Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article applies a modified conceptual framework derived from Sabatier’s advocacy coalition framework and Haas’ epistemic communities’ framework to analyze climate advocacy coalitions in Guangzhou, China, a largely unexplored area of study. Our analysis reveals several key features of the climate policy advocacy groups working to promote policy change within the policy subsystem of a nonpluralistic regime: (a) mutual interdependence (consensus building) in the creation of an advocacy coalition system, (b) government recognition and endorsement of newly established or professionally oriented coalition organizations, (c) coalition formation in a top-down manner rather than by accumulative bottom-up demands, and (d) bottom-up motivators, such as changing societal values and the external environment, which contribute to and accelerate the reform of policy orientation and the administrative structure of coalition formation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Francesch‐Huidobro et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: