Explaining Change and Stability in Foreign Policymaking through the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF): A Case Study of the Iran-China 25-Year Agreement

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Seyed Ehssan Najmolhoda ¹
• Mohammad Reza Yazdani Zazerani ²

¹ PhD Candidate of Public Policy, Department of Political Science, Isf.C., Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

² Assistant Professor of Public Policy ,Department of Political Science, Isf.C., Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Highlights

Extended Abstract

Introduction

The post-World War II era has witnessed an unprecedented proliferation of international agreements, making their formation, stability, and change a central focus of foreign policy studies. A significant case in the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the 25-Year Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement with China. Despite initial ambiguities, domestic criticism, and even a subsequent change of government in Iran, this agreement has demonstrated remarkable resilience. This raises a critical question: what accounts for the stability of this specific international agreement amidst domestic political flux?. This study addresses this question by employing the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), a prominent theoretical lens for explaining policy stability and change. Traditionally applied to domestic public policy, this research innovatively adapts the ACF to the realm of foreign policymaking, analyzing the 25-year Iran-China agreement as a "policy subsystem." The core objective is to identify the factors—derived from ACF components such as coalition dynamics, external events, and policy-oriented learning—that have contributed to the enduring nature of this strategic partnership.

Methodology

This qualitative study adopts a single, revelatory case study design, focusing on the Iran-China 25-Year Agreement as a critical instance of stable foreign policy within a turbulent domestic and international environment. Data collection was conducted through purposive and snowball sampling of publicly available documents and statements from key Iranian policy actors between 2019 and 2022. This period covers the agreement's drafting, announcement, and initial implementation phases. The identified actors were categorized into pro-agreement and anti-agreement advocacy coalitions based on their publicly stated core beliefs regarding the partnership. Data analysis involved systematic content analysis of these actors' statements, coding them according to core ACF variables:

1. Coalition Attributes: Number of actors, type (e.g., state officials, academics, analysts), and core beliefs.
2. Strategies: The methods and resources each coalition employed to influence policy (e.g., technical argumentation vs. public concern).
3. External Events: Significant occurrences outside the subsystem (e.g., the collapse of the JCPOA "Iran Deal") that impacted the coalition dynamics.
4. Policy-Oriented Learning: Observable changes in actors' positions or arguments based on new information or feedback.

This methodological approach allows for an empirical assessment of coalition strength and strategy, moving beyond metaphorical use of the ACF to test its explanatory power in a foreign policy context.

Research Findings

The analysis of the identified policy subsystem yielded three primary findings that explain the agreement's stability:

1. Coalition Strength and Composition: The pro-agreement coalition was significantly larger (comprising 24 out of 34 identified actors) and predominantly consisted of specialized actors such as academic researchers, formal state officials, and policy advisors. In contrast, the opposing coalition was smaller and more diverse, including civil activists and journalists. According to ACF logic, this numerical superiority and concentration of expertise granted the pro-agreement coalition greater resources and legitimacy, enhancing its ability to dominate the subsystem and sustain the policy.
2. Contrasting Coalition Strategies: The strategies employed by the two coalitions differed markedly in substance and perceived power. The pro-agreement coalition relied on tangible, interest-based arguments, emphasizing concrete benefits like foreign investment, infrastructure development, and strategic hedging against Western pressure. The anti-agreement coalition's strategy, however, primarily involved expressing vague concerns and risks, such as potential threats to national security, loss of sovereignty, and the one-sided nature of the deal. The former's strategy, rooted in perceived material gains, proved more persuasive to policymakers than the latter's cautionary approach.
3. The Role of External Events and Policy-Oriented Learning: A critical external event—the failure of the JCPOA following the US withdrawal—triggered significant policy-oriented learning, particularly within the pro-agreement coalition and among state policymakers. The contrast between the perceived unreliability of Western partners and China's continued engagement with Iran during "maximum pressure" sanctions reinforced a narrative of China as a "committed partner." This learning experience strengthened the advocacy for strategic reorientation towards the East and validated the logic behind securing a long-term, institutionalized agreement with Beijing, thereby cementing the policy's stability.

The discussion contextualizes these findings within broader ACF theory. It confirms the framework's utility in foreign policy analysis, demonstrating how internal coalition dynamics (resources, strategies) interact with external systemic shocks to produce policy stability. The case shows that stability is not merely the absence of opposition but the result of a dominant coalition effectively leveraging events and learning processes to maintain its policy core.

Conclusion

This study successfully applied the Advocacy Coalition Framework to explain the stability of a major international agreement in Iran's foreign policy. It concludes that the resilience of the 25-Year Iran-China Agreement can be attributed to a confluence of factors best understood through the ACF lens: the dominance of a numerically superior and expert-driven pro-agreement coalition, its use of a powerful strategy focused on tangible benefits, and a reinforcing process of policy-oriented learning catalyzed by external events that discredited alternative partnerships.

The research contributes to the literature by extending the application of the ACF to foreign policy analysis, an area where its use has been limited. It moves beyond descriptive accounts to provide a systematic, theory-driven explanation for policy stability. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of empirically mapping coalitions rather than assuming their structure, offering a replicable method for similar studies. The findings suggest that in politically charged environments, foreign policy stability is likely when a supporting coalition can anchor its advocacy in demonstrable interests and adapt its narrative successfully to lessons from the international arena. Future research could compare this case with other long-term strategic partnerships to further refine the conditions under which the ACF explains foreign policy outcomes.

Keywords

• Policy Making
• Foreign Policy
• Policy Stability and Change
• Advocacy Coalition Framework
• International Agreements

Main Subjects

• Political science-Governance and public policy