Deep core advocacy coalitions

Abstract

Political organizations are formal or informal collective entities that coordinate behavior, directly or indirectly influence government decisions, connect people and their government, and are bound by a common cause that gives them purpose and direction (Nohrstedt & Heinmiller, 2024). While discussions of political organizations date to classical antiquity, the modern study of them took form in the 19th and 20th centuries. Common examples include political parties (Schattschneider, 1942), pressure or interest groups (Baumgartner & Leech, 1998), think tanks (Weaver, 1989), epistemic communities (Haas, 1992), social movements (McAdam et al., 1996), civil society organizations (Salamon & Anheier, 1997), and advocacy coalitions (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993).

Political organizations possess various characteristics, such as composition, resources, objectives, strategies, and activities, which influence their functions and impact within political or governing systems at different scales. For instance, with their formal organizational structures, political parties frequently clash in electoral politics, striving to change or maintain seats of power in government, usually spanning the geography of a country and operating in the macro-political system (or, as referred to it in this article, the macro-system) (Bawn et al., 2012). Due to their often outsider status and informal organizational structures, social movements instead typically engage in extra-political activities like civil disobedience and demonstrations. If these activities succeed, they can draw national attention to their cause, impacting the broader macro-system as well (Tilly, 2010).

This article focuses on another informally structured category of political organization, namely advocacy coalitions. These are the backbone of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), a policy process theory that studies how actors forge alliances to engage in and steer conflicts over policy and administrative issues. A defining characteristic of advocacy coalitions is that they seek to influence policy change and implementation in policy subsystems—i.e., policy-specific subsets of the macro-system (Nohrstedt et al., 2023).

While the ACF scholarship continues to evolve and advance, opportunities always exist for further innovations and refinements. In this study, we examine and link two aspects of advocacy coalitions that have so far remained understudied: first, their involvement and mobilization at two levels of collective action (i.e., the macro-system and policy subsystems), and second, the possibility of deep core beliefs acting as the unifying force among members.

In mainstream policy process literature, the relationship between subsystems and the macro-system has been considered mainly by punctuated equilibrium, agenda-setting, and narrative scholars. For example, they might analyze how actors wanting policy change strategically expand the scope of conflict beyond subsystems to attract the attention of macro-system forces (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Schattschneider, 1960). When involved, macro-political institutions can disrupt, sometimes nontrivially, subsystem affairs and enact the change that subsystem actors sought. Similarly, narrative scholars have examined the macro-level, which they argue shapes and perpetrates policy narratives at the subsystem level (Stauffer, 2023).

For its part, the ACF simply treats changes imposed from the macro-system as exogenous to the subsystem, with little attention to how the link between the macro-system and policy subsystems may drive such changes. One important understudied aspect within the ACF is thus the macro-system as a collective action arena in which advocacy coalitions may form and operate. From this vantage point, they can strategically choose to engage in policy subsystems for particular goals. Powerful macro-system coalitions might select the most amiable or susceptible policy subsystems to launch offensive campaigns. Conversely, less powerful macro-system coalitions might be in defensive positions, needing to allocate scarce resources strategically. This may involve prioritizing the prevention of changes in certain subsystems to counteract the will of their opponents while allowing other subsystems to face a decline in alignment with their cause as a calculated trade-off.

Our second contribution is helping advance the understanding of how deep core beliefs, particularly identities, impact political organizations. Policy process research on this topic is rare, partly due to social identities being a latent phenomenon that is difficult to integrate into existing theories. A notable exception is Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Hornung et al., 2019), which draws from the functional antagonisms whereby individuals activate certain aspects of their identities over others, creating in-group vs. out-group dynamics. While this research introduces a new conceptual infrastructure for studying identities, it has yet to offer the foundations for understanding the dynamics of policy processes through coalitions, learning, and policy changes, as with the ACF. From a different yet related perspective, the literature on the social construction of target populations delves into identities and has examined how the construction of target populations impacts policy decisions, outcomes, social equity, and citizen–state encounters (Schneider & Ingram, 1993). However, this theoretical approach has yet to develop the implications of the constructions of target populations for political organizations.

In the ACF literature, deep core beliefs have primarily been studied as drivers of more policy-specific beliefs (i.e., policy core and secondary beliefs) and policy subsystem-centered behaviors (e.g., Jenkins‐Smith et al., 2014). However, past work on abortion in the US (Crawford & Weible, 2024) and US rural and urban policy conflicts (Gabehart, 2024) has found that some advocacy coalitions have deep core tendencies—that is, coalition members sometimes seem to cohere just as much around deep core beliefs as on policy core beliefs.

Building on these studies, this article introduces the concept of “deep core advocacy coalitions.” We use deep core beliefs—such as individuals’ philosophies, fundamental normative views, ontological and epistemological axioms, and other canonical orientations (Sabatier, 1988)—as a way to approximate social identities. Indeed, these beliefs intersect and combine to define a person’s fundamental characteristics and shape their identity—i.e., a sense of who they are based on their group memberships (ascribed or self-claimed), such as their nationality, race, sex, gender identity, socioeconomic class, and/or religion. We then explore how deep core beliefs influence the formation, cohesion, and stability of advocacy coalitions at the macro-level and, by extension, the effectiveness of their advocacy efforts. While we argue that deep core beliefs serve as the primary cohesive element drawing actors together at the macro-system level, we acknowledge that these intersecting beliefs also present unique challenges to the cohesion and stability of deep core coalitions.

This article begins with an overview of the textbook ACF that focuses on two or more advocacy coalitions operating in a policy subsystem in contentious debates. This section reveals that this textbook ACF is just one scenario among many that comprise the ACF research program. The following section introduces a new and needed extension with deep core coalitions in the macro-system. To illustrate deep core coalitions, two short cases are presented. This article concludes by outlining a research agenda for studying deep core coalitions and supporting diverse research beyond the textbook ACF, including more comparative work and integrated theoretical efforts.

The advocacy coalition framework

In the ACF, the primary political arena of study is the policy subsystem. The policy subsystem is a subset of the macro-system specializing in a particular policy topic within a specific jurisdiction (such as the national or subnational levels). While the geographic scope of a policy subsystem may overlap with that of the macro-system (e.g., supranational, national, or constituent unit-wide in federal systems), its substantive focus and relevant decision-making venues (e.g., a regulatory arena) are always narrower in addressing specific problems or issues (Sabatier, 1988).

Moreover, multiple policy subsystems do not create a flat, two-dimensional plane of neatly fitted issue areas and communities. Instead, subsystems exist in three-dimensional planes, tending to overlap, often with fuzzy and contested boundaries, and can be nested within one or multiple others. It is also important to note that subsystems are partly analytical constructs, not easily defined a priori (Nohrstedt and Weible, 2010): p. 8; Angst, 2020: p. 783). Researchers are, therefore, responsible for delineating at least a portion of the subsystem’s structure, processes, and contents. While the policy subsystem is the primary unit of analysis in the ACF, some of its research might focus on analyzing, for example, the rationales for policy change in legislative or regulatory venues. Although a decision-making venue might operate as a unit of analysis in any given ACF study, the goal is usually to draw inferences about the related policy subsystem.

The development of the ACF coincided with the development of an archetypical—or textbook—policy conflict featuring two or more competing advocacy coalitions seeking to advance their policy positions in mature subsystems in advanced polyarchies (Jenkins-Smith & Weible, 2025; R.A. Dahl, 1972). Distinguishing coalitions has been theoretically defined and empirically confirmed by differing policy core beliefs, which are general perceptions and values pertinent to the policy subsystem and include, but are not limited to, policy preferences and problem perceptions and causes (Weible et al., 2020).

Recognizing that there is no complete or ideal democracy, Dahl uses polyarchies as a term to capture political regimes with “some degree of democratization” (pg. 7). Dahl goes on to argue that democratization generally entails sufficient institutional arrangements and political capacities for inclusive contestation. The enabling processes for such engagement and contestation include fair and frequent elections, voting rights, opportunities to shape agendas and policies, and information flows supporting an informed citizenry (Dahl, 1998). Assuming advanced polyarchies ensures sufficient coalition opportunity structures (i.e., the decision-making venues that provide opportunities and constraints for coalition efforts) for two or more advocacy coalitions to mobilize, seek influence, and maintain themselves over time.

Given these foundational stones, the textbook ACF can be described in multiple ways, such as through hypotheses (Nohrstedt et al., 2023) or through short stories or vignettes that give the essentials from which the hypotheses can be derived. Table 1 provides the textbook ACF theoretical vignette.

While much of the ACF scholarship falls within the textbook scenario, a sizeable portion also falls outside, which is both under-recognized and one of the sources of the Framework’s continued growth and evolution (Jenkins-Smith & Weible, 2025). For example, the textbook ACF operates in “adversarial subsystems.” In contrast, when the conflict intensity levels are mitigated, there might be a “collaborative policy subsystem” wherein cooperative advocacy coalitions operate (Koebele, 2020). Alternatively, removing competition with an uneven distribution of political resources creates a “unitary policy subsystem” with a dominant advocacy coalition without much opposition (Olofsson et al., 2018). In this vein of research that falls outside the ACF textbook, the following section introduces deep core coalitions operating at the level of the macro-system.

The macro-system and deep core coalitions

The macro-system

The macro-system represents a broad governing and political jurisdiction and spans any conceivable policy problem or issue. Decision-making within the macro-system can have a sweeping influence across policies and programs, as well as on the rules and procedures for administrative agencies. This all-encompassing jurisdiction also creates a crowded and competitive environment for societal attention and influencing agendas, possibly through the news or social media or by placing policy proposals in macro decision-making venues, such as national legislatures (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Redford, 1969).

Both policy subsystems and the macro-system are “political systems” (Dahl, 1963, 6), meaning they deal with issues of authority, rules, and power. The difference between them is their levels on a scale of collective action, notably marked by different levels of scope, jurisdiction, and geography. The most crucial distinction is in the scope of their substantive focus: the macro-system addresses any policy problem or issue for a polity, and subsystems focus on a particular topical area. Closely related to policy scope is jurisdiction. Macro-systems operate at a broader jurisdictional level. This means that the pertinent macro institutional venues have the authority to address and impact a range of problems and issues within and between policy subsystems. In contrast, the relevant policy subsystem institutional venues, such as a regulatory agency, have a narrower scope. It is also essential to recognize that one of the strategies for change for policy subsystem actors is to attract the attention of the macro-institutional venues, given their authority to change nontrivially policy subsystems

Another distinction regards territorial or geographic breadth. Macro-systems have geographic breadth, regularly spanning countries (in the case of supranational organizations such as the European Union), national or country, or constituent units in federal systems (e.g., cantons, states, and provinces). Policy subsystems might have the same geography as a macro-system but can also have a narrower geographic scope pertinent to the policy issues. This is often found in environmental and natural resource issues, such as the water and land management policy subsystem in the Lake Tahoe Basin that comprises, because of the nature of the good, a small portion of the states of California and Nevada in the USA (Weible & Sabatier, 2009).

Deep core coalitions

Within the macro-system are deep core coalitions. Like coalitions at the policy subsystem level, understanding deep core coalitions begins with a model of the individual that departs from the rational actor assumptions and recognizes the limited cognitive capacity of people, the tendency for them to exaggerate the power and maliciousness (i.e., threats) of opponents (i.e., the “devil shift”), an interdependence or entwining of feelings, reasoning, and belief systems in making sense of the world and impressions on the world (Nohrstedt et al., 2023).

The focus on individuals does not mean they are atomized, as might be found in traditional microeconomics or psychology. Instead, individuals are embedded within societal structures with formal and informal conditions that offer constraints and opportunities ranging from institutional to cultural. While only individuals have agency, this agency is conditioned by a broader societal context, which they also try to influence. This context can empower and disempower them and become a focal point for their action, whether they aim to change or preserve it.

Central to each individual’s belief system are deep core beliefs that envelop personal philosophies, fundamental normative views, ontological and epistemological axioms, and other canonical orientations (Sabatier, 1988, p. 145). One of the defining features of deep core beliefs is that they span different policy subsystems, meaning they are general enough to apply to numerous aspects of society. For example, deep core beliefs about religious freedom, bodily autonomy, or justice will apply to multiple policy subsystems, including health, education, the environment, and others.

Drawing from Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999, p. 133), Table 2 concisely lists 10 categories of deep core beliefs, with illustrated indicators for each category. These categories are possibly constructed, defined, and molded by forces internal and external to the person. In this sense, deep core beliefs both shape and are shaped by an individual’s lived experiences.

Table 2’s categories and illustrations have been developed at a particular time and from a specific cultural and societal standpoint. As such, the table is not assumed to be ontologically definitive, universally applicable, or objective. Instead, the deep core categories and indicators are meant as an explicitly stated conceptual schema to support research teams and prompt reflection, criticism, and revision among researchers. Different categories will likely be relevant and must be incorporated for various spaces and times.

Moreover, splitting deep core beliefs into categories is not done to suggest their independence. Instead, the tenth component emphasizes the compounding nature of deep core categories. Indeed, social identities intersect, creating new or deepening already-existing experiences of privilege and marginalization within political organizations (Cho et al., 2013; Crenshaw, 1991; Hancock, 2007). The compounding nature of Table 2’s deep core categories and indicators is also not “additive.” For example, as Crenshaw (1991) explains, the social identity of Black womanhood is not simply the summation of Blackness and womanhood but also the creation of a distinct social identity with compounded deep core characteristics and oppressions (e.g., misogynoir). Simien (2007) is one of many who explore the compounding effects of social identities (e.g., race, gender, and class) regarding power and privilege.

Although deep core beliefs are crucial in binding coalitions within the macro-system, shared belief systems are insufficient to spur collective action (Olson, 1965). Individuals involved in macro-system politics often possess a mix of intersecting deep core beliefs. Some of these beliefs might become active drivers of collective action, while others remain dormant. There are several ways perceived opportunities and threats spark the transition of deep core beliefs moving from dormant to active manifestations.

For example, in line with “morality policy” scholars, coalitions form in the macro-system when actors recognize that the policy issues pertinent to their deep core beliefs transcend and intersect multiple subsystems. This dynamic raises the much broader question of which—or whose—deep core beliefs should receive the “stamp of approval” by the state across subsystems, ultimately shaping the polity as a whole (Meier, 1999, 681; Mourão Permoser, 2019, 311). Such approval may manifest through policies and programs spanning multiple policy subsystems, incentivizing deep core coalitions to form and navigate these interconnected political arenas. Similarly, some issues contribute to debates across multiple policy subsystems but are often primarily linked to one. For example, debates over same-sex marriage reflect competing fundamental beliefs about individual self-determination, personhood, family, kinship, and religious freedom. While the issue is most closely aligned with a marriage and family policy subsystem, it also sparks debates in education, taxation, health, and other subsystems.

Additionally, given their fundamental importance in shaping an individual’s sense of self and social identity, deep core beliefs are visceral. Thus, when individuals perceive opponents’ ideas or the state of the world as threatening to their deep core beliefs, such threats are experienced and interpreted at the existential level. This builds on Mason (2018), who shows that identity-based sorting has largely replaced issue-based sorting as a polarizing force over the last half-century and that instead of issues (policy core aspects) animating coalescence of coalitions at the macro-level, identity (deep core aspects) drives social sorting. Threats catalyze this, consistent with intergroup emotions theory (Mackie et al., 2000), as group members react more strongly to policy issues (particularly with anger and enthusiasm) when threats to their deep core identities exist.

Threats to deep core coalitions can be classified via three general sources that sometimes reinforce each other. The first involves a political opponent who, through rhetoric and actions, threatens individuals’ deep core beliefs. Whereas the first focuses on political opponents, the second involves threats from the environment or the ‘state of the world,’ an example includes institutionalized discrimination adopted into public policies and programs with disempowering impacts. The third involves threats from multiple policy subsystems, such as the varied and increasing burdens put on transgender populations across multiple policy subsystems. The meaning of threats is also constructed through individuals’ belief systems and, through the devil shift, raises the potential losses of inaction, prompting action. Consequently, deep core advocacy coalitions are defined as a group of policy actors who share deep core beliefs, perceive threats to those beliefs, politically coordinate their behavior, and collaborate to both defend those beliefs and translate them into public policy in policy subsystems

While deep core coalitions can comprise any individual with affiliations within and outside governments, deep core beliefs are always moored to individuals. This means that in any collective action arena (i.e., coalition opportunity structures, policy subsystems, and macro-systems), deep core beliefs can be invoked and matter in coalition dynamics. For example, innovative work on incorporating cultural theory into the ACF underscores how, in many subsystems, deep core beliefs have substantial effects on policy core beliefs and can, therefore, contribute to understanding advocacy coalitions (Jenkins‐Smith et al., 2014). Theoretically and empirically, however, deep core beliefs, while potentially influential in any subsystem affairs, are usually too broad to form and maintain coalitions (Matti & Sandström, 2011). Thus, for policy subsystems and the textbook ACF, the shared policy core beliefs are the principal reason for people to mobilize and sustain coalitions.

The situation is different in the macro-system, an arena of politics nonspecific to any policy issue but not devoid of policy debates. Thus, political organizations can mobilize around policy core beliefs in the macro-system. However, the competition for agendas or attention in the high-level political opportunity structures or the macro discourse makes it difficult to maintain policy-core-based collective action (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993). As a result, policy-core advocacy coalitions consistently tend to occupy policy subsystems over time. In contrast, deep core coalitions are more likely to occupy the macro-system, possibly choosing which policy subsystems to prioritize at any given point in time. While not discussing macro-systems, Hornung and Bandelow (2022) make a parallel argument regarding the importance of normative deep core beliefs and political party systems across several European countries in shaping subsystem-level politics and more policy-core-based advocacy coalitions.

We posit that the particular situation within the macro-system will trigger the type of deep core belief that will help bind coalitions together. Policy core beliefs are the primary glue for binding coalitions within policy subsystems due to the policy relevance and, hence, the ongoing threats to policy core beliefs. In contrast, deep core beliefs are the primary glue that binds coalitions in the macro-system, where the focus is broader, and any attention to policy-specific issues can occur in short-term bursts. Of course, crossovers are possible: sometimes, policy subsystem advocacy coalitions can engage in the macro-system (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993), and sometimes, political organizations, like deep core coalitions or political parties, can engage in policy subsystem affairs (Li & Weible, 2021).

Additionally, there are multiple scenarios involving crossovers between the macro-system and policy subsystems. One scenario would assume that such crossovers might be fleeting, given the limited attention and resources needed to mobilize in both the macro-system and policy subsystems However, it is also feasible that political organizations engage in both, such as some national-level political parties in Europe and elsewhere, with very policy-specific platforms. In these situations, the number of policy subsystems in which they are involved will likely be small. Another scenario would be that a deep core coalition might eventually be subsumed by an advocacy coalition in a subsystem, perhaps if the pertinent policy issues condense to that subsystem.

Hypotheses

Table 3 lists the five principal hypotheses for deep core coalitions.

The first establishes the threatening forces that enable deep core coalitions to form at the macro-policy subsystem. This hypothesis identifies the oppositional, subsystem, and environmental threatening forces driving deep core coalition formation and maintenance. This hypothesis is agnostic regarding the strategic reasons or motivations for individuals to join coalitions. They might be there to strategically serve a policy core advocacy coalition or a different deep core coalition, or they might be there because they genuinely consider themselves members. This first hypothesis also posits that threats can be to the policy core in policy subsystems, which might appear similar to regular subsystem-bound advocacy coalitions. The difference is that deep core coalitions span multiple policy subsystems and, thus, given that threats can come from one or more policy subsystems, their focus is inherently broader than any one subsystem.

The second hypothesis deals with coalition cohesion and the intra-characteristics of a coalition. It incorporates the macro-system space that deep core coalitions occupy and the potential splintering or adhering effects of policy subsystems In other words, because deep core coalitions sit atop multiple policy subsystems, those subsystems can divide or unite deep core coalitions. For this hypothesis, cohesion refers to the extent of internal unity or togetherness, possibly measured through behaviors (coordination patterns) or expressed deep core beliefs. It can also include perceptions of self-awareness, whether members of deep core coalitions are self-aware that they exist as a political organization or whether they are aware of any areas of policy core agreement or disagreement that might, in turn, unify or fracture the coalition (Nohrstedt & Heinmiller, 2024).

The third hypothesis deals with coalition stability. It assumes that while deep core beliefs are the glue that binds coalitions together, it can be the degree of agreement or disagreement across policy subsystems that can lead to adding and keeping members or losing members. Unlike cohesion, which can be measured and assessed at a particular point in time, coalition stability has a temporal component. It can also be measured at two principal levels (Osei-Kojo, 2023). At a high level is the stability of the coalition as a political organization (does the coalition exist over time), and at a lower level is the stability of coalition members (are the members changing or not over time). This third hypothesis posits that more agreement on policy core issues across subsystems will lead to more stability of a coalition as a political organization and in terms of members.

The fourth hypothesis is an extension of the second and third coalition hypotheses. This one addresses the tradeoffs between a coalition’s internal cohesion and stability while highlighting issues of intra-coalition representation and power dynamics. A deep core coalition might marginalize some of its members—thereby debilitating its cohesion—to avoid losses or to secure gains in policy subsystems—thereby maintaining, if not advancing, its stability as a political organization. For example, Murib (2023) writes extensively about how, during the formation of the transgender coalition in the USA, the voices of “mainstream” members—i.e., middle-upper-class white individuals—were prioritized. Such prioritization was deemed necessary by the transgender movement to render its advocacy “legible to lawmakers and the wider public” (Murib, 2023, 177). However, it also resulted in the coalition silencing and marginalizing other members, primarily intersex, Black, disabled, or engaged in sex work.

The fifth hypothesis focuses on the fragility of a coalition’s internal cohesion and stability. In particular, it emphasizes the potential political advantages or liabilities posed by intersecting deep core beliefs. On the one hand, when deep core beliefs are shared, intersecting deep core beliefs function as the glue for deep core coalitions. For example, Woodward (2004) showed how feminist bureaucrats, NGO members, and academics collaborated in a network called “velvet triangle” to pursue gender mainstreaming within the European Union (EU). Their shared commitment to gender equality and social justice, along with their identity as members of a social group marginalized on the basis of sex, enabled them to form a strong, cohesive coalition. This velvet triangle effectively drove policy change across subsystems, such as labor rights, health care, and education. On the other hand, the creation of a shared ideological foundation may come to the detriment of recognizing the diversity within political organizations and the power imbalances that come with it (Tormos, 2017, p. 711; Einwohner et al., 2021, p. 709; Muñoz‐Puig, 2024, p. 1135). If not addressed, these differences and power imbalances may result in internal tensions that weaken deep core coalitions and put them at risk of splintering. A case in point is the policy issue of surrogacy, which activates multiple and contrasting deep core beliefs among members of the women’s and LGBTQ+ rights coalitions—e.g., social identities based on sex, sexual orientation, and social class; ethical considerations regarding science; and views of social and reproductive justice. Foret and Bolzonar’s (Foret & Bolzonar, 2021) study of the policy process regarding surrogacy at the EU level illustrates how deep core divergences within the LGBTQ+ and women’s rights movements prevented them from building an effective pan-European advocacy targeting EU institutions.

While listed separately, the five hypotheses in Table 3 actually interrelate to create the deep core advocacy coalition theory underlying them. They also manifest in expected strategies. For example, deep core coalitions will try to maintain cohesion and stability. This is complicated because deep core coalitions face the challenge of creating a united front despite internal tensions derived from its membership’s diverse intersecting deep core beliefs. They, therefore, need to foster “intersectional solidarity,” namely a political predisposition and form of organizing that recognizes and addresses the marginalization of groups defined by the intersection of multiple axes of oppression (Crowder & Smith, 2020, p. 490; Einwohner et al., 2021, p. 710). As a precondition, the most central—and powerful—coalition members must acknowledge the unique challenges that marginalized members face and agree to address them (Crowder & Smith, 2020, p. 491; Muñoz‐Puig, 2024, p. 1137). Intersectional solidarity can then be cultivated through tactics such as ensuring the descriptive representation of marginalized groups within coalitions as political organizations (Ciccia & Roggeband, 2021, p. 187) or redirecting the coalition’s advocacy agenda and resources to the issues that most affect marginalized members (Crowder & Smith, 2020, p. 491; Einwohner et al., 2021, p. 706; Tormos, 2017, p. 712).

Additionally, given their vested interest in policy subsystems and their potential threats, deep core coalitions will try to maximize the returns to their advocacy efforts across subsystems Yet, like most political organizations, they have finite material resources and, therefore, must choose which subsystems to target to increase the chances of policymaking reflecting their preferences. Such strategic “venue shopping” (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993) may answer to different intra-coalition dynamics and the exogenous opportunity structure. A deep core coalition may decide to prioritize the subsystems in which its members are most influential, those regulating the issues on which most coalition members agree, those regulating the issues concerning central coalition members, or, to enact intersectional solidarity, those controlling the issues affecting its most marginalized members. Furthermore, some subsystems provide a more favorable environment for advocacy than others. The receptivity of subsystems and related decision venues to deep core coalitions’ claims will vary. Alternately, deep core coalitions may also prefer to target policy subsystems where their opponents are less influential and/or less organized (Pralle, 2010, pp. 196–7).

Like the textbook ACF, the theory of deep core coalitions can be told in a vignette in Table 4.

Two examples of deep core coalitions

This section presents two examples of deep core coalitions to illustrate the concept and address some but not all of its theoretical arguments and hypotheses.

Colorado’s transgender protections deep core coalition (Imhoff, 2024)

Over the past decade, Colorado—similar to many states in the USA—has experienced a significant uptick in policy activity, both restricting and advancing transgender rights, making it a compelling case for understanding identity-based coalitions through the ACF. Drawing on 10 semistructured interviews with policy actors, including legislators, grassroots advocates, LGBTQ+ nonprofit 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) leaders, and service providers, this case study examines the coalition advocating for transgender protections and underscores how shared deep core beliefs, particularly those rooted in bodily autonomy and gender self-determination, drive key actors in this policy arena.

Deep core beliefs identified among transgender protections coalition members center on bodily autonomy, self-determination of gender identity, and respect for diverse expressions of identity. These beliefs are often intertwined with the lived experiences of marginalization that coalition members face and their collective aspirations for equality, inclusion, and equity. As one participant described: “Bodily autonomy is non-negotiable—it’s about everyone’s right to determine what happens with their own body, and that includes gender identity. It’s a matter of basic human dignity” (Interview #3, 3/8/24). These deep core beliefs intersect with policy core beliefs, including ensuring access to gender-affirming healthcare, implementing antidiscrimination protections, developing a culturally competent mental healthcare workforce, and creating and safeguarding safe, affirming spaces across institutions.

Coalition members frequently framed external threats—ranging from legislative attacks to social stigmatization—not as isolated policy disputes but as existential challenges targeting their identities (supporting Hypothesis 1). These threats, both direct and indirect, often galvanized collective responses. The coalition’s activity is closely tied to such threats, with periods of heightened mobilization in response to challenges and occasional dormancy during less contentious times. Particularly in rural communities, participants emphasized the need for heightened visibility and cautious engagement to avoid exacerbating safety risks. The growing prevalence of ballot initiatives as a battleground has also shifted coalition strategies toward public education efforts.

Strategically, the coalition relies on collaboration that spans subsystems, forming alliances with groups advocating for broader LGBTQ+ protections, reproductive rights, immigrant justice, antiprison industrial complex advocates, and disability rights, among others. For instance, the coalition’s partnership with reproductive rights advocates during the passage of the state policy “Protections For Accessing Reproductive Health Care” demonstrated the effectiveness of aligning policy goals to safeguard gender-affirming care within broader healthcare protections. One advocate reflected: “So a logical place to go is to work together with the abortion rights people to craft a bill that protects both trans rights and abortion rights. Because essentially, it’s the same people we’re trying to defend against. And it’s healthcare: abortion is healthcare, trans care is healthcare” (Interview #9, 3/19/24). These collaborations reflect both the necessity of coalition-building—given the small and vulnerable visible transgender population—and the strategic opportunity to amplify influence. Table 5 provides an illustrated list of subsystems this transgender coalition engages. Issues included in subsystems’ topical areas are defined here as “the content of a political interaction or negotiation among actors” (Brandenberger et al., 2022: p. 36).

The transgender protections coalition in Colorado often operates within the broader LGBTQ+ movement, facing challenges of “infighting” (Interview #5, 3/5/24) regarding language and representation (partly supporting Hypothesis 2). Echoing findings from Murib (2023), some participants expressed frustration with the historical marginalization of transgender voices within the LGBTQ+ advocacy space—a dynamic that persists today. As one participant explained: “LGBTQ folks come into those conversations, but specifically around transgender and gender nonconforming, I do get the sense at times, it’s like, ‘that’s a little too political for us’.. If we are all committed to communities where everyone can thrive, we can’t just leave out demographic identities because it feels like a political hot potato in the current climate” (Interview #2, 3/5/24). Despite these tensions, many participants described a deep sense of community rooted in shared values, often referenced in relation to the challenges of marginalization.

The Colorado transgender protections coalition exemplifies the binding power of deep core beliefs in uniting diverse actors across subsystems. Diverging from traditional policy core coalitions, this identity-based cohesion allows the coalition to address issues across multiple subsystems while maintaining focus on existential threats to transgender rights.

The European Union’s anti-gender deep core coalition (Mariani, 2024)

The EU has recently become a critical arena for the mobilization of so-called “anti-gender” actors—i.e., opponents of gender equality and sexual and reproductive rights (Graff & Korolczuk, 2022; Kuhar & Paternotte, 2017). To gain political traction at the supranational level, anti-gender civil society organizations have allied with elected officials and political parties from right-wing populist circles. Together, they seek to influence EU politics and policymaking through coordinated actions across various venues, such as co-organizing transnational summits and co-sponsoring initiatives in the European Parliament (EP). The beliefs underpinning and driving this anti-gender coalition, along with the policy issues targeted by coalition members and their perceptions of threat, are examined through a qualitative content analysis of public documents. Specifically, 60 texts by civil society organizations—e.g., mission statements and policy reports—and the transcripts of 134 contributions to plenary debates by members of the EP have been analyzed.

Anti-gender beliefs have been classified into deep core and policy core beliefs following Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith’s (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999) and Weible et al.’s (Weible et al., 2020) categorizations. Seven deep core beliefs were deductively derived from the literature on anti-gender mobilizations (specifically, Garbagnoli, 2016; Graff & Korolczuk, 2022; Kuhar & Paternotte, 2017) and include fundamental views about human nature, normative orientations regarding society, moral and ethical principles, and ontological axioms. Examples include the belief that human dignity is inherent to the person from conception to natural death and derived from divine creation and the one of religious freedom—i.e., that personal religious pursuit should be free from coercion. These deep core beliefs were identified as key to the cohesiveness of this coalition (supporting Hypothesis 1).

Pertinent subsystems and policy core beliefs were instead identified abductively, first derived from the aforementioned scholarship on the anti-gender movement and then expanded and refined during the coding process. Importantly, beliefs were categorized as policy core only if they were tied to specific issues. For instance, the notion that surrogacy commodifies human beings in a “reproductive market” is a policy core belief tied to the issue of surrogacy, underpinned by the deep core belief in human dignity. Similarly, the deep core belief in religious freedom informs the policy core belief that medical personnel should not face sanctions for refusing to perform abortions if it violates their deeply held religious convictions. A total of 55 policy core beliefs were identified, which were then grouped according to the 10 issues to which they are related—shown in Table 5—to mitigate fragmentation.

The findings are consistent with the notion that anti-gender civil society organizations and their institutional allies forge a macro-level deep core coalition, opportunistically engaging in any subsystem where coalition members perceive threats to their deep core beliefs. Table 6 provides examples of the subsystems in which these anti-gender actors operate.

The members of the anti-gender coalition in the EU align similarly on both deep core and policy core beliefs. In line with Hypothesis 5, shared deep core beliefs serve as a crucial rallying point for anti-gender forces within the macro-system. Deep core beliefs such as gender essentialism—i.e., the belief in innate, binary, and complementary attributes of men and women—and the “natural” family—i.e., the belief that the heteronormative family based on marriage is the essential unit of society and the best context for procreation and childrearing—create a coherent framework for understanding different gender and sexual equality issues as interconnected components of the same threat to the “natural order.” These shared deep core beliefs allow actors who work on various policy issues and might otherwise lack common ground in their day-to-day politics to build a collective traditionalist identity and a sense of belonging to the same political struggle.

Additionally, shared policy core beliefs enable anti-gender civil society organizations and their institutional allies to coordinate within different subsystems. For example, anti-gender coalition members in the education field share the policy core belief that comprehensive sex education in schools indoctrinates children into “degenerate” and “immoral” ideas and practices. In the reproductive rights subsystem, coalition members believe that abortion is the “killing of innocent babies” and leads to a “culture of death,” with the implicit belief that “unborn life” should be protected. Sharing policy core beliefs across subsystems likely contributes to the anti-gender coalition’s cohesion and stability (supporting Hypotheses 2 and 3).

Lastly, the anti-gender actors operating at the supranational level express more than twice as often perceiving threats to their deep core beliefs compared to their policy core beliefs (supporting Hypothesis 1). In particular, the analysis pinpoints two types of perceived threats to deep core beliefs. One is the threat posed by their opponents and the public policies they pursue. The second is an environmental threat posed by societies becoming increasingly secularized and liberal.

Summary

The knowledge generated about the US transgender protections and the EU anti-gender coalition came from interviews and document analysis, respectively, providing multiple perspectives on their composition and operation. Ultimately, they serve as useful illustrative cases of deep core coalitions focusing on gender: they operate at the macro-system level and are fundamentally anchored in shared deep core beliefs. In addition, these deep core policy advocates strategically engage in various subsystems over time, such as reproduction, education, and criminal justice subsystems Lastly, although their shared deep core beliefs provide stability and cohesion, they remain vulnerable to internal fractures. This is particularly true for coalitions like the transgender protection coalition, where awareness of internal diversity can expose or amplify underlying divisions. These characteristics and dynamics of deep core coalitions directly flow into the above hypotheses, creating a foundation for future research.

Conclusion

The growth of the ACF requires the continued balancing of knowledge grounded in traditional textbook applications with openness to new cases and ideas that these textbook applications may miss (Jenkins-Smith & Weible, 2025). This article introduces a new sub-theory of deep core coalitions, explicitly integrating deep core social identities and macro-systems—two undertheorized concepts in the ACF. The two cases presented within this study illustrate various attributes of deep core coalitions and provide preliminary counterevidence that coalitions only form around shared policy core beliefs. This idea that coalitions can also form around their deep core beliefs mirrors arguments from social identity theory (Hornung et al., 2019), which draws from the functional antagonisms whereby individuals activate certain aspects of their identities over others, creating in-group vs. out-group dynamics (Hornsey, 2008) and follows historical patterns of coalition formation in marginalized communities (Murib, 2023). Scholars looking to study deep core coalitions should start by exploring the following research avenues.

There is a need for additional conceptual clarity regarding different types of deep core coalitions and the interplay among deep core coalitions and their members at the macro-system and policy subsystem levels. For example, Crawford and Weible (2024) recognize that some deep core coalition members are primarily active in the reproductive health subsystem, abortion specifically. However, some actors—particularly advocates representing marginalized communities such as women of color—will strategically venture into adjacent subsystems (e.g., education) to advance reproductive health policies broadly defined (e.g., abortion-inclusive and LGBTQ+-friendly sex education policies).

Future work can refine the empirical study of deep core coalitions. This is a question of methods—what the appropriate approach is, including sources of data and techniques of analyses, for identifying deep core coalitions, tracking them over time, establishing how many deep core beliefs are essential for describing a deep core coalition, and distinguishing deep core coalitions from policy core coalitions. For example, in the study of policy core-based coalitions, researchers have found coalition members invoking deep core beliefs in the public discourse, possibly to expand the scope of the conflict, or finding that deep core beliefs play a nontrivial role in constraining policy core beliefs (Hornung & Bandelow, 2022; Ripberger et al., 2014). Thus, one of the biggest challenges is developing methods for measuring and distinguishing deep core coalitions.

The dynamics of deep core advocacy coalitions are ripe for further exploration. Past work on emotions and the ACF (Fullerton & Weible, 2024) and emotions and social identities (Hornung & Bandelow, 2024) show that negative emotions can help understand advocacy coalitions. Thus, threat plays a critical role in shaping coalition dynamics, and more exploration of how it links to deep core and policy core beliefs is needed. This work might also reflect how the devil shift operates at the deep core level (Sabatier et al., 1987). The devil shift reflects the human condition to demonize opponents. To the extent this is conditioned by deep core-based identities in overcoming collective action dilemmas at the macro-system, it is an excellent opportunity for future scholarship.

Research is also needed to help better understand the fusions and fissures within and between deep core coalitions, especially given intersecting deep core beliefs and numerous policy core issues from related subsystems. For example, in the study of abortion-based deep core coalitions, Crawford and Weible (2024) identified the importance of bodily autonomy, justice, and marginalized voices shared within the pro-abortion-access coalition, while the importance of deep core beliefs about faith, the sanctity of life, and victim’s voices are shared within the anti-abortion-access coalition. Yet, between the two coalitions, there is evidence of shared deep core beliefs around the importance of human dignity and the sociocultural identity of women. The coalitions are ultimately coming to differing conclusions about how best to advance these beliefs through efforts across policy subsystems. This also raises new questions about the formation of deep core beliefs about policy core beliefs, the effects of compounding intersectionality across multiple deep core beliefs, or whether one deep core belief becomes more salient than the rest and the impacts on policy subsystems and even the possibility of a deep core coalition emerging.

Lastly, there is a need for more comparative work on deep core coalitions. Studies examining deep core advocacy coalitions across subsystems or geographic areas are needed over time. For Gabehart (2022, 2024) argues that shifting politics in the USA and increasing urban and rural divides over time have increased the threat to rural and agricultural communities, leading to increased coordination among rural communities bound by individuals’ deep core identities that operate across subsystems, including food policy, conservation policy, and animal welfare policy. Among the next steps is studying the waxing and waning of deep core coalitions over time in response to changing societal conditions.

Policy scholars continue to advance knowledge of critical issues surrounding justice, social identity, bodily autonomy, sense of place, and theoretical knowledge within policy process theories. However, theories must catch up to these essential concepts and the context of inequitable societies. Theoretically, deep core advocacy coalitions are one response to better study the intersection of deep core identities and macro-systems.

Acknowledgments

The ideas in this article benefited from insightful discussions with Emily St. Denny and Daniel Ramos, as well as feedback from the anonymous referees at Policy & Society and the audience at the Conference for Policy Process Research (COPPR) Syracuse, 2024.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References