Stakeholder framing, communicative interaction, and policy legitimacy: anti-smoking policy in South Korea
- PDF / 949,432 Bytes
- 29 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 114 Downloads / 149 Views
Stakeholder framing, communicative interaction, and policy legitimacy: anti‑smoking policy in South Korea Chisung Park1 · Jooha Lee2
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Since the emergence of the argumentative turn in critical policy studies, increasing attention has been paid to the crucial role played by language, context, and communicative practices in the policy process. This study aims to investigate communicative interaction between state elites and societal stakeholders in South Korea with a focus on the antismoking policies of two different administrations: the Roh administration (2003–2008) and the Park administration (2013–2017). As a theoretical base, this paper proposes a stakeholder-oriented approach to legitimacy, which incorporates a policy frame analysis with the concept of a three-tier policy structure (i.e., policy goals, policy tools, and tool settings). In assessing policy legitimacy, the stakeholder-oriented approach examines whether there is congruence between the three-tier policy structure and the corresponding stakeholder framing. In the Roh administration, the policy frames among the three tiers of policy structure were centered on public health promotion, whereas in the Park administration, they expanded to the domain of tax policy. The empirical findings underscore the importance of two-way communication between the government and societal stakeholders, which can be evidenced using policy frame analysis. Ultimately, the results show that policy legitimacy is more likely to be guaranteed if there is no hidden or predetermined policy intention that can be detected by stakeholder framing analysis. Keywords Policy frame analysis · Policy legitimacy · Communicative interaction · Antismoking policy · South Korea
* Jooha Lee [email protected] Chisung Park [email protected] 1
College of Public Service, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea
2
Department of Public Administration, Dongguk University, Seoul, South Korea
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Policy Sciences
Introduction Post-positivist perspectives, long kept at the margins of policy studies by mainstream positivist theories, are now considered to represent a powerful alternative approach. The complex and uncertain realities of modern issues mean that attention must be paid to the argumentative (or discursive, linguistic, communicative, or post-positivist) turn in the so-called critical policy studies movement (e.g., Dryzek 2006; Fischer and Forester 1993; Fischer and Gottweis 2012; Fischer et al. 2015; Ingram and Schneider 1993; Schön and Rein 1994; Schneider and Ingram 2005; Stone 2002; Yanow 2015). The critical policy studies movement and post-positivist policy literature both view the policy process as one involving ongoing discursive struggles and communicative practices that are in favor of interpretive research methodology and its critique of a positivist epistemological position. The argumentative turn in critical policy studies takes a special interest in advancing democratic go
Data Loading...
