21603 Chap.8 The Advocacy Coalition Framework
The Advocacy Coalition Framework
A theory built around alliances
The Advocacy Coalition Framework explains policy as the result of a contest between alliances. Actors who share beliefs about an issue, from public servants to scientists and activists, coordinate with one another and compete with an opposing alliance to have their view adopted by government.
It is one of the three theories you may use as the lens for the contest report.
Where to look and what to sort
Analysis starts with a policy subsystem: one issue in one place, drawn as broadly or as narrowly as your question needs.
Within it, you sort actors into coalitions and describe each coalition’s beliefs at three depths, from fundamental values down to negotiable details of implementation.
How change happens
Because dominant coalitions share their core beliefs, change is usually gradual.
Larger shifts tend to follow outside shocks, changes of leadership or opinion, negotiated deals brokered between exhausted rivals, or decisions imposed from a higher level of government.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Policy subsystems and policy actors
- 02
Coalitions formed on shared beliefs
- 03
Deep core, policy core and secondary beliefs
- 04
The devil shift and angel shift
- 05
Five pathways to policy change
- 06
Using the ACF worksheet
Worked example · free
Sort Merrin Bay beliefs into deep core, policy core and secondary
- 1Statements (a) and (d) are fundamental values that would hold in any policy area, from water to parks to the airwaves, so both are deep core beliefs, one for each coalition.
- 1Statement (b) applies the anglers’ value of open access to this one policy area and defines their side of the contest, so it is a policy core belief.
- 1Statement (c) concerns a practical detail of how fishing rules are applied, so it is a secondary belief.
- 1Secondary beliefs are the most flexible layer, so the bag limit in (c) is where the two coalitions are most likely to bargain.
Key terms
- Policy Subsystem
- The arena of all actors trying to influence one policy issue within a defined geographic area, the basic unit of an ACF analysis.
- Deep Core Belief
- A fundamental value about society or human nature that underpins a coalition’s positions and very rarely changes.
- Devil Shift
- The tendency of policy actors to demonise opponents who pursue different goals, picturing them as worse than they are.
- Policy Broker
- An actor who helps rival coalitions find a negotiated settlement, often once a stalemate is hurting both sides.
The Advocacy Coalition Framework FAQ
How do I use the Advocacy Coalition Framework in a report?
Begin by defining the policy subsystem, then identify the actors and group them into at least two coalitions according to what they believe. Describe each coalition’s beliefs, resources and tactics, judge which one currently dominates, and explain which pathway to change seems most likely. The subject’s worksheet sets these steps out in order.
What is the difference between policy core and secondary beliefs?
Policy core beliefs define where a coalition stands on the issue, such as whether a practice should be allowed at all. Secondary beliefs cover how a policy is carried out, such as limits, timelines or enforcement. Secondary beliefs bend far more easily, which is why compromise usually happens there.
Why does the ACF say change is usually slow?
The coalition that dominates a subsystem tends to share fundamental values and its main policy positions, so learning from experience can adjust policy positions and details, but rarely fundamental values. Big shifts usually need something the coalitions cannot control, such as a crisis, a change of government or a ruling from a higher jurisdiction.
Can evidence end an advocacy contest under the ACF?
Rarely on its own. Each coalition interprets data through its own beliefs, so the same report can be used by both sides to support opposite conclusions.
Who counts as a policy actor?
Anyone trying to shape the subsystem’s decisions: ministers, public servants, lobbyists, consultants, researchers, journalists, activists and community members. Some hold formal power to decide, while others only influence the debate, and an analysis should make that distinction clear.
Assessment move
Pick one issue you might use for the contest report and fill in the first three sections of the ACF worksheet this week: the subsystem, the actors, and at least two coalitions. For each coalition, write one sentence for each layer of belief, and mark which statements you think could be negotiated. Then collect two sources, such as a submission and a news report, that show each side interpreting the same evidence differently.
Finally, name the pathway to change you think is most likely and the evidence for it. If the coalitions blur together, talk the sorting through with Sia, testing each actor against what it has said and done in public.
Working through The Advocacy Coalition Framework in 21603? Sia is AskSia’s AI Management tutor — ask any 21603 The Advocacy Coalition Framework question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how 21603 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.