In the advocacy coalition framework, what is the defining characteristic of a 'core belief system'?

In the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), a 'core belief system' is the defining characteristic that binds an advocacy coalition together. The ACF, developed by Paul Sabatier and colleagues, explains how policy changes occur by focusing on the role of groups advocating for specific policies. These groups, called 'advocacy coalitions,' share a common set of beliefs that shape their policy preferences. A core belief system isn't just about policy preferences; it's a deeply held, interconnected set of fundamental assumptions about how the world works, what constitutes good government, and what values are most important.

Specifically, a core belief system comprises three layers of beliefs, arranged hierarchically. The deepest layer, and the most resistant to change, consists of 'deep core beliefs.' These are fundamental, often unquestioned, assumptions about the nature of society and the world. They are rarely explicitly debated within a coalition and are often rooted in philosophical or moral convictions. An example might be a belief in individual liberty as the paramount value in a society. The second layer is 'policy core beliefs.' These beliefs link deep core beliefs to policy issues. They provide a framework for understanding problems and evaluating potential solutions. They are more specific than deep core beliefs and are more likely to be debated within a coalition. For instance, if a deep core belief is individual liberty, a policy core belief might be that government regulation of businesses should be minimal to maximize individual economic freedom. Finally, the top layer consists of 'secondary aspects of policy beliefs.' These are the most changeable beliefs and relate to specific policy details, such as the precise level of a tax or the details of a regulatory program. They are the subject of most policy debates.

What makes a belief system 'core' is its interconnectedness and stability. Beliefs within the system are logically linked; changing one belief often requires changing others. This interconnectedness makes the system resistant to change, especially at the deep core level. Advocacy coalitions are defined by their shared core belief system; members must largely accept these beliefs to remain within the coalition. Disagreement on secondary aspects of policy beliefs is acceptable and even expected, as coalitions often contain diverse individuals with different expertise. However, fundamental disagreement on policy core or deep core beliefs typically leads to the formation of a new coalition or the departure of the dissenting member. The stability of the core belief system explains why policy change can be slow and incremental, as coalitions are reluctant to abandon their fundamental assumptions.