Cultural Maps of Power: Understanding Policy Change Through Belief Systems and Environmental Coalitions

Milky Stork

20-10-2025

Kingfisher asks again: “Oh? So the uselessness must remain untouched to be truly wondrous?”
Now Zhuangzi really laughs: “You spiky creature—are you uncomfortable unless you go against the Dao? This habit of always distinguishing—hasn’t it nearly starved you many times already? In the end, what matters more: being full, or distinguishing fish?”

In Kingfisherish Wandering [1]

© Wix

In environmental policymaking, conflicts are rarely just about resources—they are about values. Policymakers, industries, activists, and citizens often hold fundamentally different beliefs about human nature, social order, and the stability of ecosystems [2,3]. Traditional models, like the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), have helped explain how groups of actors with shared beliefs form stable coalitions that shape policy outcomes [4,5]. Yet, these models have struggled to explain why coalitions shift, how cross-coalitional learning occurs, and what drives major policy change. Metodi Sotirov and Brendon Swedlow [6]’s study answers these questions by integrating grid-group cultural theory (CT) into the ACF, offering a more comprehensive understanding of policy dynamics in environmental governance.

The study identifies four distinct cultural worldviews that shape policy behavior: hierarchism, individualism, egalitarianism, and fatalism. These correspond to different “myths of nature”—whether nature is seen as tolerant, robust, fragile, or capricious. By linking these worldviews to policy coalitions, Sotirov and Swedlow [6] propose that most environmental subsystems are organized around four cultural belief systems: technocratic (hierarchists), economic development (individualists), environmental protection (egalitarians), and social concern (fatalists) .

Analyzing 89 studies and 128 cases of environmental policymaking between 1987 and 2021, the authors find recurring patterns of coalition formation and change. Stable coalitions persist when actors share deep cultural values, but shifts occur through what the authors call “cultural surprises”—events that challenge a coalition’s worldview and open opportunities for cross-cultural alliances. For example, environmental crises can lead hierarchical regulators and egalitarian activists to collaborate on shared goals, even when their broader ideologies differ.

This synthesis shows that major policy change often depends on cultural flexibility—the ability of policy actors to learn across belief systems and form “clumsy coalitions” that combine multiple worldviews. By clarifying how belief systems both bind and divide actors, the CT-enhanced ACF provides a richer framework for understanding stability and transformation in environmental governance.

When societies recognize multiple “myths of nature,” they move toward a pluralistic dialogue that honors both ecological limits and human diversity. Such cultural humility fosters individual peace—as actors let go of rigid ideological certainty—and social peace—as societies find common ground despite conflicting values [7]. In essence, enhancing our collective NQ means cultivating cross-cultural empathy in policymaking, where diversity of belief becomes a strength rather than a barrier [8].

References

[1] Nguyen MH. (2025). Kingfisherish Wandering. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FVLLLXNW/

[2] Swedlow B, et al. (2020). Construct validity of cultural theory survey measures. Social Science Quarterly, 101(6), 2332-2383. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12859

[3] Johnson BB, Swedlow B. (2024). Measuring cultural identities in cultural theory survey research. Social Science Quarterly, 105(5), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13419

[4] Sabatier PA. (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change: An advocacy coalition framework. Knowledge, 8(4), 649-692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164025987008004005.

[5] Burton P. (2006). Modernising the policy process: Making policy research more significant? Policy Studies, 27(3), 173-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442870600885974

[6] Sotirov M, Swedlow B. (2025). Using cultural theory to specify the policy actors, belief systems, and sources of coalition, conflict, stability, and change in policy advocacy coalitions and environmental resource policies. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70068

[7] Nguyen MH, Ho MT, La VP. (2025). On “An” (安): Inner peace through uncertainty, nature quotient, and harmony with Dao. http://books.google.com/books/about?id=NIKMEQAAQBAJ 

[8] Vuong QH, Nguyen MH. (2025). On Nature Quotient. Pacific Conservation Biology, 31, PC25028. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC25028