Daniel Kübler

Bio: Daniel Kübler is an academic researcher from University of Zurich. The author has contributed to research in topics: Metropolitan area & Corporate governance. The author has an hindex of 19, co-authored 114 publications receiving 1292 citations. Previous affiliations of Daniel Kübler include École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne & University of Lausanne.

Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework: an application to Swiss drug policy

Abstract: Over the last two decades, Swiss drug policy has moved away from a prohibitionist to a 'harm reduction' model. This article uses the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) to understand this process of policy change, drawing on social movement theory to overcome shortcomings of the ACF regarding collective action. We argue that recent history in the field of drug policy in Switzerland can plausibly be presented as a competition between coalitions advocating belief systems regarding problems and policy. The Aids epidemic is considered a crucial noncognitive event helping the harm reduction coalition to overthrow the hegemonic abstinence coalition. Public order issues linked to harm reduction facilities led neighbourhood quality of life advocates to impede the location of such facilities, which, in turn, stimulated policy-oriented learning with harm reduction advocates. The analysis supports the ACF's hypotheses on policy change, but social movement theory provides insights into coalition formation, persistence...

Metropolitan Governance in the 21st Century: Capacity, Democracy and the Dynamics of Place

Abstract: This book offers a cross-national analysis of contemporary issues and challenges for the governing of urban regions. The case studies on Germany, Spain, France, Greece, The Netherlands, Finland, the UK, Switzerland, Australia, the US and Canada, place particular emphasis on the tensions building on metropolitan governing capacity and democratic legitimacy. The authors develop and use an analytical framework focused on the dynamics of place and make an original contribution to the debates on the nature of metropolitan governance.

Democracy in times of the pandemic: explaining the variation of COVID-19 policies across European democracies

Abstract: In fighting the spread of COVID-19, the drastic measures undertaken by governments worldwide demonstrate a trade-off between public health and fundamental democratic principles. Yet this behaviour is not consistent across democracies, which motivates this paper to examine why some democracies were willing to constrain individual freedoms and concentrate power more than others during the pandemic’s first wave. Creating two indices to measure the degree to which COVID-19 policies interfere with these democratic principles in 34 European countries, the analyses show that the large variation cannot be solely explained by pandemic-related factors. It is argued that the strong protection of democratic principles already established in ‘normal’ times makes governments more reluctant to opt for restrictive policies. By highlighting how differences in policy responses are attributed to provisions guaranteeing individual liberties, this paper contributes to a better understanding of how democracies handle the democratic dilemma in times of crises.

New regionalism in five Swiss metropolitan areas: An assessment of inclusiveness, deliberation and democratic accountability

Abstract: . Focusing on area-wide policy coordination in metropolitan areas, this article examines the democratic consequences of the supposed shift ‘from government to governance’. In the first, theoretical, part it draws upon the debate on old and new routes towards regionalism in order to identify four different types of metropolitan governance. It then develops two working hypotheses – an optimistic and a pessimistic one – in order to analyse the implications of various types of metropolitan governance on inclusiveness, modes of decision making and democratic accountability. In the second part, these hypotheses are tested on the basis of comparative case studies on twenty schemes of area-wide policy coordination in five Swiss metropolitan areas in the fields of water supply, public transport, social services for drug users and cultural amenities. The results suggest that ‘governance’ is superior to ‘government’ in terms of inclusiveness, that it cannot be seen as significantly linked to the fostering of deliberative decision making, and that it can present serious flaws in terms of accountability. It is noted, however, that a shift ‘from government to governance’ does not intrinsically imply democratic drawbacks. Contextual factors play a strong conditioning role.

The importance of input and output legitimacy in democratic governance: evidence from a population-based survey experiment in four West European countries

Abstract: The study of subjective democratic legitimacy from a citizens’ perspective has become an important strand of research in political science. Echoing the well‐known distinction between ‘input‐oriented’ and ‘output‐oriented’ legitimacy, the scientific debate on this topic has coined two opposed views. Some scholars find that citizens have a strong and intrinsic preference for meaningful participation in collective decision making. But others argue, to the contrary, that citizens prefer ‘stealth democracy’ because they care mainly about the substance of decisions, but much less about the procedures leading to them. In this article, citizens’ preferences regarding democratic governance are explored, focusing on their evaluations of a public policy according to criteria related to various legitimacy dimensions, as well as on the (tense) relationship among them. Data from a population‐based conjoint experiment conducted in eight metropolitan areas in France, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom is used. By analysing 5,000 respondents’ preferences for different governance arrangements, which were randomly varied with respect to their input, throughput and output quality as well as their scope of authority, light is shed on the relative importance of different aspects of democratic governance. It is found, first, that output evaluations are the most important driver for citizens’ choice of a governance arrangement; second, consistent positive effects of criteria of input and throughput legitimacy that operate largely independent of output evaluations can be discerned; and third, democratic input, but not democratic throughput, is considered somewhat more important when a governance body holds a high level of formal authority. These findings run counter to a central tenet of the ‘stealth democracy’ argument. While they indeed suggest that political actors and institutions can gain legitimacy primarily through the provision of ‘good output’, citizens’ demand for input and throughput do not seem to be conditioned by the quality of output as advocates of stealth democratic theory suggest. Democratic input and throughput remain important secondary features of democratic governance.

The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications

Abstract: The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a framework of the policy process developed by Paul A. Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith to deal with "wicked" problems– those involving substantial goal conflicts, important technical disputes, and multiple actors from several levels of government. This chapter presents an abbreviated version of the 1999 edition of the ACF. It analyses key concepts and causal processes, particularly with respect to policy subsystems, the devil shift, and coalition membership. It deals with a summary of some of the limitations of the ACF and important questions for future research. The ACF assumes that policymaking in modern societies is so complex, both substantively and legally, that participants must specialize if they are to have any hope of being influential. This specialization occurs within policy subsystems composed of participants who regularly seek to influence policy within a policy subsystem, such as California water policy.

Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Abstract: A policy process framework that has been developed to simplify the complexity of public policy is the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). This essay reports on an analysis of 80 applications of the ACF spanning nearly 20 years. The review shows that the ACF is applicable to various substantive topics, across various geographical areas, and with other policy process theories and frameworks, including the stages heuristic. The most commonly tested hypotheses involve policy change, learning, and coalition stability. Although the hypotheses tend to be confirmed, questions remain about the membership, stability, and defection of coalition members; about the causal mechanisms linking external events and policy change; and about the conditions that facilitate cross-coalition learning. Emerging areas of research include policy subsystem interdependencies and coordination within, and between, coalitions.