Shared Positions on Divisive Beliefs Explain Interorganizational Collaboration : Evidence from Climate Change Policy Subsystems in 11 Countries
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14230%2F22%3A00129832" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14230/22:00129832 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="https://academic.oup.com/jpart/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jopart/muac031/6648118" target="_blank" >https://academic.oup.com/jpart/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jopart/muac031/6648118</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac031" target="_blank" >10.1093/jopart/muac031</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Shared Positions on Divisive Beliefs Explain Interorganizational Collaboration : Evidence from Climate Change Policy Subsystems in 11 Countries
Original language description
Collaboration between public administration organizations and various stakeholders is often prescribed as a potential solution to the current complex problems of governance, such as climate change. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, shared beliefs are one of the most important drivers of collaboration. However, studies investigating the role of beliefs in collaboration show mixed results. Some argue that similarity of general normative and empirical policy beliefs elicits collaboration, while others focus on beliefs concerning policy instruments. Proposing a new divisive beliefs hypothesis, we suggest that agreeing on those beliefs over which there is substantial disagreement in the policy subsystem is what matters for collaboration. Testing our hypotheses using policy network analysis and data on climate policy subsystems in 11 countries (Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Sweden, and Taiwan), we find belief similarity to be a stronger predictor of collaboration when the focus is divisive beliefs rather than normative and empirical policy beliefs or beliefs concerning policy instruments. This knowledge can be useful for managing collaborative governance networks because it helps to identify potential competing coalitions and to broker compromises between them.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
50601 - Political science
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach
Others
Publication year
2022
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
ISSN
1053-1858
e-ISSN
1477-9803
Volume of the periodical
33
Issue of the periodical within the volume
3
Country of publishing house
GB - UNITED KINGDOM
Number of pages
13
Pages from-to
421-433
UT code for WoS article
000840414700001
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85162797542