The environment as a policy problem7.7 Discourse coalitionsSeveral writers on the environment have
applied discourse analysis to the study of
policy change (Hajer 1995 , 2003; Fischer 2003 ;
Dryzek 2005 ). A discourse is ‘a shared way of
apprehending the world. Embedded in
language, it enables those who subscribe to it
to interpret bits of information and put them
together into coherent stories or accounts.
Discourses construct meanings and
relationships, helping to define common sense
and legitimate knowledge’ (Dryzek 2005 : 9).
‘Discourse coalitions’ are held together not so
much by shared beliefs as by ‘storylines’ that
interpret events and courses of action; its
members share a particular way of thinking
about and discussing environmental issues.Whereas the ‘advocacy coalition’ involves
individuals co-ordinating their political activities,
the members of a discourse coalition might
never meet, but their independent actions will
reinforce a particular storyline. Thus, as
Chapter8 demonstrates, people all round the
world can share, sustain and reproduce the
sustainable development storyline without ever
meeting or co-ordinating their political
activities. If discourse analysts are correct in
ascribing a central role to language in the
policymaking process, then discourse
coalitions, such as the sustainable
development discourse coalition, can be
important vehicles for achieving policy change.
See Fischer ( 2003 : ch. 5).(e.g. the seriousness of the problem and the best policy instruments to deal
with it); (3)secondary aspectsare the narrower beliefs about specific aspects of
the problem and policy implementation. Typically, a policy sub-system will
be dominated by one powerful coalition, with several competing minor-
ity coalitions each seeking to impose its approach on the policy process.
Sabatier, like Hall (see Box7. 4), argues that change will normally be incre-
mental because it is secondary beliefs that are most prone to change, usu-
ally as a result of ‘policy-oriented learning’ by coalitions as they acquire new
information and reflect on the best methods of achieving their policy objec-
tives. Changes to policy core beliefs are less frequent and will normally only
occur when non-cognitive factors are disrupted by exogenous shocks from
outside the sub-system, such as macro-economic developments or a change
in government. At these infrequent moments, the opportunity exists for a
minority coalition to impose its belief system on the policy process. (See
Box7. 7foranalternative form of coalition.)
The ACF provides considerable insight into the way policy changes. By
emphasising the importance of belief systems, it complements the policy
network focus on interests and power. The ACF is particularly relevant to
issues where there is some technical complexity and open political conflict:
it has been widely applied to environmental and energy policy issues in
North America, such as air and water pollution, where there is plenty of
scope for policy-oriented learning through the analysis of quantitative data
and its application to natural systems (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999 ).
The ACF (and the agenda-setting model) is underpinned by pluralistic
assumptions, no doubt reflecting its American origins. Consequently, it may