This paper examines the political discourse surrounding the "Berliner Mietendeckel". The rent cap, which was supposed to freeze rents in Berlin for five years, was passed by the left-wing Red-Red-Green Senate in January 2020 and overturned by the Federal Constitutional Court just four months after it came into effect. How did the controversial law pass despite opposition from local opposition parties, the real estate and construction industries, and the federal government? And to what extent did the media discourse subsequently condition the final court's decision to return to the previous status quo? These questions will be pursued by systematically extracting actors and statements from articles published in the Süddeutsche Zeitung and examining networks using the Discourse Network Analyzer program.
On the theoretical basis of the Advocacy Coalition Framework, it is found that the pro-law coalition did not have the necessary superiority in the political discourse to be able to maintain a long-term policy change. While the small but effective network of local political supporters was able to push the law through the Senate, the opposition coalition was overall more broadly aligned and internally better connected. It can be argued that increasing nationwide media attention to the Berlin rent cap increasingly shifted discursive relations in favor of the law's opponents, ultimately resulting in a return to the status quo before the law. The finding also underscores the importance of institutional veto players in preventing policy change on social policy issues.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Advocacy Coalitions, Discursive Networks and Policy Change
3 Advocacy Coalition Framework
4 Research Design
4.1 Discourse Network Analysis
4.2 Data and Data Collection
4.3 Coding and Visualization
5 Findings
6 Discussion
6.1 Limitations and future research
Research Objectives & Key Themes
This paper investigates the political discourse and coalition dynamics surrounding the Berlin "Mietendeckel" (rent cap) to understand how the law was passed despite significant opposition and why it was ultimately overturned. The central research question examines the extent to which public discourse, analyzed through the lens of the Advocacy Coalition Framework, conditioned the policy process and the final decision of the Federal Constitutional Court.
- The effectiveness of advocacy coalitions in achieving long-term policy change.
- The role of Discourse Network Analysis (DNA) in visualizing political network structures.
- The influence of media discourse on the shifting balance of power between policy stakeholders.
- The impact of institutional veto players on the sustainability of social policy interventions.
- Polarization dynamics in housing policy and urban development debates.
Excerpt from the Book
3 Advocacy Coalition Framework
The theoretical basis of this paper is the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). The ACF, developed by Sabatier from 1981 and revised since then, is applicable to different substantive issues and geographical areas and can be combined with other process theories (Weible et al., 2009). The aim of the ACF is to understand the main factors of the policy process over a longer period of time (Sabatier, 1998). Central points are the policy subsystem, the emergence of advocacy coalitions based on policy attitudes and policy learning (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994; Sabatier, 1998). The policy subsystem is a complex political environment characterised by different power relations (Weible et al., 2009). The ACF assumes a conflict between different ideas and values. State or non-state actors gather in coalitions when they share a set of normative ideas and beliefs. The views are divided into three hierarchical levels: First, deep core beliefs (e.g. politically left or right); second, political beliefs, which represent political opinion about a delimited policy area; and third, secondary aspects, which describe the relative importance of an action to the actor (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994; Sabatier, 1998). Sabatier argues that deep core beliefs are resistant to changes in opinion, whereas policy beliefs and secondary aspects can change over time. Coalitions are formed when private or governmental organizations share the same policy preferences (Sabatier, 1998).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the Berlin rent cap, the political context of its implementation, and the research questions concerning its polarized legislative journey and legal reversal.
2 Advocacy Coalitions, Discursive Networks and Policy Change: Reviews the existing literature on network analysis and the Advocacy Coalition Framework, highlighting the role of business lobbyists and discursive power in shaping policy outcomes.
3 Advocacy Coalition Framework: Introduces the theoretical underpinnings of the ACF, focusing on policy subsystems, hierarchical belief systems, and the formation of coalitions among actors sharing normative ideals.
4 Research Design: Details the applied methodology of Discourse Network Analysis and explains the data selection process focusing on articles from the Süddeutsche Zeitung spanning two primary time periods.
5 Findings: Presents the results of the network visualization, demonstrating that the pro-law coalition lacked the discursive hegemony required to maintain long-term policy change compared to the better-connected opposition.
6 Discussion: Analyzes the failure of the Mietendeckel in terms of institutional veto players, the lack of dominant discursive support, and identifies limitations, such as the use of a single newspaper source.
Keywords
Advocacy Coalition Framework, Discourse Network Analysis, Berlin Mietendeckel, Policy Change, Rent Control, Housing Policy, Public Discourse, Polarization, Veto Players, Political Networks, Legislative Process, Federal Constitutional Court, Media Coverage, Stakeholders, Institutional Politics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the political and public discourse surrounding the Berlin "Mietendeckel" to understand the drivers of its initial enactment and subsequent overturn by legal authorities.
Which thematic areas are central to this study?
The study focuses on housing policy, the influence of interest groups, media framing, and the legal constraints imposed by the German constitutional framework.
What is the primary objective of this work?
The goal is to determine how the Berlin Senate pushed through a controversial law despite opposition and how the discursive environment contributed to the law's eventual failure.
Which scientific methods are applied in the analysis?
The paper utilizes Discourse Network Analysis (DNA) to systematically extract actors and their statements from media articles, processed through the software Discourse Network Analyzer and Visone.
What topics are covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section covers the theoretical application of the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the research design, the empirical findings of coalition networks, and a discussion on the sustainability of contested policy shifts.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Advocacy Coalition Framework, Discourse Network Analysis, Mietendeckel, housing policy, Veto players, and policy change.
Why did the author use the Süddeutsche Zeitung as the primary data source?
The paper chose this newspaper because it is a supra-regional, highly popular daily with a reputation for being moderate on the political spectrum, minimizing ideological distortion in the data.
How did the author define the "broker" role within the discourse?
The author identifies political mediators, such as the former Governing Mayor of Berlin, Michael Müller, as critical "middle men" who attempt to bridge the gap between opposing coalitions during the legislative process.
- Quote paper
- Hannes Oswald (Author), 2022, The Influence of Public Discourse on the Berlin “Mietendeckel”. A Discourse Network Analysis, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1321822
