A Discursive Approach to Understanding Public Policy-Making

Hajer's (1995) argumentative discourse analysis provides the foundation for many DNA studies (Leifeld and Haunss, 2012; Nagel, 2016). Therefore, this approach will be briey introduced here, and similarities and dierences to the previously introduced ACF and NPFwill be depicted.

Analyzing discourses is a relatively new research area in political science, beginning with the work fromHajer(1993,1997). The idea of discourse analysis is based on the assump-tion that the individual actors do not have a prior set of beliefs or preferences, but that those beliefs, preferences, and thus the whole policy-making process are shaped within

and through the discourse. Hajer (1997, 44) denes discourses as a specic ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities. Central is hereby his concept of story lines, which he understands as generative statements that bring together previously unrelated elements of reality. The main func-tion of story lines is that these short narratives help people to t their bit of knowledge, experience or expertise into the large jigsaw of a policy debate (Hajer, 2003). Although, the concept of story lines raises a similar claim as the concept of narratives, it lacks the strategic aspect of narratives, which are constructed around a story that creates vil-lains, victims, and heroes, and thereby produces clear policy recommendations towards the speakers pre-known favored course of action. According toHajer(2002, 12), discourse coalitions form around those story lines. Those discourse coalitions consist of (1) a set of story-lines; (2) the actors who utter these story-lines, and (3) the practices in which this discoursive activity is based (Hajer,1995, 65). The discourse coalitions try to inu-ence policy processes by imposing their perspective on others (Leifeld and Haunss,2012, 2). This denition highlights the relational and synthetic nature of discourse coalitions.

Hajer's(1997, 59f.) argumentative discourse analysis conceives politics as a struggle for discursive hegemony in which actors try to secure support for their denition of reality.

Leifeld and Haunss argue that albeit policy outcomes cannot entirely be explained by discursive hegemony and power structures, and interest coalitions remain crucial, the more public and the more politicised a decision-making process is, the less can the discur-sive level be ignored (Leifeld and Haunss, 2012, 5). According to Hajer(1997, 59f.), the vigor of a discourse coalition and their arguments depends on credibility, acceptability, and trust: Credibility is required to make actors believe in the subject-positioning that a given discourse implies for them [. . . ]; acceptability requires that position to appear attractive or necessary; trust refers to the fact that doubt might be suppressed, either by the trust in the organization or by the trust in the practice of how a certain claim was made. However, Hajer (1997) does not explicate how the necessary credibility and trust between actors evolve.

Major dierences betweenHajer's(1997) argumentative discourse approach andSabatier's (1988) approach of advocacy coalitions exist. First, Hajer's(1997, 59) argumentative ap-proach argues that discursive interaction (i.e. language in use) can create new meanings and new identities. Accordingly, actors enter the discourse with little to no xed interests or preferences, and they are shaped and constructed in and by the discourse. Contrary, the ACF is based on the assumption that actors hold a belief system, which shares their interests, preferences, and even perceptions of the world. Thus, policy-making is aligned to translate those beliefs into reality. Within the argumentative approach, the discourse is constructive and important in and for itself, while within the ACF the discourse is

necessary for the translation of the beliefs and can be understood as an image of the underlying advocacy coalitions. Second,Hajer's (1997) discourse coalitions are solely de-ned through relations within the discourse, for example by the use of the same story line.

This proposes an entirely relational ontology (Hajer, 1997, 69). Advocacy coalitions are understood as a set of actors who share similar beliefs and who collaborate, whichHajer (1997, 69) understands as an individualist ontology. Third, not only does Hajer's (1997) discourse analysis study the role of discourses within policy-making, but it emphasize the unique and constructive role of discourses. This means that according to Hajer (1997), actors come into the discourse without a set of preferences or beliefs, and that every posi-tion and interest is constructed within the discourse. According toHajer(1997), changes in actors position can occur when credible, acceptable, and trustworthy arguments are brought forward. AlthoughHajer (1997) clearly denes his work against the ACF, it are ACFscholars who demonstrate that shared beliefs are an important driver for those trust relationships (see for exampleHenry,2011b). Biased assimilation plays an important role within the ACF. Biased assimilation refers to the point that people are more likely to belief and trust information that suits their belief system. Following this, the existence of trust and the perception of credibility would be closely connected to the sharing of beliefs.

Fourth,Hajer's(1997) discourse analysis approach does neither present a transparent way for analyzing the discourses nor does it aim in providing a comprehensive framework for the study of policy processes. Argumentative discourse analysis might therefore be a help-ful approach when only discourses are studiedas was the case in mostDNA studies so far. However,Hajer (1997) does not embed the analysis of discourses into a wider setting of collaboration or other process relevant for public policy-making. The ACF provides such a broader understanding.

Table4.1provides a comparison of the most important elements within both approaches.The combination of normative, cognitive, and material interdependencies makes the ACF unique. It allows to study those normative relations, based on shared beliefs simulta-neous to collaborative relations, and encourages to study the interdependencies between the dierent relations.

Table 4.1: Comparison of Advocacy Coalitions and Discourse Coalitions (Adapted from Bulkeley,2000, 735)

Advocacy coalitions Discourse coalitions

Policy arena Subsystem Network

Agenda-setting

(core) Dominant advocacy coalition Institutionalized discourse coalition

Competing claims

(periphery) Advocacy coalitions Discourse coalitions Linkages within

the community or coalition

Shared interests, beliefs and worldviews (interdependencies are material, normative, and cognitive)

Shared understanding of the policy problem (storyline;

interdependencies involve legitimacy, are discursive, normative, and cognitive)

Policy change Exogenous events, Cognitive learning

Argumentative struggle;

learning is discursive and normative, in turn changing interdependencies