Politicisation and Coalition Magnets in Policy Making: A Comparative Study of Food Sovereignty and Agricultural Reform in Nepal and Ecuador

Sharma, Puspa Raj; Daugbjerg, Carsten

doi:10.1080/13876988.2020.1760716

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, broad stakeholder attention to shared concepts like resilience does not necessarily result in the bridging of actors’ frames and in effective policies (cf. Hannah & Beakkeskov, 2020; Howlett et al., 2015; Sharma & Daugbjerg, 2020). At the time of writing, a resilience frame conflict was taking place within discussions about the Farm‐to‐Fork Strategy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstructing the framing of resilience in the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 reform

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of resilience has been increasingly adopted on the European Union's (EU) policy agenda as a principle for agro‐food policy‐making. However, resilience is an ambiguous concept, allowing for different understandings and uses in the context of agro‐food policy‐making. This study analyses whether and how resilience is framed and contributes to framing in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post‐2020 reform process by policymakers and stakeholders. Combining deductive and inductive coding, we analysed 123 policy documents of EU institutions and stakeholders related to the CAP post‐2020 reform debate and the associated Farm‐to‐Fork Strategy. Five distinct resilience frames were identified: (1) income resilience frame, (2) farmers’ supply chain position resilience frame, (3) climate change impact resilience frame, (4) disease resilience frame and (5) ecological resilience frame. Whereas the resilience concept has been deployed by various actors, they differ in their preferred policy actions towards greater resilience.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstructing the framing of resilience in the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 reform

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This observation suggests that, in the future, ECI campaigns may unfold an even greater politicization power (De Wilde 2011) if their promoters can agree on common issue framesas research on transnational networks has shown (see Marchetti and Pianta 2012). The common issue frames can also increase the level of politicization if they refer to ambiguous ideas (Béland and Cox 2016;Sharma and Daugbjerg 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Politicizing the Use of Glyphosate in Europe: Comparing Policy Issue Linkage across Advocacy Organizations and Countries

Tosun

Varone

2020

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Citizens' Initiative enables advocacy organizations to place policy issues on the political agenda. Which frames did advocacy organizations use to mobilize the support of citizens for the initiative on banning glyphosate and to politicize this issue? The article shows for France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain that some advocacy organizations linked the issue of glyphosate to the related issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and/or referred to the controversial Monsanto company in their mobilization campaigns and politicization strategies. Whether or not advocacy organizations linked glyphosate to GMOs/Monsanto was determined by their organizational goals.

show abstract

“…perceived problems, and how is the canalisation policy adapted to respond to these problems? Sharma and Daugbjerg (2021) contend that if a policy coalition is characterised by somewhat unaligned interests emphasising different dimensions of the policy, this may lead to political failure in the longer run. However, policy idea multidimensionality may also support lasting coalitions, as it encompasses several rationales (Skogstad & Wilder, 2019), offers a wider basis of support wherein different interests are comprised in one arrangement (Skogstad, 2020), and provides resilience by offering the incumbent coalition the opportunity to draw '…on several potential lines of argumentation' (Mondou et al, 2014, p. 160).…”

Section: The Effect Of Multidimensionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Policymaking is thus characterised by efforts to induce an alignment of different and even contradictory interests in order to make coalitional agreement possible (Béland & Cox, 2016; Palier, 2005). While differing interests might suggest a process of conflict (Sharma & Daugbjerg, 2021), it does not automatically mean continuous battling over the distribution of resources within the institution. Indeed, it may also lead to institutional compromises between actors with different (and changing) views as to desired outcomes (Fitch‐Roy et al, 2020).…”

Section: Coalitions As Fragile Compromises or Stable Interdependenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Same but different: On continuity and change in agricultural policy reforms

Melås,

Vik,

Farsund

2024

Scand Pol Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contributes to the Historical Institutionalism literature on stability and change by unpacking how an institution has persisted for more than 70 years despite substantial contextual changes. The overall stability of the institution comes both through changes in policy instruments and their settings, and through the incorporation of differing, but aligned rationales. Ideational multidimensionality yields stability by providing leeway to recondition the institution in response to changing circumstances. This allows for different interests in the coalition to stimulate overall institutional stability by supporting incremental changes in policy instruments whilst avoiding institutional exhaustion and third order changes. This shows that policies initiated under a certain set of circumstances may be better equipped to persist when circumstances change if they are able to incorporate differing, but aligned, rationales and to respond to upcoming issues through policy instrument changes. The theoretical arguments are exemplified through a case study analysis of Norwegian agricultural policy.

show abstract

Politicisation and Coalition Magnets in Policy Making: A Comparative Study of Food Sovereignty and Agricultural Reform in Nepal and Ecuador

Cited by 8 publications

References 37 publications

Reconstructing the framing of resilience in the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 reform

Reconstructing the framing of resilience in the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 reform

Politicizing the Use of Glyphosate in Europe: Comparing Policy Issue Linkage across Advocacy Organizations and Countries

Same but different: On continuity and change in agricultural policy reforms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About