Politicisation and coalition magnets in policy making: A comparative study of food sovereignty and agricultural reform in Nepal and Ecuador

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Politicisation and coalition magnets in policy making : A comparative study of food sovereignty and agricultural reform in Nepal and Ecuador. / Sharma, Puspa; Daugbjerg, Carsten.

In: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, Vol. 23, No. 5-6, 2021, p. 592-606.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Sharma, P & Daugbjerg, C 2021, 'Politicisation and coalition magnets in policy making: A comparative study of food sovereignty and agricultural reform in Nepal and Ecuador', Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, vol. 23, no. 5-6, pp. 592-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1760716

APA

Sharma, P., & Daugbjerg, C. (2021). Politicisation and coalition magnets in policy making: A comparative study of food sovereignty and agricultural reform in Nepal and Ecuador. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(5-6), 592-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1760716

Vancouver

Sharma P, Daugbjerg C. Politicisation and coalition magnets in policy making: A comparative study of food sovereignty and agricultural reform in Nepal and Ecuador. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 2021;23(5-6):592-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1760716

Author

Sharma, Puspa ; Daugbjerg, Carsten. / Politicisation and coalition magnets in policy making : A comparative study of food sovereignty and agricultural reform in Nepal and Ecuador. In: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 2021 ; Vol. 23, No. 5-6. pp. 592-606.

Bibtex

@article{c4b2d362ceb54457b1f1d5f9c2edb28e,
title = "Politicisation and coalition magnets in policy making: A comparative study of food sovereignty and agricultural reform in Nepal and Ecuador",
abstract = "Politicisation can be a strategy in which reform advocates use new ideas with coalition magnet attributes to engage a broad range of actors in setting the agenda for policy reform. Comparing the cases of Ecuador and Nepal, the article shows that the generally appealing but ambiguous idea of food sovereignty is a coalition magnet. Through politicisation, agriculture reform advocates in the two countries used the idea to form coalitions of diverse groups supporting reform. But due to the idea{\textquoteright}s ambiguities, a coherent set of reform measures is lacking. This has impeded policy reforms in the two countries.",
keywords = "coalition magnet, Ecuador, food sovereignty, Nepal, politicisation",
author = "Puspa Sharma and Carsten Daugbjerg",
note = "Issue 5-6: Issue politicization and policy change: Lesson drawing from the case of agriculture-food policy process ",
year = "2021",
doi = "10.1080/13876988.2020.1760716",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "592--606",
journal = "Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis",
issn = "1387-6988",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "5-6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Politicisation and coalition magnets in policy making

T2 - A comparative study of food sovereignty and agricultural reform in Nepal and Ecuador

AU - Sharma, Puspa

AU - Daugbjerg, Carsten

N1 - Issue 5-6: Issue politicization and policy change: Lesson drawing from the case of agriculture-food policy process

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - Politicisation can be a strategy in which reform advocates use new ideas with coalition magnet attributes to engage a broad range of actors in setting the agenda for policy reform. Comparing the cases of Ecuador and Nepal, the article shows that the generally appealing but ambiguous idea of food sovereignty is a coalition magnet. Through politicisation, agriculture reform advocates in the two countries used the idea to form coalitions of diverse groups supporting reform. But due to the idea’s ambiguities, a coherent set of reform measures is lacking. This has impeded policy reforms in the two countries.

AB - Politicisation can be a strategy in which reform advocates use new ideas with coalition magnet attributes to engage a broad range of actors in setting the agenda for policy reform. Comparing the cases of Ecuador and Nepal, the article shows that the generally appealing but ambiguous idea of food sovereignty is a coalition magnet. Through politicisation, agriculture reform advocates in the two countries used the idea to form coalitions of diverse groups supporting reform. But due to the idea’s ambiguities, a coherent set of reform measures is lacking. This has impeded policy reforms in the two countries.

KW - coalition magnet

KW - Ecuador

KW - food sovereignty

KW - Nepal

KW - politicisation

U2 - 10.1080/13876988.2020.1760716

DO - 10.1080/13876988.2020.1760716

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85085027791

VL - 23

SP - 592

EP - 606

JO - Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis

JF - Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis

SN - 1387-6988

IS - 5-6

ER -

ID: 242606938