A Comparative Policy Analysis of Coalition Strategies: Case Studies of Nuclear Energy and Forest Management in India

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 356-372

  Gupta, Kuhika ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

Advocacy Coalition Framework; coalition opportunity structures; forest management; India; nuclear energy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926111046     PISSN: 13876988     EISSN: 15725448     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2014.886812     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Abraham, I., 1999, Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb: Science, Secrecy and the Postcolonial State, (London: Zed Books).
2. Agarwal, A., 1999, Community in conservation: Tracing the outlines of an enchanting concept, in: R. Jeffery and N. Sundar (Eds) A New Moral Economy for India’s Forests? Discourses of Community and Participation (New Delhi: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd), pp. 92–108.
3. Albright, E. A., 2011, PolicXy change and learning in response to extreme flood events in hungary: An advocacy coalition approach. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), pp. 485–511.
4. Bahuguna, V. K. and Upadhyay, A., 2001. Strengthening of Joint Forest Management. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. Available at http://moef.nic.in/divisions/forprt/jfm/html/strength.htm
5. Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D., 1993, Agendas and Instability in American Politics, (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
6. Bidwai, P. and Ramana, M. V., 2007, Home, Next to N-Reactor. Tehelka. Available at http://www.tehelka.com/story_main31.asp?filename=Ne230607home_next_SR.asp
7. Chaturvedi, R. and Godbole, G., 2005, Perceptions of the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University).
8. Cloward, R. and Piven, F. F., 1979, Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, (New York: Vintage Books Edition).
9. Craig, J., J. and Perrow, C., 1977, Insurgency of the powerless: Farm worker movements (1946–1972). American Sociological Review, 42(2), pp. 249–268.
10. DAE, 2010, Annual Report 2009–2010, (Mumbai: Department of Atomic Energy).
11. Deshpande, V., 2011, No safety study undertaken on Jaitapur project: Justice Shah. The Hindu, Available at http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2040287.ece
12. Dutta, M., Roy, S., Maiti, D. and Saha, S., 2005, Protecting India’s forests: The effectiveness of forest protection committees, the case of southern west Bengal. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 12(1), pp. 68–77.
13. Eisinger, P. K., 1973, The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. The American Political Science Review, 67(1), pp. 11–28.
14. Elgin, D. J. and Weible, C. M., 2013, A Stakeholder Analysis of Colorado Climate and Energy Issues Using Policy Analytical Capacity and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), pp. 114–133.
15. Evrard, A., 2012, Political Parties and Policy Change: Explaining the Impact of French and German Greens on Energy Policy. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 14(4), pp. 275.
16. Freeman, G. P., 1985, National styles and policy sectors: Explaining structured variation. Journal of Public Policy, 5(4), pp. 467–496.
17. Frey, K., 2006, India’s Nuclear Bomb and National Security, (New York: Routledge).
18. Ghanekar, N., 2011, N-plant protests to reach Jantar Mantar. Tehelka. Available at http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws270711NUCLEAR.asp
19. Guha, R., 1983, Forestry in British and post-British India: A historical analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 18(44), pp. 1882–1896.
20. Guha, R. and Gadgil, M., 1989, State forestry and social conflict in British India. Past & Present, 123(1), pp. 141–177.
21. Guiraudon, V., 2000, European integration and migration policy: Vertical policy‐making as venue shopping. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(2), pp. 251–271.
22. Gupta, K., 2013, Order in a Chaotic Subsystem: A Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Facility Siting Using Coalition Opportunity Structures and the Advocacy Coalition Framework.” Dissertation, University of Oklahoma.
23. Hall, P. and Taylor, R., 1996, Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), pp. 936–957.
24. Heclo, H., 1978, Issue networks and the executive establishment, in: A. King (Ed) The Political System (Washington, D.C: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research), pp. 87–124.
25. Hindustan Times, 2012a, Indefinite fast against Kudankulam N-plant resumes, Available at http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Chennai/Indefinite-fast-against-Kudankulam-N-plant-resumes/Article1-849108.aspx
26. Hindustan Times, 2012b, Madras high court reserves order on Kudankulam, Available at http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/TamilNadu/Madras-high-court-reserves-order-on-Kudankulam/Article1-918132.aspx
27. Hobsbawm, E. J., 1974, Peasant land occupations. Past & Present, 62, pp. 120–152.
28. India Today, 2012a, Kudankulam: Centre appeals protestors to end fast, Available at http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kudankulam-centre-appeals-protesters-to-end-fast-in-the-interest-of-nation/1/179306.html
29. India Today, 2012b, Madras HC raps Centre over Kudankulam nuclear plant, Available at http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/madras-hc-raps-centre-over-kudankulam-nuclear-plant/1/213476.html
30. Ingold, K., 2011, Network structures within policy processes: coalitions, power, and brokerage in swiss climate policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), pp. 435–459.
31. Jasanoff, S., 1993, India at the crossroads in global environmental policy. Global Environmental Change, 3(1), pp. 32–52.
32. Jenkins, C. J. and Perrow, C., 1977, Insurgency of the Powerless: Farm Worker Movements (1946–1972).American Sociological Review, 42(2), pp. 249–268.
33. Kingdon, J. W., 1984, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, (Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company).
34. Kitschelt, H. P., 1986, Political opportunity structures and political protest: anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16(1), pp. 57–85.
35. Kolb, F., 2007, Protest and Opportunities: A Theory of Social Movements and Political Change, (Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press).
36. Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak, J. W. and Giugni, M., 1995, New Social Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
37. Kübler, D., 2001, Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework: an application to Swiss drug policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), pp. 623–641.
38. Leifeld, P. and Schneider, V., 2012, Information exchange in policy networks. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), pp. 731–744.
39. Levi, Michael A., Ferguson, Charles D. and Council on Foreign Relations, 2006, U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation: a Strategy for Moving Forward, (New York: Council on Foreign Relations).
40. Lijphart, A., 1971, Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. The American Political Science Review, 65(3), pp. 682–693.
41. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D. and Zald, M. N., 1996, Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press).
42. McCarthy, J. D. and Zald, M. N., 1977, Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), pp. 1212–1241.
43. Murali, K. S., Murthy, I. K. and Ravindranath, N. H., 2006, Sustainable community forest management systems: A study on community forest management and joint forest management institutions from India. International Review for Environmental Strategies, 6(1), pp. 23–40.
44. Nerve, 2011, Violent protests rock Ratnagiri over death of anti-Jaitapur activist, Available at http://www.nerve.in/news:253500387668
45. Nohrstedt, D., 2011, Shifting resources and venues producing policy change in contested subsystems: A case study of Swedish Signals Intelligence Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), pp. 461–484.
46. Perkovich, G., 2010, Global implications of the U.S.-India deal. Daedalus, 139(1), pp. 20–31.
47. Potter, W. C., 2005, India and the new look of US nonproliferation policy. Nonproliferation Review, 12(2), pp. 343–354.
48. Pralle, S. B., 2003, Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change: The internationalization of Canadian forest advocacy. Journal of Public Policy, 23(3), pp. 233–260.
49. Przeworski, A. and Teune, H., 1970, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, (New York: John Wiley).
50. Ramana, M. V., 2012, The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India, (New Delhi: Viking).
51. Ramana, M. V. and Kumar, A., 2010, Safety first? Kaiga and other nuclear stories. Economic & Political Weekly, 45(7), pp. 47–54.
52. Rao, D. B. and Ramana, M. V., 2008, Violating letter and spirit: Environmental clearances for Koodankulam reactors. Economic & Political Weekly, 43(51), pp. 14–18.
53. Reddy, C. R. and Ramana, M. V., 2003, Prisoners of the Nuclear Dream, (New Delhi: Orient Longman).
54. Richardson, J. J., 1982, Policy Styles in Western Europe, (Australia: Allen & Unwin).
55. Robinson, E. C., 1998, Greening at the Grassroots: Alternative Forestry Strategies in India, (New Delhi: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd).
56. Roy, S. B., 1992, Forest protection committees in West Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly, 27(29), pp. 1528–1530.
57. Sabatier, P. A. and Jenkins-Smith, H., 1993, Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press).
58. Sabatier, P. A. and Jenkins-Smith, H., 1999, The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment, in: Sabatier P. A. (Ed) Theories of the Policy Process (Boulder, Colarado: Westview Press), pp. 117–166.
59. Sabatier, P. A. and Weible, C., 2007, The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications, in: P. Sabaiter (Ed) Theories of the Policy Process (Cambridge, MA: Westview Press), pp. 189–220.
60. Saxena, N. C., 1997, The Saga of Participatory Forest Management in India, (Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research).
61. Schattschneider, E. E., 1957, Intensity, visibility, direction and scope. The American Political Science Review, 51(4), pp. 933–942.
62. Schlager, E., 1995, Policy making and collective action: Defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 28(3), pp. 243–270.
63. Sen, G., 1992, Indigenous Vision: Peoples of India, Attitudes to the Environment, (New Delhi: SAGE Publications Inc).
64. Shiva, V. and Bandyopadhyay, J., 1986, The Evolution, Structure, and Impact of the Chipko Movement. Mountain Research and Development, 6(2), pp. 133–142.
65. Sundarrajan, G. 2011, PIL filed in Madras High Court against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project. DiaNuke, Available at http://www.dianuke.org/pil-filed-in-madras-high-court-against-the-koodankulam-nuclear-power-project/
66. Tarrow, S. G., 1967, Peasant Communism in Southern Italy, (New Haven: Yale University Press).
67. Tarrow, S. G., 1983, Struggling to Reform: Social Movements and Policy Change During Cycles of Protest, (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press).
68. Tellis, A. J., 2001, India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between Recessed Deterrent and Ready Arsenal, (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Publications).
69. Tiwary, M., 2004, Participatory Forest Policies and Politics in India, (Hampshire, England: Ashgate).
70. Venkatraman, G., 1994, Bhabha and His Magnificent Obsessions, (Hyderabad: Universities Press (India) Limited).
71. Vyas, V. S. and Reddy, R. V., 1998, Assessment of environmental policies and policy implementation in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 33(1/2), pp. 48–54.
72. Weber, T., 1989, Hugging the Trees: The Story of the Chipko Movement, (New Delhi; New York: Penguin Books).
73. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A. and McQueen, K., 2009, Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), pp. 121–140.
74. World Nuclear News, 2012, Kudankulam delays mount up. Available at http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Kudankulam_delays_mount_up_1701121.html