Advocacy Coalitions are groups of actors from different organisations who coordinate over time because they share important policy beliefs and seek to influence policy within a particular policy subsystem. The concept is strongly associated with the Advocacy Coalition Framework, which emphasises belief systems, policy learning, resources, external events, and long term interaction among actors. Coalition members can include elected politicians, civil servants, interest groups, researchers, journalists, businesses, professional organisations, and civil society organisations. They do not need to belong to the same institution or even agree on every issue. What holds the coalition together is a sufficiently strong set of shared core beliefs and coordinated activity around policy objectives.
The Advocacy Coalition Framework distinguishes different levels of beliefs. Deep core beliefs concern fundamental normative and ontological assumptions and are generally resistant to change. Policy core beliefs concern fundamental perceptions of a policy subsystem, including the seriousness of a problem, appropriate governmental roles, and preferred broad solutions. Secondary beliefs concern more specific instruments, implementation details, and administrative arrangements and are generally more susceptible to revision through evidence and experience. This hierarchy helps explain why policy actors can compromise on technical details while remaining strongly opposed over fundamental policy objectives. Learning is therefore more likely to alter secondary aspects than deeply held policy core beliefs.
Advocacy Coalitions operate within policy subsystems, which are policy domains containing actors who regularly engage with a particular issue. A coalition can extend beyond formal government because policy influence frequently depends on relationships among public agencies, legislators, interest organisations, experts, researchers, media actors, and civil society. Members can coordinate through research, lobbying, public communication, legislative proposals, litigation, administrative participation, campaigns, and coalition building. Their resources can include financial capacity, technical expertise, legal authority, political access, public credibility, organisational membership, information, and communication networks. Different coalitions often possess different combinations of these resources.
Policy conflict between Advocacy Coalitions can persist because disagreements are rooted in competing interpretations of problems and values rather than merely technical disputes. One coalition may emphasise economic growth while another prioritises environmental protection. One may favour extensive government intervention while another prefers market mechanisms. Coalitions can nevertheless negotiate secondary aspects of policy when they share enough procedural or practical interests. The framework therefore distinguishes deep disagreement from opportunities for policy learning and negotiated adjustment. Policy change can occur when external events alter the resources or credibility of competing coalitions, when learning changes important beliefs, or when negotiated agreements become possible.
External events can substantially alter the balance among Advocacy Coalitions. Economic crises, elections, technological developments, natural disasters, scandals, international agreements, changes in public opinion, or major policy failures can disrupt established policy arrangements. Such events can change public attention, available resources, political leadership, or perceptions of policy failure. They do not automatically determine policy outcomes because coalition actors interpret events through existing beliefs. Nevertheless, major external changes can create opportunities for previously marginal coalitions to gain influence or weaken established policy arrangements.
Policy learning within Advocacy Coalitions can occur through research, implementation experience, professional exchange, evaluation, and interaction with opposing groups. Coalition members may update technical beliefs while retaining fundamental commitments. Cross coalition learning can be more difficult when actors distrust one another or interpret evidence through incompatible belief systems. Forums that encourage sustained communication and credible information can sometimes facilitate agreement on technical matters even when core disagreement remains. The distinction between learning and persuasion is important because actors can acquire new information without changing their fundamental policy beliefs.
Advocacy Coalitions differ from Interest Groups because coalition membership is organised around shared policy beliefs rather than necessarily around a common occupational, commercial, institutional, or constituency interest. An individual business association can participate in a coalition alongside environmental organisations, researchers, and government officials if they share relevant policy beliefs. Conversely, a single interest group can contain internal disagreements that prevent it from acting as a unified coalition member. The coalition concept therefore emphasises cross organisational belief alignment and sustained coordination rather than organisational identity alone.
Advocacy Coalitions are significant because they provide an explanation for long term policy competition that goes beyond individual elections or isolated lobbying episodes. They show how actors with different institutional positions can coordinate around shared beliefs, accumulate resources, learn from policy experience, respond to external events, and attempt to reshape policy over time. The framework is particularly useful for analysing contested policy areas where stable groups of actors repeatedly defend competing interpretations. It also explains why some policies remain stable despite changes in governments while others change substantially following external shocks, shifts in coalition resources, or sustained processes of policy learning.
