LIST OF WORKSHOPS

Introduction

Agency has always been important in the conception of entrepreneur. Since the work of Joseph Schumpeter in the first half of the 20th century, entrepreneurs have been considered salient societal actors because their innovative actions disturb economic and social equilibriums (Becker, Knudsen and Swedberg, 2012). The scholarship on policy entrepreneurship has its roots mainly along two broad lines within political science. One trajectory is within political economy and public choice literature with synergies with the Austrian School of Economics, especially the work of Israel Kirzner.  In this trajectory, the policy entrepreneur is an agent in the market for public goods; policy entrepreneurship, then, refers to strategies for the effective cooperation in solving (wicked) commons problems. A second trajectory in the policy sciences spearheaded by the Kingdon and his book Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, first published in 1984, focuses on the policy entrepreneur as a driver for policy change. he concept of the policy entrepreneur is attractive not only because it foregrounds the role of agency in understanding policy change, but also because it provides a rich alternative to the thin, purely rational portrayals of actors in policymaking processes. Conversely, the theoretical narrative regarding policy entrepreneurs focuses on their commitment to a policy solution, the variety of strategies they use to promote that solution, and a suite of attributes and skills underpinning their actions. Whereas skills may be acquired and learned, they are facilitated by attributes that may be nurtured (Mintrom 2019).

Considering the position and utility of policy entrepreneurs (a distinct class of political actor [Petridou and Mintrom, 2020]) in theories of the policy process, the concept has two-fold theoretical implications. On the one hand, it helps us explore the possibilities of agency and the agentic capacity of actors within a theoretical framework. On the other, it provides insights regarding the conditions that may foster or hinder success in the policy entrepreneurs’ quest for policy change.  Below we offer examples of conceptualizations of the agency of the policy entrepreneur within theories of the policy process.

Institutionalism

Through much of the twentieth century, institutional accounts of government processes were highly descriptive, describing features of government agencies and processes and making normative assumptions about how people acted within them. Institutionalism fell out of favor during the prevalence of behaviorism, but this changed as political scientists such as James March and Johan Olsen (1983) explored interactions between individuals and institutions. A common element that emerged was the focus on institutional design and how specific design features incentivized specific actions (Ostrom 2009).  Institutionalist accounts of the policy process and policy change identify considerable space as well as limitations for motivated individuals and groups to have impact.

Multiple Streams Framework

The Multiple Streams Framework, first advanced by John Kingdon (1984/2011) and further theorized by Nikolaos Zahariadis (see, for example, Zahariadis 20014) seeks to explain policy change under conditions of ambiguity and as an alternative to rational-choice rationales (Petridou 2014). Kingdon (1984/2011) argues that policy issues ascent to the political agenda as the result of developments in three separate process streams: the problem stream, the policy stream, and the politics stream. Most of the time they operate largely independently of one another, but converge periodically. Policy entrepreneurs often join these three independent streams by identifying and taking advantage of (or creating) windows of opportunity, which are often preceded by a focusing event (Zahariadis 2014).

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

A discrepancy exists between accounts of why policy change sometimes occurs slowly and other times dramatically. To reconcile these accounts, punctuated equilibrium theory conceptualizes political processes as generally characterized by stability and incrementalism punctuated with infrequent spikes of substantial change. In this interpretation of the policy making process, the task for advocates of policy change is to bring the policy issues into the public arena. The challenge for those seeking change is to undermine existing present policy images and create new ones that emphasize major problems and question the sustainability of the status quo. Policy entrepreneurs may be instrumental in doing just that.

Advocacy Coalition Framework

Although the original scope of Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was limited to the American policy arena, significant revisions have increased its scope of application to European and even developing countries (Sabatier and Weible, 2007; Petridou 2014). Entrepreneurial leaders are able to seize opportunities while creating a positive vision for the coalition for the purpose of attracting additional resources and use them strategically (see also Mintrom and Vergari, 1996).

Within ACF, change comes from both internal and external sources. However, to have political effect, those catalysts for change need to be appropriately interpreted and translated. This process of translation portrays situations in ways designed to increase the likelihood that they will receive the decision makers’ attention. The process of interpretation has similarities with problem definition, a key strategy used by policy entrepreneurs as documented in recent literature.

Narrative Policy Framework

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) has risen to prominence as a theory of the policy process over the past decade. Michael D. Jones and Mark K. McBeth (2010) argued that policy narratives can be studied using systematic empirical approaches (Shanahan et al., 2018).  Actors highlighted for special attention within NPF are the “policy marketers”. The literature has already identified similarities between policy marketers and policy entrepreneurs. Petridou and Mintrom (2020) argue for a direct insertion of the concept of the policy entrepreneur as a central player in NPF holds the potential to further enrich theorization of the policymaking process and guide new empirical explorations.

Scientific Objective

This workshop endeavors to develop both the concept of the policy entrepreneur and theories of policy process by connecting them through the notion of agency.  As with NPF, we maintain that the concept of the policy entrepreneur potentially enriches our understanding of not only theories of the policy process generally, but also agency within the policy process specifically.  This is doubly true for emerging that have not systematically explored the role of agency so far.  Then, as our theories advance, new empirical directions open.  Depending on the quality of submissions, a journal special issue could result from the workshop.   

References

Becker, Markus C., Thorbjørn Knudsen, and Richard Swedberg. 2012. "Schumpeter’s theory of economic development: 100 years of development." Journal of Evolutionary Economics 22 (5): 917-933.

Herweg, Nicole, Nikolaos Zahariadis, and Reimut Zohlnhöfer. 2018. "The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications." In Theories of the Policy Process, 4th edition, eds. Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier, 17-53. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Jones, Michael D., and Mark K. McBeth. 2010. "A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong?" Policy Studies Journal 38 (2): 329-353.

Jones, Michael D., and Claudio M. Radaelli. 2015. "The Narrative Policy Framework: child or monster?"  Critical Policy Studies 9 (3):3 39-355. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2015.1053959.

Kingdon, John. W. 1984/2011. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (3rd ed.). Boston: Longman.

March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. 1983. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life.” American Political Science Review 78(3): 734-749.

Mintrom, Michael. 2019. Policy Entrepreneurs and Dynamic Change. New York; Cambridge University Press.

Mintrom, Michael, and Philippa Norman. 2009. “Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change.” Policy Studies Journal, 37(4): 649-667. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00329.x

Mintrom, Michael, and Sandra Vergari. 1996. “Advocacy Coalitions, Policy Entrepreneurs, and Policy Change.” Policy Studies Journal 24: 420–34.

Mintrom, Michael, and Sandra Vergari. 1998. “Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State Education Reforms.” Journal of Politics 60: 126–48.

Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Petridou, Evangelia. 2014. “Theories of the Policy Process: Contemporary Scholarship and Future Directions.” Policy Studies Journal 42: S12-S32.

Powell, Walter W. and Paul J. DiMaggio. Eds. 1991. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Roberts, Nancy C. and Paula J. King. 1996. Transforming Public Policy: Dynamics of Policy Entrepreneurship and Innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, Mark, and Paul Teske with Michael Mintrom. 1995. Public Entrepreneurs: Agents for Change in American Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Stephanie M. Adams, Michael D. Jones, and

Mark K. McBeth. 2014. "The blame game: narrative persuasiveness of the intentional causal mechanism." In The Science of Stories, eds.

Michael D. Jones, Elizabeth A. Shanahan, and Mark K. McBeth, 69-88. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones, Mark K. McBeth, and Claudio M. Radaelli. 2018. "The narrative policy framework." In Theories of the Policy Process, 4th edition eds. Christopher M. Weible and Paul A.

Sabatier, 173-213. New York: Routlege.

Weible, Christopher M. and Paul A. Sabatier. 2009. “Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy Subsystems.” Policy Studies Journal 37(2): 195-212.

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): 121-140.

Weible, Christopher M. 2018. “Moving forward and climbing upward.: Advancing policy process research. In Theories of the Policy Process, 4th edition, eds. Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier, 363-378. New York: Routledge.

Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2014. Ambiguity and Multiple Streams. In  Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd edition, eds.  Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible (Eds.) 25-58. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

For the past few decades, policy entrepreneurs have been a fruitful way to discuss policy change from an agency perspective. These agents of change have been theorized by Mintrom and Norman (2009) and more recently by Petridou and Mintrom (2020) in the context of theories of the policy process. More specifically, policy entrepreneurs, with their arsenal of attributes, skills and strategies, become a means of understanding the contingencies and dimensions of agency in public policy. Classic policy process theories (such as institutionalism, the multiple streams approach, punctuated equilibrium and the advocacy coalition framework to name a few) continue to evolve and adapt, both theoretically and empirically through diverse empirical applications and theoretical adjustment. Additionally, new theories of the policy process develop, both as a result of leaning on existing theories and as a product of completely new theorization of policy change. Institutionalist accounts of the policy process and policy change identify considerable space (and limitations) for motivated individuals and groups to have impact. In the multiple streams approach, policy entrepreneurs often join the three independent streams of policy, politics, and problems by identifying and taking advantage of (or creating) windows of opportunity, which are often preceded by a focusing event. Policy entrepreneurs are instrumental in punctuated equilibrium by focusing the attention of politicians and in the advocacy coalition framework through their importance in mobilizing coalition resources, Finally, in narrative policy framework, similarities have been noted between policy entrepreneurs and policy marketers. In summary, there is salient work to be done in understanding the role of policy entrepreneurs in evolving as well as novel policy process theories.

In this workshop, we welcome innovative papers that examine the role of policy entrepreneurs as part of an existing theory of the policy process. More specifically, we seek papers that advance the theoretical aspects of policy entrepreneurs in terms of their attributes, skills and strategies in the broader context of classic and, perhaps most importantly, emerging policy process theories.

For the past few decades, policy entrepreneurs have been a fruitful way to discuss policy change from an agency perspective. These agents of change have been theorized by Mintrom and Norman (2009) and more recently by Petridou and Mintrom (2020) in the context of theories of the policy process. More specifically, policy entrepreneurs, with their arsenal of attributes, skills and strategies, become a means of understanding the contingencies and dimensions of agency in public policy. Classic policy process theories (such as institutionalism, the multiple streams approach, punctuated equilibrium and the advocacy coalition framework to name a few) continue to evolve and adapt, both theoretically and empirically through diverse empirical applications and theoretical adjustment. Additionally, new theories of the policy process develop, both as a result of leaning on existing theories and as a product of completely new theorization of policy change. Institutionalist accounts of the policy process and policy change identify considerable space (and limitations) for motivated individuals and groups to have impact. In the multiple streams approach, policy entrepreneurs often join the three independent streams of policy, politics, and problems by identifying and taking advantage of (or creating) windows of opportunity, which are often preceded by a focusing event. Policy entrepreneurs are instrumental in punctuated equilibrium by focusing the attention of politicians and in the advocacy coalition framework through their importance in mobilizing coalition resources, Finally, in narrative policy framework, similarities have been noted between policy entrepreneurs and policy marketers. In summary, there is salient work to be done in understanding the role of policy entrepreneurs in evolving as well as novel policy process theories.

Mintrom, Michael, and Phillipa Norman.  2009.  "Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change."  Policy Studies Journal 37: 649-67.

Petridou, Evangelia, and Michael Mintrom.  2020.  "A Research Agenda for the Study of Policy Entrepreneurs."  Policy Studies Journal n/a.

Gordon E. Shockley, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Social Entrepreneurship in the School of Community Resources and Development at Arizona State University. He publishes his research in many social-science journals, including Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society, Journal on Policy and Complex Systems, Public Administration Review, and Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. He also has produced many book chapters and an edited book, Non-market Entrepreneurship: Interdisciplinary Approaches (2008, Edward Elgar) and is currently collaborating on a new peer-reviewed book project with Routledge.

Evangelia Petridou, Ph.D., is Associate Professor in Political Science, affiliated with the Risk and Crisis Research Center at Mid Sweden University. Petridou’s research focuses on policy studies, with a specific theoretical interest in theories of the policy process, networks and entrepreneurial agency, while her empirical interests center on crisis and emergency management. She has published in journals such as Policy Studies Journal, European Policy Analysis, Journal of Contingencies and Emergency Management, Politics and Policy, and Policy and Society. She is co-editor or the International Review of Public Policy.