Winners and losers: Conflict management through strategic policy engagement

Abstract

In high-conflict policy debates, individuals often make strategic decisions about the ways in which they engage in efforts to influence the direction of the debate. Some individuals act to expand the scope of the conflict, whereas others would prefer to contain the scope of the conflict and maintain status quo. This study empirically examines the relationship between activities of political engagement and goals of conflict expansion or containment in a particular setting in which there are clear "winners" and "losers." This research first explores the tactics an individual undertakes as either conflict expansion or containment. The patterns uncovered are then tested against sectoral affiliation, to draw conclusions about key factors that explain some variation in policy engagement. Findings confirm that there are predictable patterns to engagement decisions, paving the way for future testing in different policy arrangements.

Narrators and Narratives: A Study of Climate and Air Issues in Delhi, India

“…Research narrators portrayed government as a hero, and advocacy narrators as a villain. Given the policy situation in Delhi at the time of the study, the results here reflect a Schattschneider-type logic about the motivations of out-groups to expand the scope of conflict through narrative strategies and perhaps shift the agenda (Schattscheneider, 1960;Olofsson, 2022).…”

Advocacy strategies of industry and environmental interest groups in oil and gas policy debates

“…The findings here could also be expanded by exploring government actors in addition to the industry and environmental groups covered in this article. Just as with nonprofit and private sector actors, individuals affiliated with public sector organisations like the federal government experience a unique set of institutional constraints that may influence their perception of strategy effectiveness and/or venue viability (Olofsson, 2021).…”

“…On the other hand, environmental groups are traditionally considered outsiders because they represent more diffuse public interests and have fewer resources than the development interests they often oppose (Gais and Walker, 1991;Hanegraaff et al, 2016). Furthermore, environmental groups are often aligned with movements for social change that may be better served by strategies that seek change from the outside rather than conform and act within existing structures (Schattschneider, 1960;Daltonet al, 2003;Pralle, 2006;Olofsson, 2021).…”

“…Among these eight tactics, exploratory factor analysis identified two distinct factors (see Olofsson, 2021). 4 The first grouped 'brokering agreements between parties', 'collaborating with people you disagree with', 'coordinating political activities with allies', 'providing information to government officials', and 'sharing your opinion with government officials'.…”

How anger and fear influence policy narratives: Advocacy and regulation of oil and gas drilling in Colorado

“…SB 19‐181 changed the mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) to prioritize protecting the environment and public health over oil and gas development. Similar past research has applied the NPF and the Advocacy Coalition Framework to study policy processes concerning the regulation of oil and gas drilling using hydraulic fracturing (Blair & McCormack, 2016; Gottlieb et al, 2018; Heikkila, Pierce, et al, 2014; Heikkila, Weible, & Pierce, 2014; Moyson et al, 2022; Olofsson, 2022; Stephan, 2020). However, this research expands the NPF at the meso level to focus on the role of emotions, which Pierce (2021) argues should be better incorporated into theories and frameworks of the policy process.…”