Investigating ACF Policy Change Theory in a Unitary Policy Subsystem: The Case of Ghanaian Public Sector Information Policy

B. T. Heinmiller, E. Osei, Eugene Danso
{"title":"Investigating ACF Policy Change Theory in a Unitary Policy Subsystem: The Case of Ghanaian Public Sector Information Policy","authors":"B. T. Heinmiller, E. Osei, Eugene Danso","doi":"10.4000/IRPP.1894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"S In 2019, the government of Ghana overhauled its access to public information rules through the Right to information Act. Prior to this legislation, access to public sector information was not formally regulated and the new legislation provided a legal framework for making public sector information accessible to the general public. From an Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) perspective, the passage of the Right to Information Act represents a major policy change and provides a case in which the ACF theory of major policy change can be investigated. This case is also interesting because it took place in a unitary policy subsystem, as opposed to a competitive or collaborative subsystem. Unitary subsystems are characterized by a single, dominant advocacy coalition, in this case a pro-transparency coalition, and are relatively uncommon in the ACF literature. The purpose of this paper is to investigate ACF policy change theory in the Ghanaian public sector information policy subsystem – as a unitary subsystem – to determine whether it can explain the major policy change that took place with the passage of the Right to Information Act. The investigation finds strong empirical support for the ACF’s ‘pathways’ hypothesis and moderate support for the ‘power’ hypothesis.","PeriodicalId":33409,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/IRPP.1894","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

S In 2019, the government of Ghana overhauled its access to public information rules through the Right to information Act. Prior to this legislation, access to public sector information was not formally regulated and the new legislation provided a legal framework for making public sector information accessible to the general public. From an Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) perspective, the passage of the Right to Information Act represents a major policy change and provides a case in which the ACF theory of major policy change can be investigated. This case is also interesting because it took place in a unitary policy subsystem, as opposed to a competitive or collaborative subsystem. Unitary subsystems are characterized by a single, dominant advocacy coalition, in this case a pro-transparency coalition, and are relatively uncommon in the ACF literature. The purpose of this paper is to investigate ACF policy change theory in the Ghanaian public sector information policy subsystem – as a unitary subsystem – to determine whether it can explain the major policy change that took place with the passage of the Right to Information Act. The investigation finds strong empirical support for the ACF’s ‘pathways’ hypothesis and moderate support for the ‘power’ hypothesis.
单一政策子系统下ACF政策变化理论研究——以加纳公共部门信息政策为例
S 2019年,加纳政府通过《信息权法》对其获取公共信息的规则进行了彻底改革。在这项立法之前,公共部门信息的获取没有受到正式监管,新立法为公众获取公共部门信息提供了法律框架。从倡导联盟框架(ACF)的角度来看,《信息权法》的通过代表了一项重大政策变化,并提供了一个可以调查ACF重大政策变化理论的案例。这种情况也很有趣,因为它发生在一个单一的策略子系统中,而不是竞争或协作子系统。单一子系统的特点是一个单一的、占主导地位的倡导联盟,在这种情况下是一个支持透明度的联盟,在ACF文献中相对罕见。本文的目的是研究加纳公共部门信息政策子系统中的ACF政策变化理论,以确定它是否能够解释随着《信息权法》的通过而发生的重大政策变化。调查发现,ACF的“途径”假说得到了强有力的实证支持,而“权力”假说则得到了适度的支持。
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
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信