An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach to the Rise and Fall of Social Partnership

Abstract The advent of Social Partnership in response to deep economic crisis and the dissolution of Social Partnership in response to deep economic crisis creates something of a conundrum for studies of public policy. Though it is typically assumed that external crises pre‐empt major policy change, the Irish case is counter‐intuitive. If Social Partnership was acclaimed as the successful response to the economic crisis of the 1980s, why was it not used as such in response to the economic crisis of the 2008/9. If Social Partnership was not an effective means to manage macro‐economic policy, why did it last so long? Whilst alternative political narratives may offer answers to these questions, they do not offer any conceptualization of the policy process as a whole and the determinants of policy change. This article uses recent and revised Advocacy Coalition Framework approaches to examine the evolution and dissolution of Social Partnership, applying the framework's insights into crisis and policy change as a means of explaining the rise and demise of Irish Social Partnership. Keywords: Social PartnershipAdvocacy Coalition Frameworkpolicy crisispolicy changeIreland Notes 1. A full range of claims made for ACF analysis may be found in Weible et al. (Citation2009). 2. This article explores in detail a small part of a much broader piece of cross‐national comparative research on social pacts in Europe (Avdagic et al., 2010), by examining the evolution of Social Partnership in Ireland (see O'Donnell et al., Citation2010). 3. Both groups publicly withdrew from the negotiations for Sustaining Progress shortly before its conclusion (for details see CWC, Citation2003; NWCI, Citation2003). 4. Comparing the development of Irish Social Partnership to Denmark's system of 'negotiated economy', the Director of the NESC referred to the way in which participation is determined in both cases, whereby: 'Only those who have shown an interest in signing agreements based on a mutual understanding are invited. Excluded actors are left with the possibility of influencing negotiations only by lobbying, media campaigns, or other forms of manipulation from outside' (O'Donnell, Citation2007).