An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach: Revealing PCB Policy Actors and Core Beliefs
Date
2015-04-23
Author
Advisor
Rigling-Gallagher, Deborah
Repository Usage Stats
371
views
views
228
downloads
downloads
Abstract
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were first commercially produced in the 1920’s, became
popular for their valuable heat transferring properties and were mostly utilized as
an additive in oil filled electrical equipment to reduce fire risk. After peak production
was reached in the 1950’s and PCBs became a valuable additive in paints, adhesives,
plastics, caulking and more, health and environmental concerns arose when PCBs were
found widespread in the environment. The first PCB regulations emerged from the Food
and Drug Administration after food sources were found to contain PCBs. Congress then
moved to ban PCBs in 1976, and charged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
develop regulations implementing the ban on the already widely distributed chemical.
The U.S. PCB policy debate now spans 31 years starting with EPA’s first promulgation
of PCB regulations in 1979. Since then 31 rulemakings have altered the regulatory
framework with 679 commenters participating in the policy debate via written comments
submitted to EPA. As recently as 2010 EPA announced plans to again revise significant
portions of PCB regulations found in 40 CFR 761. In 2015, both EPA and Congress announced
separate plans to take action impacting PCB policy. EPA announced, the June 2015
Integrated Risk Information System public science meeting will focus on the noncancer
effects of PCBs, and Senators Vitter (R-LA) and Udall (D-NM) introduced the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) Modernization Act of 2015 designed to implement a more
precautionary approach to chemicals, including PCBs, in the U.S. This complex policy
subsystem presents a problem. How can 31 years of policy debate be simplified into
a framework that allows for a clear understanding of influential participants and
what is driving their policy interests?
Paul Sabatier and Neil Pelkey presented the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) as
a lens to simplify complex policy debates spanning a decade or more. The ACF proposed
that a policy arena, or subsystem, can be characterized by participants with shared
beliefs, and that deep core and policy core beliefs can assimilate policy actors into
advocacy coalitions. Understanding these advocacy coalitions and their deep core
beliefs, those that don’t change and policy core beliefs, those that can change to
support the deep core, will identify potential collaborators or areas of potential
conflict.
This gateway project is the first ACF application to the PCB policy subsystem in the
U.S. and uses 31 years of original data from 679 public commenters, in the form of
letters and e-mails, submitted to EPA from 1979 -2014 to determine regular policy
actors. Comments submitted by regular policy actors were coded for trends in statements
that reveal beliefs. Longitudinal and cross sectional analysis was then employed
to determine deep core beliefs, and policy core beliefs. Finally, recommendations
were presented to enable more effective and efficient PCB policy.
Project results revealed a salient PCB policy subsystem with only 91 regular participants
dominated by an energy industry coalition with shared deep core and supporting policy
core beliefs, as predicted by the ACF. Furthermore, the project revealed increasing
salience and convergence of energy coalition and general industry coalition deep core
and policy core beliefs.
Recommendations for improved PCB policy were driven by a need to, improve access to
public comments for policy analysis, identify latent subsystem actors that may not
know how to submit comments, understand the impacts of exogenous environmental events,
and increased awareness of ACF value.
First, expand the project to include more forms of subsystem participation. This
will determine if other subsystem participants are utilizing avenues of policy influence
other than the formal written comment submittal avenue analyzed here.
Second, Improve transparency in regulatory development process. This project was
limited by the availability of public comments that were originally indicated as available
via docket indices, but ultimately not provided.
Third, Acknowledge dynamic events external to the subsystem. Exogenous events can
engage latent policy actors with beliefs that should be considered even if they are
not regular policy actors.
Fourth, understand that these events change policy core beliefs, but not deep core
beliefs. Here a general understanding of the ACF and belief hierarchies will enable
a more transparent policy debate.
Last, expand the project to include policy learning and impacts of significant environmental
events. Over the 31 year policy debate new environmental and human health risk research
has emerged, and advocacy coalitions have collected more data to support policy core
beliefs. This learning aspect of the subsystem should be explored via the ACF to
further clarify the subsystem.
Type
Master's projectPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/9615Citation
Nichols, Joshua (2015). An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach: Revealing PCB Policy Actors and Core Beliefs.
Master's project, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/9615.Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Nicholas School of the Environment
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info