The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) assumes that advocacy coalitions are able to substantively influence the legislative process and, thereby, promote or inhibit particular policy change. Yet, research that examines the connection between advocacy coalitions and voting coalitions is so far lacking. We argue that advocacy patterns should predict voting patterns if the ACF assumption holds true. To examine this expectation, we investigate the case of the Czech climate policy by using a dataset combining questionnaire data collected in 2016-2017 and data recording individual voting on a set of key climate laws within the 2013-2017 parliamentary period. First, the Advocacy Coalition Index is used to identify advocacy coalitions. We expect to find two adversarial coalitions, an incumbent industry coalition and a minor environmental coalition. Second, a cross-sectional two-mode exponential random graph model is applied to examine whether the policy core beliefs similarity and the coalition membership affiliation contribute to explaining voting patterns within the Chamber of Deputies. We hypothesize two homophily effects. First, the MPs with shared advocacy coalition affiliations tend to vote for the same laws. Second, MPs with similar policy beliefs tend to vote for the same laws, too. The controls included are the MPs’ government-opposition affiliation, position on the left-right scale, previous government collaboration, and the nature of the legislature in terms of its impacts on decarbonization.
