Advocacy Coalition Framework - Essay Example

Advocacy Coalition Framework

Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drugs in the world. Several forms of marijuana have been used for an extended period by individuals for medicinal, aesthetic and social effects. Laws and international treaties of almost every nation found forbidding growing, processing, and selling of marijuana. The legalization question concern whether the existing laws need to be changed to make it legal to grow, process and sell marijuana and in case this happens, what are the rules to be used. Having full legalization will be replacing the black, market production as well as its distribution by establishing an above board industry. Advocacy coalition framework represents the most appropriate model used in making of new policies concerning marijuana in the United States. The Advocacy Coalition Framework refers to a tool used in making policy and is usually beneficial when dealing with policy systems that affect the public. The framework provides an understanding of the priorities and strategies involved in the managing of disputes which arise from different government interaction levels and several actors during the implementation of public policies that have been formulated. Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) can be utilized to analyze the policies concerning marijuana in America. The paper will discuss ACF as the best model which can be adopted by the United States to describe marijuana policy. The paper will also include discussion of ACF's key features, assumptions, and components.

The ACF is a model of the policy process which was developed by Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier to cater for the wicked challenges especially those that involve substantial technical disputes, major goal conflicts, and multiple actors arising from various government levels. Following Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith noting that they had similarities in their observation of the public policy, they joined hands to develop a framework which would explain the policy process. Since then, the ACF includes theories leading to a policy process which makes emphasizes on the science work in policy, learning, the behavior of a coalition and a policy change. The ACF has five premises of foundation (Sabatier, & Weible, 2007). First, the ACF uses a central role on technical and scientific information in determining the causes, seriousness and the scope of solutions and problems. Second, the ACF model needs a ten-year perspective, to understand a change in policy explicitly to account for learning feedback provided by policy actors. Third, ACF has the responsibility of setting a policy subsystem to be the primary analysis unit used in the understanding of the processes of policy rather than being done by a state agency or any given system. System subsystems are usually defined by a geographic scope, policy topic and specialized actors attempting to affect affairs of subsystems. Fourth, the framework expands the subsystem actors to include officials from every government level, media members, consultants, and scientists. Fifth, programs and policies incorporate assumptions and implicit theories which concern how program objectives and goals can be achieved.

One of the major features of the ACF is that it contains subsystem. Coalitions typically compete with one another to dominate the process of policy making in the subsystems. Subsystems refer to networks which are specific to issues (Sabatier, 2006). Subsystems are considered to be persuasive in the government as officials who have been elected devolve the responsibility of policymaking to bureaucrats who then consult with participants, for instance, groups that are interested. The other important feature of ACF is that it entails policy learning. Coalitions typically learn from the process of implementing a given policy. Learning takes place by producing of various interpretations of events and facts in the different coalitions Learning is seen as a political process.

The coalition interprets information provided to it and utilizes it in the course of exercising power. In some scenarios, some common ways have been accepted in measuring of policy performance. Technical information is mostly politicized, and the coalition that is dominant may successfully challenge the policy supporting data change. Additionally, advocacy coalition includes another important characteristic of ACF. A coalition is made up of individuals who have various positions such as agency and elected officials, leaders of a group, and researchers who have a common particular belief system. These leaders show a nontrivial level of coordinated activities over time. Moreover, views include another key feature of ACF. Individuals are mostly involved in politics so as they can have the chance of translating the beliefs they have into action. There usually three major types of ideas. Core beliefs are the kind of belief which is fundamental and is not likely to change. The core beliefs are too broad such that they can guide a given individual policy. System core beliefs are usually more accurate, for instance, the proper balance existing between the market and the government although they do not change. The third type of belief is the secondary aspects. Secondary issues are related to the process of implementing a certain policy. These kinds of beliefs are more likely to change because individuals learn about the impacts of economic incentives versus regulations. The core beliefs are usually normative, and they are unlikely to change at the time of policy learning. The subsystems of ACF contain routine policymaking, producing the minor modifications of policy: coalitions are involved in policy learning where they adapt the secondary aspects of their beliefs (Weible, Sabatier, & McQueen, 2009). Mostly, learning takes place in the monitoring of policy implementation as the members usually consider ways in which a given policy can contribute to either positive or outcomes that are unintended.

Sabatier states that the different defining terms of the ACF include subsystems of policy which involve actors’ group which interact with a constancy element in a policy domain that is functional, which in the case is the marijuana policy developed in America. Therefore, all the position and players in the entire transition issue constitute the policy subsystem. According to Weible, (2006), there are usually two types of subsystems; nascent subsystem includes the first one which is in the forming process, for example, the one found in the discussion. The other subsystem category is known as mature subsystem which has ten years. Policy subsystems mostly arise because of the emergence of new issues or as a result of conceptualization of the new problems, and this is the case of with the need for a policy that is more efficient concerning marijuana in America. Advocacy coalition is the other term of ACF which is made up by a group of individuals who share the same system of beliefs. The primary objective of the advocacy coalition is to change government actions at the same time redirecting them to achieve certain reforms of policy.

One main reason why the ACF has been preferred in describing marijuana policy is that of its ability to deal with the ever changing public and elite opinion which regard the priorities which arise in controlling growing, processing, and selling of marijuana. Before addressing the issue, it is vital for the core premises of ACF to be mentioned. First, technical information issue needs to be addressed to get a broad understanding that these issues which concern policy change require time. The policy subsystem to be used in the policy change analysis requires at least ten years being monitored (Henry, Ingold, Nohrstedt, & Weible, 2014). The public policies may be conceptualized as systems of belief. Advocacy coalitions are commonly associated with system's players who get combined into advocacy coalitions or groups that have similar causal beliefs and normative. The advocacy coalitions have the ability to engage in activity that has been coordinated substantially for an extended period. According to Ripberger, Gupta, Silva, & Jenkins‐Smith, (2014), the systems of beliefs which get shared among advocacy groups are categorized into a given hierarchy governed by the level of change resistance. There are core beliefs of a policy and others are deep core policy beliefs. Because system views exist, several strategies are utilized to push for their beliefs. For instance, budget manipulation and statutes are changing.

Sabatier emulates that there exist exogenous variables which are mainly considered in ACF. There are those variables that are stable which will not experience change even if the coalition makes changes to the case that is dealing with at present. These stable variables entail the fundamental constitution structures which should be strictly followed. Similarly, there is a problem of exogenous dynamic variables which are more likely to have changed as time elapses (Howlett, McConnell, & Perl, 2017). In this particular case, coalitions of the government results from this merger will automatically change. Their effects which the remaining subsystems have to the new system are usually included here. Regarding the context of marijuana policy in America, certain issues require being constantly monitored. For instance, there is the group coalition which constitutes those individuals who support legalization of marijuana in the United States who definitely will object to the marijuana policies meant to reduce their benefits or lay them off. Therefore, there will emerge the issue of policy learning which may be described by various coalition members who will be seeking more information concerning the system that will enable them to push their agenda.

Regarding convictions of the deep core which may be obtained from development of marijuana policy in America, there is a belief system which is usually held by citizens. The deep core belief includes the need to legalize growing, processing, and selling of marijuana in America. The residents want marijuana to be legal while the policies which are implemented by the United States government want the growing, processing and selling of marijuana to be considered as illegal. However, considering the belief system, this falls in the secondary beliefs category being shared by a given advocacy group. Hence, there is usually a resistance towards new policies which are developed from the merger of several groups of people who support legalization of marijuana. The other group coalition which is involved in the process is the funding by the government of the United States which requires budget reduction that results from various bodies which come to form one head of administration. Hence, in the end, there will be several factors involved in the process of policy implementation. There is usually learning which occurs in the existing advocacy groups. On the dispute level, it is much easier to have learning that is policy oriented to happen to have the belief systems given that the contention subject being quantifiable. For instance, there is a concern articulated by a legislative function which involves the illegal use of marijuana in America.

There are other important aspects of the Advocacy Coalition Framework which may be used to analyze the legalization of marijuana in America. First, while examining the belief system and structure of an individual, there is an assumption that in most cases actors analyzes and makes the judgment of the information which is contained in the policies considering computational constraints and time. For instance, when there is an incorrect number of people who are proposing for marijuana legalization in the country. Only the monitors reviewing the statistics that are independent can realize usage of wrong numbers. Therefore, the belief structure which emerges after analysis has been done is dependent on the understanding ability and the available time set apart for learning.

The Advocacy Coalition Framework is an important analytical tool which may be utilized so as it provides better explanations and descriptions in public administration and policy. Advocacy Coalition Framework best describes the American marijuana policy since it provides five different ways in which it may help guide research concerning salient challenges that face inquiry which related to the system. Public policy is usually is subdivided into policy process and policy analysis study. The AFC dynamic features include changes in opinion of the public, changes of the coalition governing and effects of subsystems. Advocacy Coalition Framework is a vital method of the policy process as it involves organizing interest groups in policy communities found in a policy domain. The ACF provides a direction that is useful to public administration and policy research.