A Comparative Policy Analysis of Coalition Strategies: Case Studies of Nuclear Energy and Forest Management in India

Abstract

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has long argued that the choice of coalition strategies in pursuit of additional allies and resources to influence policy change is a crucial part of the policy process. However, scholars are only beginning to understand the underlying forces that impact on coalition behavior. Using case studies of nuclear energy and forest management subsystems in India, this article explores how coalition opportunity structures (COS) at the subsystem level impact on coalition strategies. It analyzes how coalitions function within different institutional and policy contexts and why they choose one strategy over another. Findings indicate that centralized policy subsystems with restricted access to decision-making venues lead coalitions to adopt confrontational strategies designed to disrupt the subsystem status quo, whereas decentralized policy subsystems with increased access to decision-making lead coalitions to adopt assimilative strategies designed to work within the subsystem status quo.

Keywords:

• India
• Advocacy Coalition Framework
• coalition opportunity structures
• nuclear energy
• forest management

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Chris Weible, Adam Henry, Daniel Nohrstedt, and Karin Ingold for their helpful comments and feedback on early iterations of this article. I would also like to thank Joseph Ripberger, Sarah Trousset, Hank Jenkins-Smith, Carol Silva, Deven Carlson and the entire Rodmockers group for their feedback and suggestions; their support made this possible.

Notes

^1. In addition to strategies that coalitions pursue, other research has analyzed the influence of COS on coalition formation and policy change (Gupta 2013).

^2. This conception of unique subsystem-level COS and their influence on coalition strategies is reminiscent of the argument made by Jeremy Richardson (1982) and Gary Freeman (1985) in the field of comparative public policy. The authors argued that in addition to focusing on “national” styles of policymaking, scholars should pay attention how different “sub-national” policy sectors shape the politics surrounding them and the policy outcomes that result from these policy styles.

^3. For more on resource-mobilization and social protest, see McCarthy and Zald (1977).

^4. The other proposed sites include Kakrapar in Gujarat and Rawatbhata in Rajasthan.

^5. “A Brief on Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project”, accessed via the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited’s webpage, available at: http://www.npcil.nic.in/main/A_Brief_on_JNPP.pdf.

^6. Looking at the impact these strategies have had on the siting process is an interesting empirical question, but it remains outside the scope of this study.

^7. The “coalition” is characterized by its belief that state-owned forests rightly belong to the people, and thus should be handed over to them. However, because of the localized nature of this policy issue, the actual coalitions were composed of different local actors in various forested zones throughout India.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kuhika Gupta

Kuhika Gupta is a Post-Doctoral Research Associate at the Center for Energy, Security, and Society (CESS) at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma.