Examining the Role and Influence of Policy Entrepreneurs in Policy Process

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22059/jpq.2024.384373.1008231

Abstract

Introduction
The concept of “policy entrepreneurs” was introduced as a theoretical concept in Kingdon’s research. Kingdon’s framework considers the role of the individual in the policy process to be important and explains why change may or may not occur. Kingdon calls these individuals entrepreneur who devote “time, energy, reputation, and sometimes money” to promoting their preferred solution for a policy problem. After Kingdon, this concept received much attention from many researchers and was developed in two directions. In the first direction, different researchers applied Kingdon’s framework to different study samples and empirically examined the roles of entrepreneurs that he listed. In the second direction, researchers, emphasizing some of the characteristics of entrepreneurs mentioned in Kingdon’s framework, modified and revised some of its dimensions, and criticized them. As a result, new features, tools, and generally new considerations were developed to clarify the theoretical potential of this concept, which are listed in different sections of this research. In summary, it should be said that the researchers' effort has been to examine empirical evidence and use an inductive approach to develop theoretical frameworks that enumerate the role of various individual and structural factors that enable or hinder the success of entrepreneurs in influencing the policy-making process. Therefore, the main question of this research is as folows: “what strategies do entrepreneurs use at the individual level to influence the public policy process and what stimuli or constraints do their actions face at the structural and environmental levels?” Accordingly, the main hypothesis of the research is that: the individual strategies used by entrepreneurs, such as the use of scientific evidence for persuasion, storytelling, networking, building policy coalitions/institutional changes, and political manipulation, play an important role in their influence on the policy-making process. Also, based on the three frameworks of multiple streams of Kingdon, advocacy coalitions, and policy narratives, different structural factors play a role in this context.
 
The Research Method
This qualitative study, by examining existing sources and emphasizing three theoretical frameworks in the field of public policymaking, namely multiple streams, advocacy coalitions, and policy narratives, examines the factors affecting the role-playing of entrepreneurs at the individual and structural levels. Accordingly, the types of entrepreneurs and their individual strategies are first described, and then, the role of structural and environmental factors in reducing the agency of entrepreneurs is discussed citing empirical examples.
 Results
Most of the researches have overemphasized the power of entrepreneurs while downplaying the structural factors that shape their actions. In other words, the existing literature on policymaking tends to be agent-centric, placing individual deliberation at the heart of policymaking. It thus ignores broader structural conditions or simply dismisses them as “unpredictable” or “probable” factors. The central question here is that how entrepreneurs can generate new policy ideas who are institutionally present in a policymaking domain and subject to a set of regulatory, normative, and cognitive processes that constrain their cognition, define their interests, and produce their identities? This is because individuals must break the rules and procedures of the structures and institutions in which they are embedded in order to qualify as policymakers. To resolve this paradox, we must either avoid the extremes of voluntarism, in which agent autonomy is overemphasized—for example, in the multi-stream approach—or move toward the extremes of determinism, whereby policy outcomes are shaped by contextual forces. These deterministic approaches are at odds with the discourse of policy-making that has helped to direct policy analysis toward the study of actors and their role in catalyzing policy change. The internal environment in which entrepreneurs interact with each other plays a prominent role. Their behaviors and motivations can be determined by the organization to which they belong and their position in the political system. Furthermore, their position determines whether they can create effective social networks, communication channels, and opportunities for policy innovation. The institutionalist view of the policy-making process and policy change allows considerable scope for the influence of motivated individuals and groups. By highlighting the “logic of proportionality,” March and Olsen (1989) have shown the importance of actors’ deep knowledge of the procedures and norms of acceptable behavior. Organizational accounts show that attention to domestic sensitivities is crucial for effective policy change. On the other hand, it should be noted that at times, environmental considerations, including international ones, activate a particular type of national entrepreneurs.
 
Conclusions
The research findings showed that theoretical frameworks of policy-making take a different view of the degree of freedom of entrepreneurs and their level of activism in existing structures. The policy narrative framework emphasizes the relatively independent influence of entrepreneurs and downplays the role of structural factors in shaping their actions. This is while the multiple-stream and coalition frameworks emphasize the dominance of structural factors over entrepreneurs.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Albæk, E. (2011). The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism, 12(3), 335–348
Arnold, G. (2020). Does entrepreneurship work? Understanding what policy entrepreneurs do and whether it matters. Policy Studies Journal, 49(4), 968–991
Arnold, G. (2021). Does entrepreneurship work? Understanding what policy entrepreneurs do and whetherit matters. Policy Studies Journal, 49(4), 968–991.
Arnold, G; Klasic, M; Wu, Ch; Schomburg, M; York, A. (2023). Finding, distinguishing, and understanding overlooked policy entrepreneurs. Policy Sciences . 56: 657–687
Arnold, G; Le Anh Nguyen, L; Madeline, G. (2017). “Social Networks and Policy
Baumgartner, F; Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bjurstrøm, K (2020). Principal–agent or principal–steward: How ministry–agency relations condition the impact of performance management in the steering of government agencies. Public Performance and Management Review 43(5): 1053–1077.
Brouwer, S; Huitema, D. (2018). Policy entrepreneurs and strategies for change. Regional Environmental Change, 18(5), 1259–1272.
Cairney, P. (2018). What is evolutionary theory and how does it inform policy studies? Policy and Politics, 41(2), 279–298.
Carter, R.G; Scoot, J.M. (2010). Understanding congressional foreign policy innovators:Mapping entrepreneurs and their strategies. The Social Science Journal 47. 418–438
Christopoulos, D; Ingold, K. (2015). “Distinguishing between Political Brokerage and Political Entrepreneurship.” Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 10 36–42.
Cino Pagliarello, M; Cini, M. (2023). Policy entrepreneurs and problem definition: The case of European student mobility. Journal of Public Policy.
Cohen, N. (2012). Policy entrepreneurs and the design of public policy: The case of the national health insurance law in Israel. Journal of Social Research and Policy, 3(1), 5.
Cohen, N. (2016). Policy entrepreneurs and agenda setting. In N. Zahariadis (Ed.), Handbook of public policy agenda-setting (pp. 180–199). Northampton: Edward Elgar
Crow, D.A. (2010). Local media and experts: Sources of environmental policy initiation? The Policy Studies Journal, 38(1), 143–164
Devereux, S (2023). Performing social policy diffusion: Reflections on agents as social protection policy entrepreneurs in Africa. Global Social Policy. Vol. 23(3) 457–480
Edelstein, B.L; Maas, W.R. (2017). Policy entrepreneurship in the reform of pediatric dentistry. Journal of Health Policy Research . 6:37
Frisch A.N; Cohen, N; Beeri, I. (2020). Wind(ow) of change: A systematic review of policy entrepreneurship characteristics and strategies. Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), 612–644.
Fulbright, J.W. (1966). The arrogance of power. New York: Vintage Books.
Ingold, K. ( 2008). Les mécanismes de décision: Le cas de la politique climatique Suisse. Zürich: Politikanalysen, Rüegger Verlag.
Jarvis, D., & He, A. (2020). Policy entrepreneurship and intuitional change: Who, how, and why? Public Administration and Development, 40(1), 3–10.
King, P.J; Roberts, N (1992). An investigation into the personality profile of policy entrepreneur. Public Productivity and Management Review 16(2): 173–190
Kingdon, J.W. (1984) [1995]. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
Kingdon, J.W. (2003). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Longman. Rutkowski, D., 2007. Converging us softly: how intergovernmental organizations promote neoliberal educational policy. Crit. Stud. Educ. 48 (2), 229–247.
Lancaster, K; Ritter, A; Colebatch, H. (2014). Problems, policy and politics: Making sense of Australia’s ‘ice epidemic.’ Policy Studies, 35(2), 147–171.
Lewis, E (1980). Public entrepreneurship: toward a theory of bureaucratic political power. Bloomington: Indiana University Press
Mackenzie, C. (2004). Policy entrepreneurship in Australia: A conceptual review and application. Australian Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 367–386.
McKibben, B. (2010). Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet. St. Martin's Griffin
Meijerink, Sander, and Dave Huitema. 2010. “Policy Entrepreneurs and Change Strategies: Lessons from Sixteen Case Studies of Water Transitions around the Globe.” Ecology and Society 15 (2): 21.
Mintrom, M; Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.
Montpetit, É., & Harvey, A. (2018). Media storms and policy expertise: How environmental beat journalists gained influence during a shale gas controversy. Environmental Communication, 12(7), 895–910
Nader, R. (1965). Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile. Pocket Books
Nisbet, M.C. (2013). How Bill McKibben changed environmental politics and took on the oil patch. Policyoptions.
Oborn, E., Barrett, M., & Exworthy, M. (2011). Policy entrepreneurship in the development of public sector strategy. Public Administration, 89(2), 325–344
Petridou, E; Mintrom, M, (2021). A Research Agenda for the Study of Policy Entrepreneurs. Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4
Pierce, J.J; Siddiki, S; Jones, M.D; Schumacher, K; Pattison, A; Peterson, H. (2014). Social construction and policy design: A review of past applications—Social construction and policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 42(1), 1–29.
Pressman, J.L; Wildavsky, A.B. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ravitch, D (2013). Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools. Knopf
Reimer, I; Saerbeck, B (2017). Policy entrepreneurs in national climate change policy processes.
Rifkin, J (2019). The Green New Deal: Why the Fossil Fuel Civilization Will Collapse by 2028, and the Bold Economic Plan to Save Life on Earth. St. Martin's Press
Roberts, N.C. (1992). Public entrepreneurship and innovation. Policy Studies Review 11(1): 55–74
Ross, J.S. (2002). The Committee on the Costs of Medical Care and the history of health insurance in the United States. Einstein Quart J Biol Med.;19:129–34
Sabatier, P.A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(1), 129-68
Sabatier, P.A; Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning. An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press
Schneider, A; Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347
Shanteau, J., 1992. Competence in experts: the role of task characteristics. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 53, 252–266.
Sheingate, A.D. (2003). “Political Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, and American Political Development.” Studies in American Political Development 17 (2): 185–203.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28
Taylor-Gooby, P; Hastie, C; Bromley, C. (2003). Querulous citizens: Welfare knowledge and the limits to welfare reform. Social Policy and Administration, 37(1), 1–20.
Weible, Christopher M., Paul A. Sabatier, and Kelly McQueen. 2009. “Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework.” Policy Studies Journal 37 (1): 121–40.
Wilson, G., 2006. Beyond the technocrat? The professional expert in development practice. Dev. Change 37 (3), 501–523.
Yang, Y (2022). The fable of policy entrepreneurship? Understanding policy change as an ontological problem with critical realism and institutional theory. Policy Sciences .55:573–591
Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. A. Sabatier (ed), Theories of the policy process, 2nd ed. (pp. 65-92). Boulder: Westview Press.
POLITICAL QUARTERLY
Volume 55, Issue 1
April 2025
Pages 51-23

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 September 2024
  • Revise Date: 02 December 2024
  • Accept Date: 11 December 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics