Network, organizational, and policy learning literatures indicate that when interest groups face failure they will seek out alternative ideas and strategies that will enhance their potential for future success. Research with regard to interest groups and legal change has found that interest groups, using arguments that were once accepted as the legal standard for Supreme Court decisions, were unwilling or unable to alter their arguments when the Court reversed its position on these legal standards. This research project examined the conflicting findings of these literatures. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework as a guide, this project studied the separationist advocacy coalition in cases regarding state aid to elementary and secondary sectarian schools from 1971 to 2002. The legal briefs filed by members of the separationist advocacy coalition with the Court were examined using content analysis to track changes in their legal arguments. Elite interviews were then conducted to gain an understanding of the rationale for results found in the content analysis. The research expectation was that the separationist advocacy coalition would seek out and incorporate into their briefs new and innovative legal arguments to promote their policy goals. The research results demonstrated that prior to legal change interest groups did seek out and incorporate new legal arguments borrowed from other fora and sought to expand or reinterpret established legal arguments to better aid their policy goals. The changes that seemed to have the potential for adoption by the Court were quickly incorporated into the briefs of the other members of the coalition. Following legal change interest groups continued to analyze the decisions of the Court in order to seek out the best possible legal arguments to use in their briefs; however, the main focus of legal arguments examined and used by the coalition narrowed to those cited by the swing justice in the funding cases. Two innovative arguments were developed, but were either ignored or considered unsuitable, and were not used by the other members of the coalition. Counter to this project's research expectations new and innovative legal arguments were not adopted by the coalition. As the Court discontinued the use of various legal arguments the coalition quickly responded to these changes and dropped those obsolete legal arguments. Therefore, contrary to prior research, the interest groups and the coalition altered their arguments following legal change. Only those interest groups who no longer participated in coalition discussions reverted back to using pre-legal change arguments. Learning continued to occur in the coalition following legal change; however, the focus of analysis and the pool of arguments deemed worthy of use narrowed considerably. / Ph. D.

<p>This dissertation consists of three interrelated essays examining the role of crisis events in Swedish nuclear energy policymaking. The study takes stock of the idea of ‘crisis exceptionalism’ raised in the literature, which postulates that crisis events provide openings for major policy change. In an effort to explain crisis-induced outcomes in Swedish nuclear energy policy, each essay explores and develops theoretical assumptions derived from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). The introduction discusses the ACF and other theoretical perspectives accentuating the role of crisis in policymaking and identifies three explanations for crisis-induced policy outcomes: minority coalition mobilization, learning, and strategic action. Essay I analyzes the nature and development of the Swedish nuclear energy subsystem. The results contradict the ACF assumption that corporatist systems nurture narrow subsystems and small advocacy coalitions, but corroborate the assumption that advocacy coalitions remain stable over time. While this analysis identifies temporary openings in policymaking venues and in the advocacy coalition structure, it is argued that these developments did not affect crisis policymaking. Essay II seeks to explain the decision to initiate a referendum on nuclear power following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Internal government documents and other historical records indicate that strategic considerations superseded learning as the primary explanation in this case. Essay III conducts an in-depth examination of Swedish policymaking in the aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl accident in an effort to explain the government’s decision not to accelerate the nuclear power phaseout. Recently disclosed government documents show that minority coalition mobilization was insufficient to explain this decision. In this case, rational learning and strategic action provided a better explanation. The main theoretical contribution derived from the three essays is to posit the intensity and breadth of political conflict, strategic action, and analogical reasoning as key factors affecting the propensity for crisis-induced policy change.</p>

This dissertation consists of three interrelated essays examining the role of crisis events in Swedish nuclear energy policymaking. The study takes stock of the idea of ‘crisis exceptionalism’ raised in the literature, which postulates that crisis events provide openings for major policy change. In an effort to explain crisis-induced outcomes in Swedish nuclear energy policy, each essay explores and develops theoretical assumptions derived from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). The introduction discusses the ACF and other theoretical perspectives accentuating the role of crisis in policymaking and identifies three explanations for crisis-induced policy outcomes: minority coalition mobilization, learning, and strategic action. Essay I analyzes the nature and development of the Swedish nuclear energy subsystem. The results contradict the ACF assumption that corporatist systems nurture narrow subsystems and small advocacy coalitions, but corroborate the assumption that advocacy coalitions remain stable over time. While this analysis identifies temporary openings in policymaking venues and in the advocacy coalition structure, it is argued that these developments did not affect crisis policymaking. Essay II seeks to explain the decision to initiate a referendum on nuclear power following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Internal government documents and other historical records indicate that strategic considerations superseded learning as the primary explanation in this case. Essay III conducts an in-depth examination of Swedish policymaking in the aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl accident in an effort to explain the government’s decision not to accelerate the nuclear power phaseout. Recently disclosed government documents show that minority coalition mobilization was insufficient to explain this decision. In this case, rational learning and strategic action provided a better explanation. The main theoretical contribution derived from the three essays is to posit the intensity and breadth of political conflict, strategic action, and analogical reasoning as key factors affecting the propensity for crisis-induced policy change.

U.S. military bases and installations represent trillions of dollars of capital investment towards the nation’s defense infrastructure. The Department of Defense, in its response to the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union in the 1980s, sought to reorganize and optimize this basing infrastructure to meet the emerging threats of the 21st century. A series of nationwide Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) efforts were chartered by Congress to facilitate this task, identifying hundreds of obsolete or unneeded military installations. During the last BRAC effort in 2005, the Naval Support Activity New Orleans was targeted for closure, with its U.S. Navy and Marine Corps tenants to be reassigned elsewhere. In response to this threat, a group of retired military and civilian elites formed a non-profit entity known as the New Orleans Federal Alliance (NOFA), chartered to lobby the BRAC Commission to salvage the West Bank portion of the NSA from closure and establish a new mixed use, public-private Federal City complex in its stead. The purpose of this study was to examine the life cycle of NOFA and its partners in the context of the Federal City project over a ten year period. Interviews of key personnel involved with this coalition revealed remarkable insight into the characteristics associated with its formation, mobilization, sustainment, and fragmentation. The data illustrated the delicate relationship between the military history of New Orleans and its unique culture, and how that culture influenced actor behavior through the varied governing subsystems in the region. As one would expect, local politics dominated the adverse dynamic of the coalition’s solvency, heightened significantly in national visibility by the effects of Hurricane Katrina. The result was the dissolution of the NOFA-centered coalition and the failure of the Federal City project to achieve full maturity.

Since the end of the Cold War, the Department of Defense (DoD) has been challenged to formulate and make strategic decisions, especially in areas related to the Department's "business operations." Strategic decisions are those that focus on setting long-term organizational direction. This has proven difficult because a rather simplistic (and somewhat comforting) DoD organizational orientation toward an "either/or" or "us versus them" decision-making mindset that was once ubiquitous and appropriate, given the nature of political and military threats, has been hard to shake. This study reviews a particular manifestation of this dilemma: the decision-making arrangements associated with the provision of military depot maintenance services. An historical review of this topic shows a mixture of problems, progress, and promise. A strategic decision-making approach that draws upon Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith's Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is proposed to improve the situation. It addresses key problems identified in the analysis and rests upon an approach to strategic decision making that is politically rational in nature. This approach, called a Strategic Improvement Agenda, is offered as a potential foil to the "us versus them" orientation. / Ph. D.

This study of the adoption and diffusion of paid sick leave laws in New Jersey has been designed to examine the spread of the policy between local governments and then the subsequent adoption of the policy by the state. In New Jersey, PSL was first adopted by Jersey City in 2013. Following that adoption, 12 other New Jersey municipalities adopted PSL. In 2018, a law was passed by the state that then voided all the municipal laws and replaced them with a statewide policy. Through a mixed methods research design, this study seeks to better understand the circumstances surrounding PSL. First, a logistic regression model was used to determine the characteristics that are associated with PSL adoption on the local level. Second, case studies were conducted for three adopting cities, Jersey City, Newark, and Morristown to better understand the political forces that facilitated the adoption and diffusion of PSL. Lastly, this study examined the adoption of PSL on the state level to better understand how the actions of governments on the local level affected the actions of the state government. The logistic regression found that large cities, cities with a higher percentage of minorities, cities with a mayor-council form of government, and cities with a higher Gini coefficient were more likely to adopt PSL. In contrast to the findings of the logistic regression, the case studies revealed that the cities that adopted PSL were heavily Democratic and elected officials identified progressiveness as a motivator for adopting this policy. This research used qualitative methods to evaluate how policy diffusion occurred and who facilitated this process. Through interviews, this research revealed the influence of policy advocates in helping to spread PSL to many New Jersey municipalities. An advocacy coalition named New Jersey Time to Care pursued what they termed the municipal approach. The political dynamics in the New Jersey state government prevented a statewide law from being adopted. Given this fact, the coalition pursued multiple municipal laws in order to help New Jerseyans receive paid sick leave benefits and to help build momentum for a statewide law when a change in political dynamics would allow for it. / Doctor of Philosophy / In recent years, many state and local governments have adopted paid sick leave laws. These laws require private businesses to allow their employees to earn and utilize paid sick days. This dissertation examines the jurisdictions in New Jersey that have adopted paid sick leave. It finds that large cities with a high percentage of minorities, a high level of income inequality, and a mayor-council form of government are more likely to adopt paid sick leave laws. This research also examines how advocacy groups influence elected officials in the policymaking process. Policy advocates built public support for the law and engaged in lobbying activities with elected officials. As they lobbied for the law, they presented city councils pre-drafted legislation that was then adopted by the city councils.

Nanotechnology, the scientific study of manipulating matter on an atomic scale (1 to 100 nanometers) that provides new properties in materials and devices had received considerable research attention and public funding support during the last decade in the US. This emerging technology promises to improve the competitiveness of most of the US industrial sectors. Malerba (2004) an innovation system researcher has developed the theoretical framework "Sectoral System of Innovation (SSI)" to study the process by which new technologies and knowledge are produced and transferred to industrial sectors, where actors interact based on an institutional framework to generate innovation processes. In this dissertation I studied the agriculture and food processing sector, which is a key sector of the US economy that has provided with enough food for the US population, but in an unsustainable way that has harmed the environment, natural resources and human health. The US agrifood sector is facing new challenges of increasing food demand, which need to be addressed in a more sustainable way that takes consideration on economic, environment, and social aspects. The main questions that this dissertation research focuses on studying how much attention the public nanotechnology agrifood research agenda has paid to sustainability issues during the last decade in the US and what role has played the system's actors in influencing this research agenda. The analysis of the policy process in which system's actors try to influence the research agenda is framed in the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier 1993) that complemented the Sectoral System of Innovation approach in studying the formation of advocacy groups to achieve their coalition's policy goals. Three data sources were utilized to achieve my research goals, the CNS-ASU nanotechnology publications dataset 2000-2010(Porter A, Youtie J et al. 2007; De Bellis 2009)which was used to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the agrifood nanotechnology research publications in the US, semi-structured interviews with key actors and their interaction in advocacy coalition groups, and a literature review of several official documents and public hearing with respect to the US nanotechnology system to evaluate the influence of advocacy groups in the policy process. Utilizing Vantage point data mining and Nvivo qualitative analysis software I conducted the data analysis of my research. The results show increasing research attention toward environmental research and food safety issues that can indirectly impact positively on sustainability development, as well as increasing research attention in studying environmental, health and safety issues (EHS) that can reduce potential risks. The analysis of actors' interaction to influence the policy process, two advocacy coalitions was identified. On one side, a coalition that advocate for more research funding oriented to applied research to achieve the potential that this coalition members believe this technology has to revolutionize the way food is produced giving more competitiveness to the US agrifood sector, this coalition is composed by researchers, federal agency managers and industry representatives. On the other side, a rival coalition that raise concerns respect to potential risks associated to this technology that required to be addressed by the public research agenda. This coalition mainly composed by environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other social actors claim for a regulatory framework that guarantee a nanotechnology development environmental friendly that benefit the society. The influence of these two coalitions have succeed in allocating more federal funding resources to research nanotechnology in the agrifood sector, with particular emphasis in EHS research that show the right path to a sustainable development that guarantee enough resources for the future generations.

Submitted by LAÍS FORTI THOMAZ null (laisthomaz@gmail.com) on 2016-04-12T13:33:59Z No. of bitstreams: 1 tese lais thomaz final ata assinada.pdf: 3704372 bytes, checksum: 4e20dd675716c0f747a36707e8f03e1c (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Felipe Augusto Arakaki (arakaki@reitoria.unesp.br) on 2016-04-13T17:06:36Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 thomaz_lf_dr_mar.pdf: 3704372 bytes, checksum: 4e20dd675716c0f747a36707e8f03e1c (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-13T17:06:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 thomaz_lf_dr_mar.pdf: 3704372 bytes, checksum: 4e20dd675716c0f747a36707e8f03e1c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-14 / Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) / No final de 2011, o Congresso dos Estados Unidos encerrou suas atividades sem renovar os principais subsídios federais à produção de etanol, criados nos anos 1970 e ampliados nas décadas seguintes. A pesquisa demonstra que esse resultado decorreu principalmente de mudanças nas coalizões de defesa dos subsídios, embora fatores externos às coalizões também tenham contribuído. Entre os fatores internos, destacam-se alterações nas estratégias e recursos das coalizões de defesa, bem como nos interesses, percepções e valores dos membros que são autoridades legais e podem influenciar na mudança de determinado programa. Entre os fatores externos destacam-se a conquista da liderança mundial na exportação do etanol pelos Estados Unidos em 2011, mudanças de coligações de governo advindas das eleições de 2010, mudanças na opinião pública no debate sobre biocombustíveis e alimentos, surgimento de novas alternativas energéticas e decisões de outros subsistemas, como os cortes orçamentários para diminuir o déficit público. A pesquisa se apoia no quadro analítico da advocacy coalitions framework, que oferece referências adequadas para a análise de mudanças em coalizões de defesa inseridas no subsistema político. Com base nesse quadro analítico, a metodologia da pesquisa destaca: mapeamento das estratégias das coalizões, entrevistas, análise documental e do conteúdo das leis, comparação de dados relativos às eleições e votações legislativas, comportamento das coalizões, doações a campanhas e ações de lobby. Embora apoiada em dados quantitativos, a análise é qualitativa, com ênfase na compreensão dos mecanismos causais, identificando ações desenvolvidas a partir dos estímulos externos para mudança nas coalizões. As análises desenvolvidas demonstram a prevalência dos fatores internos sobre os externos na mudança de posição do Congresso sobre o etanol. / The U.S. Congress created key federal incentives for ethanol production in the 1970s and expanded them throughout the following decades. In late 2011 they ended the legislative mandate without renewing these incentives. The research demonstrates that this result was mainly due to changes in coalitions defenses incentives, although external factors have also contributed to the coalitions. Among the internal factors, we highlight changes in the strategies and resources of advocacy coalitions, as well as the interests, perceptions and values of the members who are influential legal authorities who can change a program. Among the external factors we highlight the global leader in ethanol exports, reached in 2011, coalitions of government changes arising from the 2010 elections, changes in public opinion on the debate on biofuels and food, emergence of new energy alternatives and decisions generated in other subsystems, such as budget cuts to reduce the public deficit. The research is based on the theoretical framework of advocacy coalitions framework that provides appropriate references for the analysis of changes in advocacy coalitions entered into the political subsystem. Based on this theoretical framework, the methodology of the research highlight: mapping strategies and initiatives of coalitions; document analysis and legislative content; interviews, analysis of election contributions to campaigns and lobbying during the legislative polls. Although supported by quantitative data, the analysis is based in qualitative research, with emphasis on understanding the causal mechanisms, in order to identify actions developed from external stimuli for change in coalitions. The information and analyses demonstrate the prevalence of internal factors over the external events on the position change Congress on ethanol. / FAPESP: 2012/21975-7

Community forestry has become a prominent policy instrument over the past decades as a response to deforestation pressures and rural poverty. Its political implementation involves a complex process with a profound structural change - away from state-based forestry to locally based decision-making authority. The research analyzes the internal development among policy actors in order to understand how community forestry can emerge in a regional policy system. It explores three different case studies with distinct policy processes towards community forestry: an international development project (Ecuador: Esmeraldas), a grassroot environmental movement (Canada: British Columbia), and an institutional restructuring process (Mexico: Quintana Roo). The theoretical approach is based on the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). The ACF views policy change as a result of competing advocacy coalitions which act according to their policy beliefs. Policy change can be affected by internal changes (policy learning and changes of beliefs) or by external perturbations which affect the power constellation between the coalitions. Each policy process is analyzed over more than a decade, based on empirical data from semi-structured interviews with key actors and complemented by literature. The major actors and coalitions are identified, as well as their learning and changes of beliefs over time to understand their influence on the policy process. In summary, the research found that policy learning has a high importance for the internal development of community forestry policy, while often hidden behind the strong presence of an external perturbation. Although not as a singular force, policy learning has been shown to have a very potent role in enhancing, or sustaining, policy changes. Policy learning can have a stabilizing effect against adverse events, once the implementation process has started (Mexico). Policy learning can even generate the major momentum of change that unfolds when released by an external catalyst event (Canada). It can also, however, have a very limited influence, if not form an internal challenge to the implementation (Ecuador). It has been found that a change of policy beliefs is not a requirement for policy change in the early stages of community forestry, and cannot be indicated by visible changes in the policy network or local forestry arrangements. These might concern other adjustments of the actors to the changes, which do not reflect their substantial policy beliefs. The changes of policy beliefs in the three case studies show some similar patterns in the way the Community Forestry Coalition developed their policy goals over time, as well as in the way the State Forestry Coalition adjusted strategically to the new impact of the CFC on the network. The research discusses three distinct strategic approaches of the coalitions and their varying success.

This article analyzes the judicial behavior and the importance of judges in policy making in Peru regarding the case of the magistrates of the Constitutional Tribunal and its decisions regarding the morning after pill. We will focus our research on the shift in orientation of two veredicts issued by this judicial institution; one in favor of its state sponsored distribution (2006) and one against it (2009). In order to analyze the circumstances that led to this two different outcomes, we state that the morning after pill, a case of consciousness, made the judges decide based on their strategic alliances inside the tribunal or their own personal trajectories. In order to solve these dilemmas, the analysis of the kind of judges in the tribunal was crucial to understand the relationship between the elected judges and the interests of political parties in parliament. We believe that the shift in orientation of the veredicts lies in the fact that, for cases of consciousness, the Tribunal uses its sitting judges. / Este artículo analiza el comportamiento judicial y la creciente importancia de los jueces en la hechura de las políticas públicas en el Perú a partir del caso de los magistrados del Tribunal Constitucional y sus decisiones frente a la píldora del día siguiente. Nos enfocaremos en el cambio de orientación de dos sentencias emitidas por la máxima institución judicial ante la misma política; por un lado, a favor de su distribución desde el Estado (2006) y, por el otro, en contra (2009). Para analizar los factores que llevaron a este resultado sostenemos que la píldora del día siguiente, al ser un caso de conciencia, les planteó a los jueces la disyuntiva de decidir a partir de un comportamiento estratégico, de acuerdo con las tendencias dominantes al interior del tribunal o haciendo prevalecer sus trayectorias personales. Para resolver estos dilemas, el tipo de jueces que componía el tribunal resultó crucial por lo que exploraremos cómo se configuraron estas composiciones a partir de las bancadas parlamentarias y qué tipo de jueces resultaron electos (de trayectorias públicas u opacas). Sostenemos que el cambio se explicaría porque, para los casos de conciencia, el Tribunal Constitucional utiliza a sus jueces de turno y las reglas así lo permiten.