Asset Tokenization Policy in Iran: An Analysis of Policy Conflicts through the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.d. Student of Public Policy, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.d. of Islamic Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The use of blockchain for asset tokenization has become widespread in recent years. This technological diffusion has generated policy conflicts between entrenched financial and monetary authorities and innovators. This study aims to examine the conflict. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, media content analysis, and a review of policy documents, and were analyzed via thematic analysis. The findings show two main coalitions: a restrictive–regulatory coalition, comprising the Central Bank of Iran and the Securities and Exchange Organization, and a development-oriented coalition, composed of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance, the Ministry of Industry, Mine and Trade, the Vice-Presidency for Science, Technology, and Knowledge-Based Economy, and private-sector actors. The results indicate that policy learning has been the pro-development coalition’s principal strategy for advancing and implementing its agenda. The study fills an empirical gap in the public policy literature on asset tokenization and tests the Advocacy Coalition Framework’s capacity to analyze technology policy across differing political contexts.

Keywords

References

  1. Arazmjoo, H., & Heidari, G. (2021). A discourse approach to the policy-making process (Case study of cryptocurrency mining's electricity tariff). Strategic Studies of public policy, 11(38), 20-37. [In Persian]
  2. Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., & Moore, T. (2015). Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance. Journal of economic Perspectives, 29(2), 213-238.
  3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  4. Catalini, C., & Gans, J. S. (2020). Some simple economics of the blockchain. Communications of the ACM, 63(7), 80-90.
  5. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3), 124-130.
  6. Davidson, S., De Filippi, P., & Potts, J. (2018). Blockchains and the economic institutions of capitalism. Journal of institutional economics, 14(4), 639-658.
  7. Farazmand, A., arabsorkhi, a., aghae, m., & Azadvar, N. (2021). Presenting a conceptual framework for identifying and analyzing stakeholders and actors in the Ramzarz ecosystem in cyberspace. National Security, 11(40), 245-276. [In Persian]
  8. Fullerton, A. H., Koebele, E. A., Heikkila, T., Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. M. (2025). Antecedents of Policy Change: Advancing the Advocacy Coalition Framework’s Theory and Methods. In The Advocacy Coalition Framework (pp. 105-128). Springer.
  9. Gabison, G. (2016). Policy considerations for the blockchain technology public and private applications. SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev., 19, 327.
  10. Goghie, A.-S. (2024). Tokenization and the banking system: Redefining authority in the blockchain era. Competition & change, 28(5), 663-682.
  11. Haji Mollamirzaee, H., Najafi Jezeh, H., & Babak, M. (2022). Proposing a Model of Policy making for the Crypto Currency Market in the Islamic Republic of Iran with an Emphasis on Security-Economic Threats of Crypto Currencies. Defense Economics and Sustainable Development, 7(25), 149-170. [In Persian]
  12. Heines, R., Dick, C., Pohle, C., & Jung, R. (2021). The Tokenization of Everything: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Potentials of Tokenized Assets. PACIS, 40.
  13. Hewa, T., Ylianttila, M., & Liyanage, M. (2021). Survey on blockchain based smart contracts: Applications, opportunities and challenges. Journal of network and computer applications, 177, 102857.
  14. Hu, Y., Liyanage, M., Mansoor, A., Thilakarathna, K., Jourjon, G., & Seneviratne, A. (2018). Blockchain-based smart contracts-applications and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04699.
  15. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1994). Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of public policy, 14(2), 175-203.
  16. Jenkins‐Smith, H., Silva, C. L., Gupta, K., & Ripberger, J. T. (2014). Belief system continuity and change in policy advocacy coalitions: Using cultural theory to specify belief systems, coalitions, and sources of change. Policy studies journal, 42(4), 484-508.
  17. Juan, A. A., Perez-Bernabeu, E., Li, Y., Martin, X. A., Ammouriova, M., & Barrios, B. B. (2023). Tokenized markets using blockchain technology: Exploring recent developments and Information, 14(6), 347.
  18. Kane, E. (2017). Is blockchain a general purpose technology? Available at SSRN 2932585.
  19. Khodaverdi Arash, H., Razavi, M., & Montazer, M. (2023). Legal pathology of government regulation in the field of cryptocurrencies. The Journal of Modern Research on Administrative Law, 5(14), 67-88. [In Persian]
  20. Leka, E., Selimi, B., & Lamani, L. (2019). Systematic literature review of blockchain applications: Smart contracts. 2019 International Conference on Information Technologies (InfoTech),
  21. Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). sage.
  22. Markard, J., Suter, M., & Ingold, K. (2016). Socio-technical transitions and policy change–Advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 215-237.
  23. Mohanta, B. K., Panda, S. S., & Jena, D. (2018). An overview of smart contract and use cases in blockchain technology. 2018 9th international conference on computing, communication and networking technologies (ICCCNT),
  24. Narayanan, A., Bonneau, J., Felten, E., Miller, A., & Goldfeder, S. (2016). Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies: a comprehensive introduction. Princeton University Press.
  25. Pierce, J. J., Peterson, H. L., Jones, M. D., Garrard, S. P., & Vu, T. (2017). There and back again: A tale of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy studies journal, 45(S1), S13-S46.
  26. Ramezani, M., & Abbasi, J. (2022). Investigating the variables affecting Iran's competitive advantage and economic and social challenges in extracting the currency of valid world currencies. Political Sociology of Iran, 5(10), 3252-3272. [In Persian]
  27. Ressi, D., Romanello, R., Piazza, C., & Rossi, S. (2024). AI-enhanced blockchain technology: A review of advancements and opportunities. Journal of network and computer applications, 225, 103858.
  28. rostami, a., jalalifarahanh, g., & kavoosi, h. (2024). Identify the effects of using cryptocurrencies on the economic aspects of national security. Quarterly Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies on Strategic Knowledge, 14(54), 155-133. [In Persian]
  29. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy sciences, 21(2), 129-168.
  30. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). The advocacy coalition framework: Assessment, revisions, and implications for scholars and practitioners. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach, 211-236.
  31. Schär, F. (2021). Decentralized finance: On blockchain-and smart contract-based financial markets. FRB of St. Louis Review.
  32. Shojaiyan, M., bairamzadeh, s., & Hajikarimi, A. A. (2025). Causal Layered Analysis of Cryptocurrency Actors in Iran. Innovative Business Development Strategies, 1(1), 44-66. [In Persian]
  33. Sotirov, M., & Memmler, M. (2012). The Advocacy Coalition Framework in natural resource policy studies—Recent experiences and further prospects. Forest policy and economics, 16, 51-64.
  34. taj aldini, a., & Mokhtari Afrakti, N. (2024). Legislation in the field of cryptocurrencies in Iran: necessities and suggestions. The Islamic Revolution Approach, 18(66), 23-42. [In Persian]
  35. Tanveer, U., Ishaq, S., & Hoang, T. G. (2025). Tokenized assets in a decentralized economy: Balancing efficiency, value, and risks. International Journal of Production Economics, 282, 109554.
  36. Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology, 2(17-37), 25.
  37. Tian, Y., Lu, Z., Adriaens, P., Minchin, R. E., Caithness, A., & Woo, J. (2020). Finance infrastructure through blockchain-based tokenization. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 7(4), 485-499.
  38. Weible, C. M. (2007). An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy. Journal of public administration research and theory, 17(1), 95-117.
  39. Weible, C. M., & Ingold, K. (2018). Why advocacy coalitions matter and practical insights about them. Policy & politics, 46(2), 325-343.
  40. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy studies journal, 37(1), 121-140.
  41. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods).
  42. Zhang, Y., Gong, B., & Zhou, P. (2024). Centralized use of decentralized technology: Tokenization of currencies and assets. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 71, 15-25.
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 12, Issue 2
June 2026
Pages 166-182

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics