Advocacy Coalition Representation

IF 2.2 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Anna M. Crawford, Christopher M. Weible
{"title":"Advocacy Coalition Representation","authors":"Anna M. Crawford,&nbsp;Christopher M. Weible","doi":"10.1111/polp.70103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>One of the most significant innovations within policy process theories is the concept of advocacy coalitions, namely how policy actors self-organize to collectively pursue shared goals. Despite the centrality of advocacy coalitions and extensive research spanning decades on this concept, questions remain about their functional purpose in a democracy. For this paper, we introduce the novel concept of “advocacy coalition representation” to describe how advocacy coalition members act as representatives of their constituencies. Taking an Advocacy Coalition Framework perspective, this paper begins with an argument incorporating democratic representation into the theoretical infrastructure of the Framework. It illustrates this argument by examining advocacy coalition representation in Colorado's abortion policy subsystem through interviews with pro- and anti-abortion-access actors. Ultimately, we find that the two coalitions offer patterns of advocacy coalition representation distinct from one another along two key variables: constituencies (<i>who</i> advocates represent) and engagement (<i>how</i> advocates represent). This paper ends with theoretical and empirical implications before returning to the theme of democracy and policy process research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Related Articles</h3>\n \n <p>Myers, N., A. T. Ann Pendergast, H. A. Gage Atwood, W. Brian and H. Danielle. 2025. “Roles in Resilience: The Intersection of Genetic Counseling, Policy Advocacy, and Community Resilience.” <i>Politics and Policy</i> 53, no. 2: e70023. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.70023.</p>\n \n <p>Silagadze, N. 2021. “Abortion Referendums: Is There a Recipe for Success?” <i>Politics and Policy</i> 49, no. 2: 352–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12398.</p>\n \n <p>Swigger, A. and B. T. Heinmiller. 2014. “Advocacy Coalitions and Mental Health Policy: The Adoption of Community Treatment Orders in Ontario.” <i>Politics and Policy</i> 42, no. 2: 246–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12066.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51679,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Policy","volume":"53 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.70103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One of the most significant innovations within policy process theories is the concept of advocacy coalitions, namely how policy actors self-organize to collectively pursue shared goals. Despite the centrality of advocacy coalitions and extensive research spanning decades on this concept, questions remain about their functional purpose in a democracy. For this paper, we introduce the novel concept of “advocacy coalition representation” to describe how advocacy coalition members act as representatives of their constituencies. Taking an Advocacy Coalition Framework perspective, this paper begins with an argument incorporating democratic representation into the theoretical infrastructure of the Framework. It illustrates this argument by examining advocacy coalition representation in Colorado's abortion policy subsystem through interviews with pro- and anti-abortion-access actors. Ultimately, we find that the two coalitions offer patterns of advocacy coalition representation distinct from one another along two key variables: constituencies (who advocates represent) and engagement (how advocates represent). This paper ends with theoretical and empirical implications before returning to the theme of democracy and policy process research.

Related Articles

Myers, N., A. T. Ann Pendergast, H. A. Gage Atwood, W. Brian and H. Danielle. 2025. “Roles in Resilience: The Intersection of Genetic Counseling, Policy Advocacy, and Community Resilience.” Politics and Policy 53, no. 2: e70023. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.70023.

Silagadze, N. 2021. “Abortion Referendums: Is There a Recipe for Success?” Politics and Policy 49, no. 2: 352–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12398.

Swigger, A. and B. T. Heinmiller. 2014. “Advocacy Coalitions and Mental Health Policy: The Adoption of Community Treatment Orders in Ontario.” Politics and Policy 42, no. 2: 246–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12066.

倡导联盟代表
政策过程理论中最重要的创新之一是倡导联盟的概念,即政策参与者如何自我组织以集体追求共同目标。尽管倡导联盟处于中心地位,并且对这一概念进行了数十年的广泛研究,但它们在民主中的功能目的仍然存在问题。在本文中,我们引入了“倡导联盟代表”的新概念来描述倡导联盟成员如何作为其选区的代表。从倡导联盟框架的角度出发,本文首先将民主代表制纳入该框架的理论基础设施。它通过采访支持和反对堕胎的行为者来检查科罗拉多州堕胎政策子系统中的倡导联盟代表,从而说明了这一论点。最终,我们发现这两个联盟提供的倡导联盟代表模式在两个关键变量上彼此不同:选区(倡导者代表谁)和参与(倡导者如何代表)。在回归到民主与政策过程研究的主题之前,本文以理论和实证意义结束。相关文章迈尔斯、彭德加斯特、盖奇·阿特伍德、布赖恩和丹尼尔。2025。“恢复力中的角色:遗传咨询,政策倡导和社区恢复力的交集。”政治与政策53,no。2: e70023。https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.70023。Silagadze, N. 2021。“堕胎公投:有成功的秘诀吗?”政治与政策49,不。2: 352 - 389。https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12398。Swigger, A. and B. T. Heinmiller, 2014。“倡导联盟和心理健康政策:安大略省社区治疗令的采用”政治与政策42,不。2: 246 - 270。https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12066。
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
Politics & Policy
Politics & Policy POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
23.10%
发文量
61
×
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
小红书