PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

100
framework (as opposed to theory or model) … to designate a set of assumptions that
permit us to disaggregate a phenomenon we seek to explain.”
More problematic, however, is the fact that Sabatier (1988; 1998), the volume
edited by Sabatier (1999) and many scholars in the relevant literature all heavily rely on
the term “frameworks” to categorize different policy theory approaches. In light of my
own definition of the term, this must be regarded as an unfortunate linguistic
circumstance, since my own definition is neither explicitly built on an elaboration or
adaptation of Sabatier’s concept of advocacy coalitions, nor does it depend on any of the
other six select policy theory frameworks recognized by Sabatier as “legitimate” tools for
the “scientific” analysis of policy processes. Sabatier’s major contribution to policy
analysis consists of a systematic search for concepts of policy learning in the context of
what he calls “advocacy coalitions.” Advocacy coalitions can be comprised of a mélange
of interest groups, administrative agencies, analysts, researchers, journalists and other
stakeholders with an interest in the policy sector (Sabatier 1988:138). Yet while the
advocacy coalition framework is doubtless a very useful, actor-oriented model that helps
to explain both consistencies and discontinuities in the policy process, it is not a
framework – let alone a discursive one – in the interdisciplinary, discipline-transcending
sense that I employ the term in this study. Rather, it represents but one of several
analytical frames within the particular discipline of political science/public policy. 17 In
Sabatier’s case, “frameworks” represent methodologies that are consciously applied by
17 It should also be noted that Sabatier’s neo-positivist, anti-constructivist and U.S. centric bias by now has
been widely discussed in the literature (see especially Dudley, Parsons et al. 2000). Far from denying the
importance of his contribution to the field of public policy, I agree that Sabatier’s overall perspective
remains quite limited. Alternative, less rationalist approaches to policy analysis are simply dismissed, not
refuted. To put it in Wayne Parsons unvarnished terms: “To ignore the kinds of idea [sic] associated with
what has become known as the ‘argumentative turn’ (Fischer and Forester 1993) in policy analysis, for
instance, is just plain silly.” See page 129 of Wayne Parsons’ individual contribution in Dudley (2000).