Unity in diversity? : When advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs grow trees in South Africa

Show full item record




Malkamäki , A , Ylä-Anttila , T , Brockhaus , M , Toppinen , A & Wagner , P 2021 , ' Unity in diversity? When advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs grow trees in South Africa ' , Land Use Policy , vol. 102 , 105283 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105283

Title: Unity in diversity? : When advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs grow trees in South Africa
Author: Malkamäki, Arttu; Ylä-Anttila, Tuomas; Brockhaus, Maria; Toppinen, Anne; Wagner, Paul
Contributor organization: Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS)
Academic Disciplines of the Faculty of Social Sciences
Political Science
Department of Social Research (2010-2017)
International Forest Policy
Forest Bioeconomy, Business and Sustainability
Department of Forest Sciences
Forest Economics, Business and Society
Date: 2021-03
Language: eng
Number of pages: 11
Belongs to series: Land Use Policy
ISSN: 0264-8377
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105283
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/328492
Abstract: Competing coalitions can stabilise policymaking and hinder policy changes that are required to address the mounting pressures on land use systems across the globe. Thus, understanding the driving forces of coalition formation is important. This paper builds on the Advocacy Coalition Framework to determine the relative contributions of two sets of beliefs (more general policy core beliefs and more specific beliefs concerning policy instruments) to coalition formation in South African tree plantation politics and to identify coalitions therein. Discourse Network Analysis was used to code 656 statements regarding 40 beliefs to create network data from 55 interviews with organisational elites. Results from a network analysis of the twelve most salient beliefs indicate that dissimilar policy core beliefs about the validity of environmental regulation, social costs of tree plantations, and the conditionality of land reform in South Africa divide actors into two coalitions: the hegemonic “business-as-usual” coalition and the minority “justice and change” coalition. These boundaries were confirmed by comparing the network based on shared policy core beliefs with a co-ordination network. Dissimilar beliefs concerning policy instruments, including eco-certification and an indicative zoning, also divide actors, yet actors’ reasoning for or against these instruments differ to the degree that united fronts are unlikely to form. Hegemonic coalitions that combine selected state and business interests with labour arguments and prioritise short-term economic efficiency threaten to delay the necessary changes away from business-as-usual across land use systems in South Africa and beyond.
Subject: 1181 Ecology, evolutionary biology
1172 Environmental sciences
4112 Forestry
5171 Political Science
512 Business and Management
Advocacy coalition framework
Belief systems
Community detection
Discourse network analysis
Industrial tree plantations
Forest landscape restoration
Peer reviewed: Yes
Rights: cc_by
Usage restriction: openAccess
Self-archived version: publishedVersion

Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
1_s2.0_S0264837721000077_main.pdf 2.918Mb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record