The Advocacy Coalition Framework in natural resource policy studies — Recent experiences and further prospects

In this paper, we deal with the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) which has been promoted as a promising theoretical approach of policy change and stability. After outlining the framework's main features and development over time, we review numerous ACF applications in natural resource policy studies and relate them to existing theoretical debates. The framework accounts for long-lasting policy debates between advocacy coalitions regarding value conflicts in multitude geographical domains and political systems. However, we identify several empirical anomalies and conceptual inconsistencies regarding advocacy coalition properties and causal paths to policy change. We draw on cultural theory and veto-player theory and the empirical evidence to theorize and propose several conceptual improvements and new hypotheses. By doing so, we address the ACF's concepts of belief systems, collective action, the role of and interdependencies among external events, political resources and institutions. Our theoretical proposals could provide for more detailed, dynamic and comprehensive look at the interactions among actors and their wider political and socioeconomic environment. These theoretical enhancements could mediate between the ACF propositions and the long-lasting theoretical critique directed to this framework and the divergent empirical evidence as regards to policy change analysis. We acknowledge that the further conceptual development of the framework will depend on the willingness of ACF theorists to integrate insights from rival research programs.