External shocks and policy change in different coalition opportunity structures

ABSTRACT

Since its introduction in the late 1980s, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has undergone three revisions in 1993, 1998, and 2007. The 2007 revision has contributed to expanding the applicability of the ACF to policy processes in both pluralistic and nonpluralistic political systems by creating a new category of variables called the coalition opportunity structure. Using a case study of nuclear energy in South Korea, which experienced a transition of the coalition opportunity structure from authoritarian to pluralist in the late 1980s, this study explores the mediating role of coalition opportunity structures in the relationship between an external shock and policy change. The findings indicate that contrary to what the ACF predicts, external shocks are exploited by a dominant coalition to further strengthen its power in the policy process in an authoritarian structure. External shocks do not have the same effect on policy subsystems in different coalition opportunity structures, and the relationship between an external shock and policy change is not a simple stimulus-response reaction. In addition, by contrasting the effect of an external shock in an authoritarian structure with that in a pluralist structure, this study explores how an external shock can function as a pathway to policy change as the ACF predicts.

KEYWORDS:

• Advocacy coalition framework
• coalition opportunity structures
• external shocks
• policy change
• Korean nuclear energy

View correction statement:

Correction

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. A seven-point scale is used to evaluate political rights and civil liberties. The highest ranking country (recorded as 1–1) is considered as having the highest degree of democracy. Countries with an average of 2.5 or less are considered free, and those with ratings from 4.25 to 6.5 are classified as electoral authoritarian systems.

2. Holding an election is a necessary but not sufficient condition for democracy. An election can only function as an indicator of democracy when it is competitive, free, and fair so that the public is given the ability to choose their leader among candidates (Schumpeter, 1947; Sørensen, 2010).

3. Even several developed countries with strong anti-nuclear movements, such as Germany, Sweden, and Italy, seemed to be moving away from their earlier decisions to phase out their nuclear plants and were discussing the expansion of the use of nuclear power (Joskow & Parsons, 2012).

4. The construction of eight or nine more plants was planned to increase nuclear capacity (Ministry of Knowledge Economy, 2008).

5. Their nuclear steam supply systems (NSSS) and turbine generators (TG), which are worth about USD 1.25 billion, or 24% of the total construction cost, had already been ordered before the accident (see Appendix A).

6. In addition to the 2013 Fukushima nuclear accident, the Korean public was also shocked by an earthquake of Mw 5.8 in Gyeongju in September 2016, where four nuclear plants were operated and two plants had been constructed. Also, 3.82 million people lived within a 30 km radius of the four plants. The Gyeongju earthquake alerted Korean citizens to the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe like the 2013 Fukushima accident happening in South Korea. Even though it is not investigated in this study, the 2013 Gyeongju earthquake is another variable causing policy change, by influencing the deliberative polling in October 2017.

7. Chernobyl is about 4,500 miles away from South Korea, and TMI 6,800 miles.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Changgeun Yun

Changgeun Yun is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Administration at Ajou University, South Korea. His research focuses on diversity management, organization theory, and public policy theories.