The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework
Abstract
The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was developed to provide a causal theory of the policy process which would serve as one of several alternatives to the familiar stages heuristic, with its recognized limitations. This paper first summarizes the central features of the ACF, including a set of underlying assumptions and specific hypotheses. We next review the implications for the framework of six case studies by various authors dealing with Canadian education and with American transportation, telecommunications, water, environmental, and energy policy. While generally supportive of the ACF, the case studies also suggest several revisions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The New Economics of Organization
Moe, T. M. (1984) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110997 · Cited by 1,974
Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies
Aberbach, J. D., Putnam, R. D., & Rockman, B. A. (1981) · doi:10.4159/9780674020047 · Cited by 1,157
Cited by
Institutions and policy processes: the means to the ends of adaptation
Dovers, S. R., & Hezri, A. A. (2010) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.29 · Cited by 324
Metadata
- Authors
- Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Policy
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1994-04
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 175-203
- ISSN
- 0143-814X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7815
- OpenAlex
- W2140906799
- Cited by
- 474
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0143814x00007431
- The paper
- Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1994). Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Journal of Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x00007431
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
