Multivocality and agency in Forest Governance Policy Networks: a comparison of discourse network coalitions

In adversial policy systems, brokers and policy forums are considered to play a role in mitigating conflicts among key actors with contrasting visions. Some of these brokers can be classified as “multivocal” as they have high levels of influence while they act as bridges between different coalitions. They can be simultaneously perceived as allies by actors with opposing preferences, partly because their goal are concealed from their alters. They are therefore able to manipulate the collaborative governance process towards their priorities. In this paper, we exercise a comparative discourse network analysis of forest governance policy actors in two Argentinean Chaco ecosystem provinces. This is a most similar systems design comparison between two provinces considered to be at the opposite ends of implementation of the forest law measured in terms of consistency of design and enforcement in 2007-2016. The criteria to identify key actors is their engagement in mandated policy forums set up to implement the law. We based our analysis on newspaper articles and on actors’ official organizational website. For Salta province, we also compared the results of discourse network analysis with actors’ interviews deriving both from 2018 and 2019 fieldwork and survey. For Chaco province, we integrated experts’ interviews to validate the results. We identified networks discourse coalitions. We looked for multivocal actors through the analysis of actors’ perceived agency and network position, such as reputational influence, centrality and brokerage. Our hypothesis is that the strength of coalitions in discourse networks and the role of multivocal have influenced the implementation of forest policy in the two provinces analyzed.