TY - JOUR
T1 - Shared positions on divisive beliefs explain interorganizational collaboration
T2 - Evidence from climate change policy subsystems in eleven countries
AU - Karimo, Aasa
AU - Wagner, Paul M
AU - Delicado, Ana
AU - Goodman, James
AU - Gronow, Antti
AU - Lahsen, Myanna
AU - Lin, Tze-Luen
AU - Schneider, Volker
AU - Satoh, Keiichi
AU - Schmidt, Luisa
AU - Yun, Sun-Jin
AU - Ylä-Anttila, Tuomas
N1 - Funding information: This research was financially supported by the following institutions and grants: 1. Australia: The Social and Political Sciences Discipline, University of Technology Sydney 2. Brazil: The US National Science Foundation (grant no. 1544589) and the Brazilian Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) grant for the project “Science, Technology and Policy Studies” (CNPq 483099/2009-0) under the Brazilian National Institute for Science and Technology—Climate Change (INCT-MC). 3. Czech Republic: “Perspektivy evropské integrace v kontextu globální politiky” (MUNI/A/1240/2021) 4. Germany: The US National Science Foundation (grant no. 1544589) 5. Finland: Academy of Finland (Grant Nos. 332916 and 298819), the Kone Foundation (Grant No. 201805496) 6. Ireland: The Structured PhD in Simulation Science, Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions (PRTLI) Cycle 5 and European Regional Development Fund. 7. Japan: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [grant Nr. 22243036; 15H03406; 18H00919; 21H0077] 8. South Korea: National Research Foundation (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean Government (Ministry of Education, MOE) (NRF-2008-220-B00013) 9. Portugal: no external funding 10. Sweden: Swedish Research Council (Grant No. 2007-2363) 11. Taiwan: National Science Council of Taiwan (NSC 98-2621-M-002-022).
PY - 2022/7/21
Y1 - 2022/7/21
N2 - Collaboration between public administration organizations and various stakeholders is often prescribed as a potential solution to the current complex problems of governance, such as climate change. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, shared beliefs are one of the most important drivers of collaboration. However, studies investigating the role of beliefs in collaboration show mixed results. Some argue that similarity of general normative and empirical policy beliefs elicits collaboration, while others focus on beliefs concerning policy instruments. Proposing a new divisive beliefs hypothesis, we suggest that agreeing on those beliefs over which there is substantial disagreement in the policy subsystem is what matters for collaboration. Testing our hypotheses using policy network analysis and data on climate policy subsystems in eleven countries (Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Sweden, and Taiwan), we find belief similarity to be a stronger predictor of collaboration when the focus is divisive beliefs rather than normative and empirical policy beliefs or beliefs concerning policy instruments. This knowledge can be useful for managing collaborative governance networks because it helps to identify potential competing coalitions and to broker compromises between them.
AB - Collaboration between public administration organizations and various stakeholders is often prescribed as a potential solution to the current complex problems of governance, such as climate change. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, shared beliefs are one of the most important drivers of collaboration. However, studies investigating the role of beliefs in collaboration show mixed results. Some argue that similarity of general normative and empirical policy beliefs elicits collaboration, while others focus on beliefs concerning policy instruments. Proposing a new divisive beliefs hypothesis, we suggest that agreeing on those beliefs over which there is substantial disagreement in the policy subsystem is what matters for collaboration. Testing our hypotheses using policy network analysis and data on climate policy subsystems in eleven countries (Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Sweden, and Taiwan), we find belief similarity to be a stronger predictor of collaboration when the focus is divisive beliefs rather than normative and empirical policy beliefs or beliefs concerning policy instruments. This knowledge can be useful for managing collaborative governance networks because it helps to identify potential competing coalitions and to broker compromises between them.
KW - policy collaboration
KW - belief homophily
KW - climate change policy
KW - policy network analysis
KW - Advocacy Coalition Framework
U2 - 10.1093/jopart/muac031
DO - 10.1093/jopart/muac031
M3 - Article
JO - Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
JF - Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
SN - 1053-1858
ER -