Lijphart's models of majoritarian and consensus democracies. Drawing on existing comparative ACF applications related to climate, water, and energy policy processes, we compared results from these studies to assess the impact of institutional settings on coalition dynamics. Our findings suggest that minority coalitions are more present—and sometimes more influential—in federalist than in unitary countries and that corporatism has a greater effect on collaboration within policy subsystems than consensualism.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"11 2","pages":"254-270"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.70006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Policy process theories and institutional theories are two foundational strands in political science, both concerned with how people engage in politics. However, they differ in their focus, with policy process theories emphasizing the roles of actors, while institutional theories concentrate on the structures in which these actors are embedded. This paper bridges these two previously isolated strands, exploring how macro-institutions influence policy processes. Specifically, we investigated how political institutions, such as decentralization and corporatism, relate to coalition opportunity structures (COSs), a key concept within the advocacy coalition framework (ACF); we also investigated the role of minority coalitions and subsystem collaboration. Empirically, we based our analysis on prototypes selected according to Aranda Lijphart's models of majoritarian and consensus democracies. Drawing on existing comparative ACF applications related to climate, water, and energy policy processes, we compared results from these studies to assess the impact of institutional settings on coalition dynamics. Our findings suggest that minority coalitions are more present—and sometimes more influential—in federalist than in unitary countries and that corporatism has a greater effect on collaboration within policy subsystems than consensualism.

民主模式如何影响政策过程:当Lijphart和Sabatier相遇
政策过程理论和制度理论是政治学的两个基本分支,都关注人们如何参与政治。然而,它们的关注点有所不同,政策过程理论强调行为者的角色,而制度理论则侧重于这些行为者所处的结构。本文将这两个先前孤立的部分连接起来,探讨宏观机构如何影响政策过程。具体而言,我们调查了政治制度,如权力下放和社团主义,如何与联盟机会结构(COSs)相关,COSs是倡导联盟框架(ACF)中的一个关键概念;我们还研究了少数联盟和子系统协作的作用。从经验上看,我们的分析基于阿兰达·利杰法特(Aranda Lijphart)的多数民主和共识民主模型所选择的原型。利用与气候、水和能源政策过程相关的现有比较ACF应用,我们比较了这些研究的结果,以评估制度设置对联盟动态的影响。我们的研究结果表明,在联邦制国家,少数民族联盟比单一制国家更普遍,有时更有影响力,社团主义比共识主义对政策子系统内的合作有更大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Policy Analysis
European Policy Analysis Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信