Examining the Role and Strategies of Advocacy Coalitions in California's Statewide Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Debate (2001-2018).

PURPOSE: California's failed attempts to enact a statewide sugary beverage tax presents an opportunity to advance understanding of advocacy coalition behavior. We investigate the participation of advocacy coalitions in California's statewide sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax policy debate. DESIGN: Document analysis of legislative bills and newspaper articles collected in 2019. SETTING: California. METHOD: A total of 11 SSB tax-related bills were introduced in California's legislature between 2001-2018 according to the state's legislative website. Data sources include legislative bill documents (n = 94) and newspaper articles (n = 138). Guided by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we identify advocacy coalitions involved in California's SSB tax debate and explore strategies and arguments used to advance each coalitions' position. RESULTS: Two coalitions (public health, food/beverage industry) were involved in California's statewide SSB tax policy debate. The public health coalition had higher member participation and referred to scientific research evidence while the industry coalition used preemption and financial resources as primary advocacy strategies. The public health coalition frequently presented messaging on the health consequences and financial benefits of SSB taxes. The industry coalition responded by focusing on the potential negative economic impact of a tax. CONCLUSION: Multiple attempts to enact a statewide SSB tax in California have failed. Our findings add insight into the challenges of enacting an SSB tax considering industry interference. Results can inform future efforts to pass evidence-based nutrition policies.

Occupy the semantic space! Opening up the language of better regulation.

Policy agendas are often cast in semantic constructions that portray them as universally desirable outcomes. These semantic constructions protect and reinforce the power of dominant coalitions and make it hard to pursue alternatives. The semantic space is entirely occupied by the dominant concepts. At the same time, within the dominant coalition, ideational conflict is muted by decontesting concepts. Drawing on political theory, I show the presence of this double act of reducing the semantic space and decontesting concepts with the case of 'better regulation'. Then I briefly extend the argument to other terms such as policy coherence, agile governance, smart cities and social value judgements. The critical discussion of the implications of dominant language brings in transparency, allows other coalitions to articulate their vision in a discursive level-playing-field, and offers citizens the possibility to discuss what is really 'better' and 'for whom'.

Uma breve trajetória dos elementos constitutivos do Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) / Una breve trayectoria de los elementos constitutivos del Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) / A brief trajectory of the constituent elements of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)

Resumo O trabalho reconstrói a trajetória do Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), especialmente seu processo de aprendizado orientado à políticas públicas. Inicialmente, o texto contrasta os elementos contidos em Sabatier e Mazmanian (1980), nos quais são encontrados os primeiros esforços para desenvolver um modelo de análise com os argumentos encontrados em Sabatier (1987, 1988 e 1993). Posteriormente, a trajetória histórica de atualizações e versões do modelo é discutida com base nas análises de Sabatier e Jenkins-Smith (1999), Sabatier e Weible (2007) e Jenkins-Smith et al. (2018). Ao longo de mais de 30 anos de pesquisa, foi possível acompanhar as modificações presentes nas quatro versões do modelo, as principais hipóteses construídas, as críticas e seus desdobramentos Uma lacuna identificada nessa trajetória e consequente proposta para uma futura agenda de pesquisa apontam a influência dos atores internacionais e suas implicações nas modificações de políticas públicas, condição não explicitamente abordada pela ACF em suas diversas versões, conforme destacado por Jenkins-Smith et al. (2018).

Resumen El artículo pretende trazar la trayectoria del Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), especialmente su proceso de aprendizaje orientado a políticas públicas. Inicialmente, el texto contrasta los elementos contenidos en Sabatier y Mazmanian (1980), donde se encuentran los primeros esfuerzos por desarrollar un modelo de análisis, con los argumentos encontrados en Sabatier (1987, 1988 y 1993). Posteriormente, se discute la trayectoria histórica de actualizaciones y versiones del modelo a partir de los análisis de Sabatier y Jenkins-Smith (1999), Sabatier y Weible (2007), y Jenkins-Smith et al. (2018). A lo largo de la trayectoria de construcción del ACF, fue posible seguir las modificaciones en las cuatro versiones del modelo, las principales hipótesis construidas, las críticas y sus desdoblamientos. Una laguna identificada en esta trayectoria, y consecuente propuesta de agenda de investigación futura, destaca la influencia de los actores internacionales y sus implicaciones en las modificaciones de las políticas públicas, condición no abordada explícitamente por el ACF en sus variadas versiones, como destacan Jenkins-Smith et al. (2018).

Abstract This paper aims to retrace the trajectory of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), especially its policy-oriented learning process. Initially, we contrast the elements in Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980), where the first efforts to develop an analysis model are found, with the arguments found in Sabatier (1987, 1988, and 1993). Subsequently, the historical trajectory of updates and versions of the model is discussed based on the analyses in Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999), Sabatier and Weible (2007), and Jenkins-Smith et al. (2018). It was possible to follow the modifications in the model, the main hypotheses built, the criticisms, and their unfoldings. As main findings, it was evident throughout the ACF construction trajectory: four versions of the model over almost 30 years and with the decisive participation of six prominent authors who contributed to its main developments since the first version, present in Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993); and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999), the model gains greater analytical capacity with the intermediate variables between the external factors and the policy subsystem and analytically refines the categories internal to the subsystem. One gap identified in this trajectory, and consequent proposal for a future research agenda, is the influence of international actors and their implications on policy modifications, a condition not explicitly addressed by the ACF in its varied versions, as highlighted by Jenkins-Smith et al. (2018).

Stakeholder Coalitions and Priorities Around the Policy Goals of a Nation-Wide Mental Health Care Reform.

The difficulty of implementing mental healthcare reforms owes much to the influence of stakeholders. So far, the endorsement of mental health policy reforms by stakeholder coalitions has received little attention. This study describes stakeholder coalitions formed around common mental health policy goals and highlights their central goals and oppositions. Data were collected on the policy priorities of 469 stakeholders (policymakers, service managers, clinicians, and user representatives) involved in the Belgian mental healthcare reform. Four coalitions of stakeholders endorsing different mental health policy goals were identified using a hierarchical cluster analysis on stakeholders' policy priorities. A belief network analysis was performed to identify the central and peripheral policy goals within coalitions. Coalitions brought together stakeholders with similar professional functions. Disagreements were observed between service managers and policymakers around policy goals. The two coalitions composed of policymakers supported a comprehensive approach that combines the different goals and also supported the shortening of hospital stays, whereas the two coalitions composed of service managers emphasised the personal recovery of users and continuity of care. Regardless of the coalitions' differing policy priorities, strengthening community care was a central goal while patient-centred goals were peripheral. The competing policy positions of the coalitions identified may explain the slow and inconsistent pace of the Belgian mental healthcare reform. Strengthening community care may be an essential part of reaching consensus across coalitions. Finally, special care must be taken to ensure that patient-centred policy goals, such as social integration, are not set aside in favour of other goals.

Analysis of different preferences for the EU's regulatory options for endocrine disruptor identification criteria using argumentation theory.

What criteria are most suitable to identify endocrine disrupting substances (EDSs) for regulatory purposes in the EU? The results of the European Commission's public consultation, as part of the process to establish identification criteria for EDSs, show that different regulatory options are supported. Some respondents prefer an option including hazard characterization considerations, whereas others prefer an option that avoids these considerations and introduces several hazard-identification based weight-of-evidence categories. In this study, the argumentation underlying the different preferences for identification criteria are analyzed and compared using pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT). All responses of non-anonymous, national governments that submitted a response in English (n = 17) were included. Responses of other stakeholder organizations were included if a Google News search returned an opinionated presence in the media on the subject (n = 9). Five topical themes and 21 underlying issues were identified. The themes are 1) mechanistic understanding of EDSs, 2) regulatory considerations related to the identification of EDSs, 3) consistency with existing regulatory frameworks, and 4) evaluations of specific issues related to a category approach and 5) related to including potency. We argue that two overarching (implicit) 'advocacy coalitions' can be discerned, that adopted contrasting positions towards the identified themes and issues. Among these 'coalitions', there appears to be consensus about the necessity of having 'science-based' criteria, though different perspectives exist as to what the most accurate mechanistic understanding of EDSs entails. To move the discussion forward, we argue that a societal dialogue would be beneficial, where EDS science and regulation are discussed as interrelated themes.

A política nas políticas de acesso à informação brasileiras: trajetória e coalizões / La política en las políticas de acceso a la información brasileñas: trayectoria y coaliciones / The politics of Brazil's access to information policies: history and coalitions

Resumo Como as diversas iniciativas legislativas sobre acesso à informação no Brasil culminaram na aprovação da Lei n. 12.527 (Lei de Acesso à Informação [LAI], 2011)? A partir da abordagem de coalizões de defesa (advocacy coalitions framework - ACF), este artigo analisa a formação de agenda e a atuação de diferentes coalizões, por meio da análise de amplo clipping de notícias, entrevistas, leis e documentos publicados entre 2001 e 2012. Foram identificadas duas coalizões: a) uma a favor de mudanças na legislação, composta por setores do Poder Executivo, do Poder Legislativo, da mídia e da sociedade civil; e b) outra a favor da manutenção de regras restritivas de acesso à informação, composta por Forças Armadas, Itamaraty e Comissão de Relações Exteriores e Defesa Nacional (CRE) do Senado. Identificou-se, também, a superposição de dois subsistemas de políticas públicas: a) o de transparência; e b) o de reconciliação. Este último monopolizou o debate público sobre o tema, contribuindo para a morosidade na aprovação da LAI (2011). O Itamaraty também emerge como autor de forte lobby contra modificações nas regras de classificação de documentos, por motivos ainda a explorar em profundidade.

Resumen ¿Cómo las diversas iniciativas legislativas sobre acceso a la información en Brasil culminaron en la aprobación de la ley n.o 12.527 [Ley de Acceso a la Información (LAI), 2011)]? Utilizando el marco de coaliciones de causa (advocacy coalitions framework - ACF), este artículo analiza la formación de agenda y la actuación de diferentes coaliciones por medio del análisis de amplio clipping de noticias, entrevistas, leyes y documentos entre 2001 y 2012. Se identificaron dos coaliciones: una a favor de cambios en la legislación, compuesta por sectores del Ejecutivo, Legislativo, medios de comunicación y sociedad civil; y otra a favor del mantenimiento de reglas restrictivas de acceso a la información, compuesta por las Fuerzas Armadas, Itamaraty (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Brasil) y la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores y Defensa Nacional del Senado. Se identificó también la superposición de dos subsistemas de políticas públicas, el de transparencia y el de reconciliación. Este último monopolizó el debate público sobre el tema, contribuyendo a la morosidad en la aprobación de la Ley de Acceso a la Información. El Itamaraty también emerge como autor de fuerte lobby contra modificaciones en las reglas de clasificación de documentos, por motivaciones aún por investigar.

Abstract How did the various legislative initiatives on access to information in Brazil culminate in the 12.527/11 federal law? Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework, this article analyzes the agenda setting and strategies of different coalitions, analyzing a broad array of news, interviews, laws, and official documents between 2001 and 2012. Two coalitions were identified: one in favor of changes in legislation, comprised of sectors of the Executive, legislative, the media and civil society; and another in favor of the maintenance of restrictive rules of access to information, composed of Armed Forces, Itamaraty (Brazil's diplomatic corps) and the Senate's Legislative Commission on Defense and Foreign Affairs. The article also identifies an overlap of two public policy subsystems: the transparency subsystem and the reconciliation one. The latter monopolized the public debate on the subject, contributing to the slowness in approving a transparency law. Itamaraty also emerges as the author of a strong lobby against changes in the rules for document classification, for reasons yet to be studied.

Advocacy coalitions and the transfer of nutrition policy to Zambia.

Stunted growth in children and multisectoral action to address it are dominant ideas in the international nutrition community today, and this study finds that these ideas are increasingly evident over time in nutrition policy in Zambia, with stunting largely displacing other framings of nutrition. This study is based on key informant interviews (70 interviews with 61 interviewees), policy document review, and social network mapping, with iterative data collection and analysis taking place over 6 years (2011-2016). Analysis was based on two established political science theories: policy transfer theory and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy changes in Zambia are shown to result from the international community's nutrition agenda, transferred to national policy through the normative promotion of certain ways of understanding the issue of malnutrition, largely propagated through advocacy, technical assistance and funding. With its focus on multisectoral action to reduce stunting, the recent nutrition policy narrative impinges directly on an existing food security narrative as it attempts to alter agriculture policy away from maize reliance. The nutrition policy sub-system in Zambia is therefore split between an international coalition promoting action on child stunting, and a national coalition focused on food security and hunger, with implications for both sides on progressing a coherent policy agenda. This study finds that it is possible to understand policy processes for nutrition more fully than has so far been achieved in much nutrition literature through the application of multiple political science theories. These theories allow the generalization of findings from this case study to assess their relevance in other contexts: the study ultimately is about the transfer of policy being explained by the presence of advocacy coalitions and their different beliefs, resources and power, and these concepts can be investigated wherever the nutrition system reaches down from international to national level.

Coalizões de advocacia e estratégias de negociação na revisão do Código Florestal / Coaliciones de causa y estrategias de negociación en la revisión del Código Forestal Brasileño / Advocacy coalitions and negotiation strategies in the revision of the forest code

Resumo Este artigo analisa as coalizões de advocacia (meio ambiente e agricultura) estabelecidas durante a revisão do Código Florestal brasileiro e as principais estratégias de negociação adotadas. Entrevistas, análise de documentos e notícias de jornais de grande circulação possibilitaram captar como os gestores do Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA) e do Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (Mapa) lideraram tais coalizões. A teoria do Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) foi utilizada na análise das coalizões. Os resultados demonstram que esses ministérios recorreram à negociação como estratégia principal. A coalizão agricultura também investiu em informação científica, ao passo que a coalizão meio ambiente investiu em mobilização social.

Resumen El trabajo tiene como objetivo analizar las coaliciones de causa (medio ambiente y agricultura) establecidas durante la revisión del Código Forestal Brasileño y las estrategias de negociación principales que se utilizan. Entrevistas, análisis de documentos y de los principales periódicos de noticias permiten captar como gestores de los ministerios de Medio Ambiente (MMA) y de Agricultura, Ganadería y Abastecimiento (Mapa) lideraron estas coaliciones. La teoría de advocacy coalition framework (ACF) se utiliza para el análisis de las coaliciones. Los resultados mostraron que ambos ministerios utilizan la negociación como estrategia principal. La coalición agricultura invirtió en información científica, mientras que la coalición medio ambiente invirtió en movilización social.

Abstract This study aims to analyze the advocacy coalitions (classified as 'environment' and 'agriculture') established during the revision of the Brazilian Forest Code and the main negotiation strategies used. Interviews, analysis of documents and newspaper' reports allowed capturing how the managers of the Ministries of Environment (MMA) and Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (Mapa) led these coalitions. Coalition analysis used the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Results showed both ministries used negotiation as their main strategy. The agriculture coalition invested in scientific information, while environment coalition carried out social mobilization.

"Lives in the balance": The politics of integration in the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health.

A decade ago, the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (PMNCH) was established to combat the growing fragmentation of global health action into uncoordinated, issue-specific efforts. Inspired by dominant global public-private partnerships for health, the PMNCH brought together previously competing advocacy coalitions for safe motherhood and child survival and attracted support from major donors, foundations and professional bodies. Today, its founders highlight its achievements in generating priority for 'MNCH', encouraging integrated health systems thinking and demonstrating the value of collaboration in global health endeavours. Against this dominant discourse on the success of the PMNCH, this article shows that rhetoric in support of partnership and integration often masks continued structural drivers and political dynamics that bias the global health field towards vertical goals. Drawing on ethnographic research, this article examines the Safe Motherhood Initiative's evolution into the PMNCH as a response to the competitive forces shaping the current global health field. Despite many successes, the PMNCH has struggled to resolve historically entrenched programmatic and ideological divisions between the maternal and child health advocacy coalitions. For the Safe Motherhood Initiative, the cost of operating within an extremely competitive policy arena has involved a partial renouncement of ambitions to broader social transformations in favour of narrower, but feasible and 'sellable' interventions. A widespread perception that maternal health remains subordinated to child health even within the Partnership has elicited self-protective responses from the safe motherhood contingent. Ironically, however, such responses may accentuate the kind of fragmentation to global health governance, financing and policy solutions that the Partnership was intended to challenge. The article contributes to the emerging critical ethnographic literature on global health initiatives by highlighting how integration may only be possible with a more radical conceptualization of global health governance.

"Playing the numbers game": evidence-based advocacy and the technocratic narrowing of the Safe Motherhood Initiative.

Based on an ethnography of the international Safe Motherhood Initiative (SMI), this article charts the rise of evidence-based advocacy (EBA), a term global-level maternal health advocates have used to indicate the use of scientific evidence to bolster the SMI's authority in the global health arena. EBA represents a shift in the SMI's priorities and tactics over the past two decades, from a call to promote poor women's health on the grounds of feminism and social justice (entailing broad-scale action) to the enumeration of much more narrowly defined practices to avert maternal deaths whose outcomes and cost effectiveness can be measured and evaluated. Though linked to the growth of an audit- and business-oriented ethos, we draw from anthropological theory of global forms to argue that EBA-or "playing the numbers game"-profoundly affects nearly every facet of evidence production, bringing about ambivalent reactions and a contested technocratic narrowing of the SMI's policy agenda.

Do supranational EU institutions make a difference? EU asylum law before and after 'communitarization'.

This article examines whether the empowerment of the European Union's (EU) supranational institutions has had an impact on the development of EU asylum. By systematically investigating EU asylum law before and after 'communitarization', it argues that its 'policy core' has maintained a high degree of continuity. An advocacy coalition under the leadership of the interior ministers managed to co-opt pivotal actors in the newly empowered European Commission and European Parliament. By contenting themselves with changes of secondary order, these EU institutions accepted and institutionalized the restrictive and weakly integrated core of EU asylum set by the Council in the first negotiation round. Their role and decisions were driven not only by the negotiation dynamics and political expediency, but also by new inter- and intra-institutional norms fostering consensual practices.