The transition from an industrial to a global knowledge-based economy has put universities in the spotlight of public policies as the new drivers of innovation and sustained economic growth. Consequently, societal expectations towards the academic community have changed and so has, under the influence of neo-liberal ideas, the public governance of higher education. This is particularly true in federalist systems, such as Germany, Australia and the European Union, where the roles of each government level in governing the higher education sector had to be renegotiated and clarified. In Canada, however, despite repeated recommendations by policymakers, scholars and international organisations, the respective responsibilities have not yet been clarified and, to date, there are still no mechanisms to coordinate the post-secondary education policies of the federal and provincial governments. This paper inquires into the reasons for this exception. In the academic literature, this has generally been explained in terms of Canada’s uniqueness with respect to its federalist system and the decentralized higher education sector. We attempt to go beyond this traditional federalism, state-centered approach, which is predominant in the Canadian higher education literature. Instead, based on interviews and official documents and inspired by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we shall be looking at the belief systems of the major actors in the policy process and the degree of coordination among them. Our analysis comes to the conclusion that, on the one hand, proponents of a pan-Canadian approach are divided over their fundamental beliefs regarding the compatibility of inclusiveness and excellence. Some argue that the federal government must legislate common standards to ensure equal opportunities for all Canadians. Others propose a New Governance-inspired approach to create a differentiated and competitive university sector that meets the demands of the global knowledge-based economy more efficiently. On the other hand, even though the provinces differ in their beliefs regarding the equal opportunity versus economic efficiency debate, they share the same strong belief with respect to the role of the federal government. According to this view, post-secondary education is exclusively a provincial responsibility and the role of the federal government is solely to help them ‘fix the problems’. Moreover, contrary to the proponents of more intergovernmental collaboration, the provinces have successfully strengthened the coordination among themselves to block further perceived federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction. We come to the conclusion that the absence of intergovernmental mechanisms to govern post-secondary education is a consequence of the diverging belief systems and the establishment of formal coordination structures among the provinces to block – as they perceive - further federal intrusions. Also, there is less of a sense of urgency to act compared to, say, health care. Finally, remembering the near-separation of Quebec in 1995, there is very little appetite to reopen the constitutional debates. Therefore, based on our analysis, we argue that contrary to suggestions by some higher education scholars, the establishment of intergovernmental coordinating mechanisms appears unlikely in the near future.

A case study of the first 35 years, 1945 to 1980, of the Swedish nuclear institution. The purpose is to discover which actors that have shaped the Swedish nuclear institution. By using the theories of historical institutionalism and advocacy coalition framework I have analyzed these 35 years in three separate parts. Historical institutionalism puts emphasis on the creation of an institution, and so have I. The creation phase goes from 1945 to 1972. The following two parts are critical junctures that spans the years 1973-1978 and 1978-1980. The first critical juncture deals with the Centre Party's reversal in their opinion on nuclear power, the 1976 election and the outcome of that election. The third juncture starts with the Harrisburg accident and ends after the 1980 referendum. Using the advocacy coalition framework to analyze the actions or actors and coalitions during these three phases, I have come to the conclusion that the industry actors, those that have built the reactors, have been the most successful in pushing their coalition's agendas, over the years. Their influence was considerable during the years of institutional creation, while the coalitions that opposed nuclear power were quite weak during this time frame, which is consistent with historical institutionalism's focus on the creation, and path dependence.

The transition from an industrial to a global knowledge-based economy has put universities in the spotlight of public policies as the new drivers of innovation and sustained economic growth. Consequently, societal expectations towards the academic community have changed and so has, under the influence of neo-liberal ideas, the public governance of higher education. This is particularly true in federalist systems, such as Germany, Australia and the European Union, where the roles of each government level in governing the higher education sector had to be renegotiated and clarified. In Canada, however, despite repeated recommendations by policymakers, scholars and international organisations, the respective responsibilities have not yet been clarified and, to date, there are still no mechanisms to coordinate the post-secondary education policies of the federal and provincial governments. This paper inquires into the reasons for this exception. In the academic literature, this has generally been explained in terms of Canada’s uniqueness with respect to its federalist system and the decentralized higher education sector. We attempt to go beyond this traditional federalism, state-centered approach, which is predominant in the Canadian higher education literature. Instead, based on interviews and official documents and inspired by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we shall be looking at the belief systems of the major actors in the policy process and the degree of coordination among them. Our analysis comes to the conclusion that, on the one hand, proponents of a pan-Canadian approach are divided over their fundamental beliefs regarding the compatibility of inclusiveness and excellence. Some argue that the federal government must legislate common standards to ensure equal opportunities for all Canadians. Others propose a New Governance-inspired approach to create a differentiated and competitive university sector that meets the demands of the global knowledge-based economy more efficiently. On the other hand, even though the provinces differ in their beliefs regarding the equal opportunity versus economic efficiency debate, they share the same strong belief with respect to the role of the federal government. According to this view, post-secondary education is exclusively a provincial responsibility and the role of the federal government is solely to help them ‘fix the problems’. Moreover, contrary to the proponents of more intergovernmental collaboration, the provinces have successfully strengthened the coordination among themselves to block further perceived federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction. We come to the conclusion that the absence of intergovernmental mechanisms to govern post-secondary education is a consequence of the diverging belief systems and the establishment of formal coordination structures among the provinces to block – as they perceive - further federal intrusions. Also, there is less of a sense of urgency to act compared to, say, health care. Finally, remembering the near-separation of Quebec in 1995, there is very little appetite to reopen the constitutional debates. Therefore, based on our analysis, we argue that contrary to suggestions by some higher education scholars, the establishment of intergovernmental coordinating mechanisms appears unlikely in the near future.

This study assesses the value of two analytical models explaining particular contemporary political events. This is undertaken through the comparative evaluation of two international models: the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Rhodes’s model of Governance. These approaches are evaluated against an single case study: the censorship of computer network (“online”) content in Australia. Through comparison evaluation, criticism, and reformulation, these approaches are presented as useful tools of policy analysis in Australia. / The first part of the thesis presents the theoretical basis of the research and the methodologies employed to apply them. It begins by examining how the disciplines of political science and public policy have focused on the role of politically-active “interest”, groups in the process of policy development and implementation. This focus has lead to ideas about the role of the state actors in policy making, and attempts to describe and explain the interface between public and private groups in developing and implementing public policies. These, largely British and American, theories have impacted upon Australian researchers who have applied these ideas to local conditions. The majority of this part, however, is spent introducing the two research approaches: Paul Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalitions Framework and Rod Rhodes’s theory of Governance. Stemming from dissatisfaction with research into implementation, Sabatier’s framework attempts to show how competing clusters of groups and individuals compete for policy “wins” in a discrete subsystem by using political strategies to effect favourable decisions and information to change the views of other groups. Governance, on the other hand, attempts to apply Rhodes’s observations to the changing nature of the British state (and by implication other liberal democracies) to show the importance of self-organising networks of organisations who monopolise power and insulate the processes of decision making and implementation from the wider community and state organs. Finally, the methodologies of the thesis are presented, based on the preferred research methods of the two authors. / The second part introduces the case serving as the basis for evaluating the models, namely, censorship of the content of computer networks in Australia between 1987 and 2000. This case arises in the late 1980s with the computerisation of society and technological developments leading to the introduction of, first publicly-accessible computer bulletin boards, and then the technology of the Internet. From a small hobbyists’ concern, the uptake of this technology combined with wider censorship issues leads to the consideration of online content by Australian Governments, seeking a system of regulation to apply to this technology. As the emerging Internet becomes popularised, and in the face of adverse media attention on, especially pornographic, online content, during the mid to late 1990s two Federal governments establish a series of policy processes that eventually lead to the introduction of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999, a policy decision bringing online content into Australia’s intergovernmental censorship system. / The final part analyses the case study using the two theoretical approaches. What this shows is that, from the perspective of the Advocacy Coalition Framework, debate over online content does not form a substantive policy subsystem until 1995, and within this three, relatively stable, competing coalitions emerge, each pressuring for different levels of action and intervention (from no regulation, to a strong regulatory model). While conflict within the subsystem varied, overall the framework’s analysis shows the dominance of a coalition consisting largely of professional and business interests favouring a light, co-regulatory approach to online content. From the perspective of Governance, the issue of online content is subject to a range of intra- and inter-governmental conflict in the period 1995-7, finally settling into a negotiated position where a complex policy community emerges based largely on structurally-determined resource dependencies. What this means is that policy making in the case was not autonomous of state institutions, but highly dependent on institutional power relations. Overall, in comparing the findings it becomes apparent that the approaches lack the capacity to fully explain the role of key sovereigns, defined here as those individuals with legal authority over decision making in the policy process, because of their methodological and normative assumptions about the policy process. By showing these individuals as part of wider networks of power-dependencies, and exploring the complex bundle of real, pseudo, symbolic, and nonsense elements that make up a policy, the role of Ministers as “semi-sovereign sovereigns” can be accommodated in the two approaches.

This study examines the advocacy coalitions in Russia. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework, it looks at the power resource distribution amongst the coalitions, and how this distribution affects Russian foreign policy. The power resources examined are: Formal Legal Authority; Public Opinion; Information; Mobilizable Troops; and Financial Resources. In addition to this, the study used quantitative and qualitative methods to identify these resources. There are a couple of conclusions we may draw from this study. The method is useful in identifying power resources. It is not enough to use only the distribution of resources amongst coalitions in order to explain policy changes. It is found that the distribution of resources, coupled with coalition interaction, is enough to explain changes in Russian foreign policy.

The transition from an industrial to a global knowledge-based economy has put universities in the spotlight of public policies as the new drivers of innovation and sustained economic growth. Consequently, societal expectations towards the academic community have changed and so has, under the influence of neo-liberal ideas, the public governance of higher education. This is particularly true in federalist systems, such as Germany, Australia and the European Union, where the roles of each government level in governing the higher education sector had to be renegotiated and clarified. In Canada, however, despite repeated recommendations by policymakers, scholars and international organisations, the respective responsibilities have not yet been clarified and, to date, there are still no mechanisms to coordinate the post-secondary education policies of the federal and provincial governments. This paper inquires into the reasons for this exception. In the academic literature, this has generally been explained in terms of Canada’s uniqueness with respect to its federalist system and the decentralized higher education sector. We attempt to go beyond this traditional federalism, state-centered approach, which is predominant in the Canadian higher education literature. Instead, based on interviews and official documents and inspired by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we shall be looking at the belief systems of the major actors in the policy process and the degree of coordination among them. Our analysis comes to the conclusion that, on the one hand, proponents of a pan-Canadian approach are divided over their fundamental beliefs regarding the compatibility of inclusiveness and excellence. Some argue that the federal government must legislate common standards to ensure equal opportunities for all Canadians. Others propose a New Governance-inspired approach to create a differentiated and competitive university sector that meets the demands of the global knowledge-based economy more efficiently. On the other hand, even though the provinces differ in their beliefs regarding the equal opportunity versus economic efficiency debate, they share the same strong belief with respect to the role of the federal government. According to this view, post-secondary education is exclusively a provincial responsibility and the role of the federal government is solely to help them ‘fix the problems’. Moreover, contrary to the proponents of more intergovernmental collaboration, the provinces have successfully strengthened the coordination among themselves to block further perceived federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction. We come to the conclusion that the absence of intergovernmental mechanisms to govern post-secondary education is a consequence of the diverging belief systems and the establishment of formal coordination structures among the provinces to block – as they perceive - further federal intrusions. Also, there is less of a sense of urgency to act compared to, say, health care. Finally, remembering the near-separation of Quebec in 1995, there is very little appetite to reopen the constitutional debates. Therefore, based on our analysis, we argue that contrary to suggestions by some higher education scholars, the establishment of intergovernmental coordinating mechanisms appears unlikely in the near future.

This qualitative comparative case study examined factors related to politics that might explain the notably different active transportation (AT - walking, cycling, and public transit use) rates achieved in Helsinki, Finland (a leading European city in AT, where 77 per cent of people use primarily AT for daily transportation) and Ottawa, Canada (a leading North American city in AT, but where the AT rate is 28.5 per cent). Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) - a policy process theory - individual focused interviews were conducted with 47 active transportation experts from the two cities. Document review was employed as a secondary method. The results are discussed in three articles written for peer reviewed journals – the first two concentrating on the findings from Helsinki and Ottawa respectively, and the third article comparing the findings from both cities. Overall, differences stemming from the ACF category of relatively stable parameters (i.e., stable background-level factors) including land use, transportation planning traditions, and political systems were identified as likely important in explaining the discrepancy in AT rates.

Bostadsfrågan har blivit allt större då bristen av bostäder har spridit sig från större städer till mindre orter i landet. Lösningen på problemet är olika för de olika riksdagspartierna eftersom deras övertygelser ligger till grund för deras respektive policy. Genom att analysera dessa övertygelser kan möjliga koalitioner identifieras över en längre tid. Syftet med denna uppsats är att lyfta fram de olika policyer som partierna har genom att analysera deras valmanifest. Som teoretiskt ramverk används Advocacy Coalition Framework med fokus på Policy Core Belief. Som metod används en kvalitativ textanalys för att identifiera partiernas policy från deras valmanifest, motioner och propositioner. Resultatet visar att olika koalitioner har kunnat uppstå över en längre tid då partiernas Policy Core Belief har skiftat. Detta resultat belyser hur möjliga koalitioner kan uppstå och även att avsaknaden av förändring grundar sig i bristande samsyn på policyfrågor. Detta kan eventuellt förklaras med partiernas Deep Core Belief samt brist på en policyförändring, något som skulle kunna leda till fortsatt problematik längre fram i tiden.

Klimatförändringar innebär att Sverige i allt större utsträckning utsätts för problematik relaterat till havsnivåhöjningar, erosion, ras och skred, vilket kommer bli mer påtagliga i framtiden. Det finns alltså ett behov av att klimatanpassa svenska samhällen och det finns växande förväntningar att den fysiska planeringen ska kunna hantera och främja strategiskt nytänkande i klimatanpassningsfrågor. Idag finns flera metoder och strategier för hur klimatanpassning kan ta form, men det är främst så kallade hårda åtgärder, såsom vallar och murar, som verkställs i praktiken. Vad händer om en vall brister eller feldimensioneras? För att lösa denna problematik krävs nya tankesätt och typer av klimatanpassningsmetoder, såsom planerad reträtt, vilket krasst innebär att delar av samhället förflyttas bort från riskutsatta områden. Men planerad reträtt är nästan helt outforskat i en svensk kontext. Till följd av praktisk frånvaro råder förvirring kring metoden, vilket begränsar dess relevans och bidrar till det inte övervägs som en legitim klimatanpassningsmetod. Det finns alltså en deskripans mellan den svenska klimatanpassningsplaneringen och målsättningar om långsiktig resiliens. Därför finns det ett behov av att undersöka hur svensk planerings- och klimatanpassningspolicy förhåller sig till planerad reträtt och hur det kan bli en aktuell klimatanpassningsmetod. Denna uppsats ämnar att undersöka vilka förutsättningar som finns och behöver finnas för att planerad reträtt ska vara en aktuell klimatanpassningsstrategi i en svensk kontext, samt bredda kunskapen för beslutsfattande om förhållningssätt och ställningstagande i det fortsatta klimatanpassningsarbetet. Genom en kvalitativ innehållsanalys av intervjuer och dokument används Advocacy Coalition Framework för att analysera och kartlägga policyläget för planerad reträtt i en svensk kontext. Resultatet visar att en version av planerad reträtt redan bedrivs idag, men att det finns ett behov av formellt ansvarstagande och institutionsövergripande samarbete för att planerad reträtt ska bli en aktuell strategisk klimatanpassningsmetod i Sverige.

Since the introduction of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) as a public policy framework in the 1980s, much ACF literature has tried to develop policy-process theories by demonstrating how policy-network approaches can be combined with policy-process theories and by reviewing how group dynamics can influence policy outcomes. However, the limitations of previous ACF literature demand the need for this study to develop some conceptual steps for moving beyond the previous ACF approaches to produce better policy-process theories. This study focuses on three issues: (1) unit of analysis, (2) collective action in developing policy-process theories, and (3) the role of macro-level factors in applying policy-process theories to various cultural configurations.