POSSIBLE DIALOGUES BETWEEN ACF AND INTERNATIONAL REGIME THEORY

Resumo

The ACF (Advocacy Coalition Framework) does not explicitly address international influence on the policy process, as highlighted by Henkins-Smith, Northstead, Weible and Ingold (2017). However, the public policy analysis must consider the external context within the current international environment marked by significant interdependence between nations and geopolitical disputes. Likewise, the studies of the international scope lack methodological consistency to describe global coalitions and the international regime decision process. Thus, we can outline the following theoretical questions: What boundaries are possible to identify between those two perspectives placed in different contexts? How can these comparations be mutually helpful to improve both perspectives? In order to answer these questions, this proposal aims to compare conceptual and methodologic aspects of the ACF and the theory of International Regimes. So far, it is possible to identify epistemology convergence between the cognitive current of the Ernst Haas International Regime Theory and the ACF model. Both assume that actors have limited rationality and that a share of beliefs guides their actions over time. Those actors who share beliefs can become a coalition and coordinate the actions. According to Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993), if advocacy coalitions are starting points for the political subsystem, epistemic communities are also the fundamental unit analysis for the international regime in Haas's (1993) perspective. Therefore, for both, the actor beliefs system's changes may represent substantial policy and regime transformations. ACF would apply to International Regime Theory by systematizing the coalition's attributes. Furthermore, in a reverse way, International Regime Theory can contribute to understanding how international actors and their beliefs deal with the local advocacy coalitions.