ScholarGate
助手

方法对比

并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。

Institutional Analysis and Development Framework×Advocacy Coalition Framework×
领域Public PolicyPublic Policy
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份20051993
提出者Elinor Ostrom & the Bloomington SchoolPaul Sabatier & Hank Jenkins-Smith
类型Framework for analysing institutions and collective actionTheory of the policy process
开创性文献Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691122380Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.) (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. ISBN: 9780813316499
别名IAD, IAD Framework, Ostrom IAD FrameworkACF, Sabatier-Jenkins-Smith Framework, Advocacy Coalition Approach
相关44
摘要The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework is a general framework for analysing how institutions — the rules, norms and shared strategies that structure human interaction — shape behaviour and outcomes. Developed by Elinor Ostrom and colleagues at Indiana University's Bloomington School over several decades and synthesised in her 2005 book Understanding Institutional Diversity, it places an 'action situation' at its centre: a structured setting in which actors interact, influenced by biophysical conditions, community attributes and rules-in-use. The framework was central to Ostrom's Nobel-winning work on how communities govern common-pool resources without privatisation or top-down state control.The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a theory of the policy process developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith from the late 1980s and consolidated in their 1993 volume Policy Change and Learning. It explains policy stability and change over long periods by analysing competing coalitions of actors within a policy subsystem who are bound together by shared beliefs. Policy change is understood as a function of the interaction among these belief-based coalitions, the policy-oriented learning that occurs over time, and external events and shocks that can shift the balance of power among them.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 1 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 1 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Institutional Analysis and Development Framework · Advocacy Coalition Framework. 于 2026-06-24 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare