Limited and Extensive Asymmetric Collaboration in Climate Policy Networks

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) emphasizes that policy subsystems are structured by coordination among actors who share policy-relevant beliefs. Empirical research, however, has typically operationalized coordination using binary or undifferentiated collaboration ties, implicitly assuming that collaboration relationships are symmetric and equally meaningful for all actors involved. This paper challenges that assumption by distinguishing between limited and extensive collaboration and examining how these forms of collaboration are structured across different types of organizations in the context of climate policy. Using original policy network survey data collected in Spain in 2024–2025, we introduce a novel measurement strategy that differentiates collaboration based on its perceived intensity and importance. While limited collaboration captures routine episodic contact, extensive collaboration reflects sustained interaction, joint activities, and coordination of action, thus closely aligning with the concept of advocacy coalitions in the ACF. This distinction allows us to analyze the strength of collaboration ties and the asymmetry of collaborative relationships. We show that limited and extensive collaboration form partially overlapping but analytically distinct networks. Powerful governmental actors, such as central ministries, tend to report numerous limited collaboration ties, reflecting their central position and broad reach within the subsystem. In contrast, non-governmental organizations often report extensive collaboration with ministries, indicating relationships that are more consequential for them than for their more powerful counterparts. These asymmetric perceptions reveal how collaboration ties can embody power differences and unequal dependencies within policy subsystems. By analyzing different types of collaboration and asymmetry, this paper makes a contribution to ACF research and policy network studies by highlighting that collaboration networks reflect not only shared beliefs and strategic alignment, but also power relations and the varying organizational interests involved in policy processes.