An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach to Stakeholder Analysis: Understanding the Political Context of California Marine Protected Area Policy

TLDR

Public policy controversies are increasingly understood as driven by value differences rather than technical deficiencies, yet systematic approaches to analyze political systems remain underdeveloped; an ACF stakeholder analysis expands focus to subsystem‑wide dynamics involving belief‑motivated actors forming coalitions to influence policy through diverse resources and venues. The article demonstrates how the advocacy coalition framework can serve as a theoretical basis for stakeholder analysis to understand the political context. The authors illustrate the ACF approach by applying it to a contentious political conflict over establishing marine protected areas in California. The study concludes by summarizing contributions to the ACF literature and outlining the strengths and limitations of conducting an ACF stakeholder analysis.

Abstract

There is a growing recognition that public policy controversies are driven more by value differences than by technical deficiencies. Unfortunately, we have yet to develop, test, and refine systematic approaches for understanding political systems. In this article I explain how the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) can be used as a theoretical basis for understanding political context via a stakeholder analysis. An ACF stakeholder analysis widens the attention of policy analysts toward subsystem-wide dynamics with multiple actors who are motivated by their beliefs, structure their relationships into advocacy coalitions, and try to influence policy through utilizing multiple resources and venues. I illustrate an ACF approach to stakeholder analysis in a scientifically contentious political conflict over the establishment of marine protected areas in California. I conclude with a summary of contributions to the ACF literature and the strengths and limitations of conducting an ACF stakeholder analysis.