LIST OF WORKSHOPS

1.     Actors, Agents, and the Structure–Agency Problem

Researchers have long studied actors and agency in policymaking as a key concern in the fields of political science, public administration and sociology. At its core lies the question of whether policy outcomes should be primarily explained by the structural and institutional architectures of governance systems, or by the strategic and intentional practices of individuals and organisational actors. This is in line with the ongoing structure-agency debate (Archer, 1995; Giddens, 1984), which continues to influence theoretical discussions and empirical research. To grasp the full complexity of policymaking, we must consider both the institutional settings in which decisions are made and the roles, repertoires and strategies through which human actors exert influence through all the policy cycle.

This debate has been refined by recent scholarship, which has made the distinction between actors and agents more precise (Capano, Galanti, Ingold, Petridou & Weible, 2025). Actors are entities — either collective (governments, parliaments, NGOs and professional associations) or individual (ministers, bureaucrats and civil servants) — that occupy formal organisational or institutional roles. Agents, by contrast, are always individuals, defined not by their position but by the specific patterns of action they perform. Take bureaucrats, for instance. They are actors because of their role within an institution, but when they mobilise resources as brokers, leaders or entrepreneurs, they become agents. Therefore, actors capture who individuals are, while agents capture what they do. The same individual can be both simultaneously and may shift between  roles over time. This distinction is crucial for avoiding conceptual ambiguity and identifying the mechanisms through which policy processes unfold.

2.     Classical and Contemporary Perspectives on Agency

The concept of agency has deep historical roots in policy studies. Early pluralist perspectives emphasised the role of organised interests in shaping outcomes through competition (Dahl, 1961). Subsequently, concepts such as 'iron triangles', 'policy communities' and 'epistemic communities' demonstrated how relatively stable groups of individuals exercised privileged influence (Heclo, 1978; Haas, 1992; Rhodes & Marsh, 1992). These approaches emphasised the resources that actors bring to policymaking, such as expertise, legitimacy, financial means, and networks. They also demonstrated how institutionalised constraints shape actors' access to and influence over policymaking.

The development of policy process theories further systematised the analysis of agency. The Multiple Streams Framework highlights the role of policy entrepreneurs in linking problems, policies and politics (Kingdon, 1984/2011). The Advocacy Coalition Framework conceptualises actors as organised around shared beliefs, mobilising resources through coalition building and learning (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Punctuated Equilibrium Theory conceptualises policymaking as long periods of equilibrium punctuated by short bursts of dramatic change driven by shifts in attention and institutional friction; however, while actors may contribute to these shifts through reframing, venue shopping or mobilisation, the theory does not provide a systematic account of agency. Instead, it focuses on the institutional dynamics that enable or constrain change (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993/2009).

The 'governance turn' of the 1990s further broadened this perspective, emphasising the importance of horizontal and interdependent networks of public, private, and societal actors (Sørensen & Torfing, 2007; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). In these accounts, agency is dispersed and relational, emerging from negotiation and iterative coordination, eventually bringing to new governance arrangements. However, governance research does not focus on the intentionality of the different agents but just emphasised that collaborative processes often reproduce power imbalances and accountability gaps (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Papadopoulos, 2010), while highlighting the patterns of interaction that become institutionalised in policymaking practice.

Studies focusing on institutions from a policy perspective have acknowledged that actors can influence institutions through intentional action. A recent account of how actors become agents identifies four patterns of action that facilitate policy advancement. These patterns of behaviour allow agents to fulfil fundamental functions in the policymaking process. Leadership allows for the steering of the policy process, entrepreneurship provides the innovation needed for policy change, brokerage connects actors by intermediating resources at multiple levels, and knowledge production provides the intelligence required for crafting solutions and procedures (Capano et al., 2025).

Crises illustrate the tensions between agency and structure particularly vividly. When routines collapse, the way in which resources are mobilised and legitimacy is preserved is shaped by leadership orientations — technocratic, deliberative, or charismatic (’t Hart, Stern & Sundelius, 1997; Boin, ’t Hart, Stern & Sundelius, 2017). Nevertheless, agency in times of crisis is influenced by institutional preparedness and accountability structures. Research on crisis leadership shows how contextual factors, prior experience, and epistemic orientations affect what leaders can achieve. Such situations also reveal characteristic patterns of agency, such as the centralisation of authority or the reliance on expert networks. Crises also may constrain, or alternatively increase, the resources available to agents.

3.     Disaggregating Agency: Resources, Constraints, Drivers, Dynamics and Patterns

To clarify the ways in which actors and agents influence policymaking, scholars have started analysing agency in terms of its constituent elements.  These can work as analytical dimensions to better understand agency and can be summarized as follows.

·      Resources encompass formal and informal assets of agents, including competencies, financial means, expertise, legitimacy, and discursive power (Stone, 2002; Béland, 2009).

·      Constraints can be understood in terms of institutional rules, cultural norms, and material limitations, as well as path dependence (March & Olsen, 1989; Pierson, 2000) and dominant interpretive frames (Schön & Rein, 1994; Hajer, 2009).

·      Drivers include material interests (Olson, 1965), normative commitments (March & Olsen, 1989), causal beliefs (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993), and emotional or affective impulses (Marcus, Neumann & MacKuen, 2000; Moyson, 2017).

·      Dynamics capture how agency unfolds over time and through interaction, with strategies evolving via learning, feedback, and shifts in coalitions (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Dunlop & Radaelli, 2018).

·      Patterns refer to recurring forms through which agency is enacted. These include leadership styles, entrepreneurship, brokerage, knowledge exchange, repertoires of contention, and institutionalised and transformative practices that enable comparative generalisation (Capano & Galanti, 2018, 2021; Capano et al., 2025).

4.     Towards a Cumulative Agenda

Despite these contributions, agency is often conceptually underspecified in policy research and is generally assumed rather than explicitly theorised (Bevir, 2013; Peters, 2019). A way forward can be found by distinguishing between actors and agents while integrating the five dimensions of resources, constraints, drivers, dynamics and patterns. This can also be done by looking at empirical cases in terms of any of the agency dimensions proposed, to highlight how intentional agents really use resources, face constraints, acknowledge drivers, develop patterns and/or produce dynamics. The challenge lies in consolidating these insights into a cumulative research agenda that not only identifies the actors, but also explains how they act as agents, what motivates them, how their capacities are shaped, how their agency evolves over time and what patterned forms of action recur across governance contexts.

The proposed workshop aims to clarify concepts, connect fragmented frameworks, and stimulate comparative and methodological innovation by convening scholars from diverse perspectives. In doing so, it aims to advance a systematic understanding of the multifaceted roles of actors and agents in policymaking and governance.

References

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.

Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1993)

Béland, D. (2009). Ideas, institutions, and policy change. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760902983382

Bevir, M. (2013). A theory of governance. University of California Press.

Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2017). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Capano, G., & Galanti, M. T. (2018). Policy dynamics and types of agency: From individual to collective patterns of action. European Policy Analysis, 4(1), 23–47.

Capano, G., & Galanti, M. T. (2021). From policy entrepreneurs to policy entrepreneurship: Actors and actions in public policy innovation. Policy & Politics, 49(3), 321–342.

Capano, G., Galanti, M. T., Ingold, K., Petridou, E., & Weible, C. M. (2025). Theorizing the functions and patterns of agency in the policymaking process. Policy Sciences, 58(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09517-7

Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press.

Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2018). The lessons of policy learning: Types, triggers, hindrances and pathologies. Policy & Politics, 46(2), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15230059735521

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press.

Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442

Hajer, M. A. (2009). Authoritative governance: Policy making in the age of mediatization. Oxford University Press.

Hay, C. (2002). Political analysis: A critical introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.

Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87–124). American Enterprise Institute.

Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Updated 2nd ed.). Longman. (Original work published 1984)

Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2016). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. Free Press.

Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.

Moyson, S. (2017). Cognition and policy change: The consistency of policy learning in the advocacy coalition framework. Policy and Society, 36(2), 320–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1322259

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.

Papadopoulos, Y. (2010). Accountability and multi-level governance: More accountability, less democracy? West European Politics, 33(5), 1030–1049. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486126

Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutionalism and public policy. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Handbook of policy formulation (pp. 57–74). Edward Elgar.

Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011

Rhodes, R. A. W., & Marsh, D. (1992). Policy networks in British government. Public Administration, 70(3), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1992.tb00900.x

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 189–220). Westview Press.

Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (eds) (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Palgrave Macmillan.

Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Rev. ed.). W. W. Norton.

’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (1997). Beyond groupthink: Political group dynamics and foreign policy-making. University of Michigan Press.

The study of agency in policymaking has long been at the heart of political science, public administration and sociology. At its core lies the enduring question of whether policy outcomes are best explained by the institutional architecture of governance systems, or by the strategic practices of individuals and organisations. Recent scholarship has sharpened this debate by distinguishing between 'actors' — collective or individual entities occupying formal roles — and 'agents', understood as individuals defined by the patterns of action they perform. This distinction highlights that agency stems not only from institutional position, but also from what individuals actually do in practice.

Building on this insight, the workshop will explore agency through five interrelated dimensions: resources, constraints, drivers, dynamics and patterns. We welcome papers offering theoretical innovation, empirical analysis, or methodological development. In particular, we encourage contributions that propose or test ways of detecting agency empirically, tracing behavioural patterns and identifying the actual roles that actors and agents play in policymaking processes.

Possible themes include, but are not limited to:

·      Conceptual perspectives:

-       Clarifying the distinctions between actors, agents and institutions;

-       Theorising agency within established and emerging policy process frameworks;

-       Exploring agency in critical and interpretive approaches.

·      Dimensions of agency: Exploring resources, constraints, drivers, dynamics and patterns of action alongside alternative conceptualisations from related disciplines.

·      Agency in governance: Empirical studies across policy domains, governance modes and levels, regime types and crisis contexts.

·      Comparative insights and patterns: Cross-country, cross-sector or longitudinal analyses of recurring patterns of agency and how they evolve over time.

·      Methodological innovations: Methods for detecting, measuring and tracing agency through qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approaches.

·      Normative and practical implications: The relationship between agency and power, legitimacy, accountability, and democratic responsibility, and the implications for policy design and institutional learning.

We particularly welcome contributions from across the social sciences and from diverse policy fields, so as to compare agency in different contexts and to stimulate dialogue between otherwise separate research communities.

We envisage the workshop producing concrete outputs, such as a special issue in a leading journal or an edited volume with a major academic publisher. Particular attention will be given to contributions that promote conceptual clarity and methodological innovation in the study of agency. These outlets will ensure that the debates generated by the workshop have a lasting scholarly impact.

The role of actors in policymaking has long fascinated political scientists, public administrators and sociologists. At the heart of the debate lies a long-standing conundrum: should policy outcomes be primarily explained by the structural and institutional architectures of governance systems, or by the strategic and intentional practices of individuals and organisations? This structure–agency problem (Archer, 1995; Giddens, 1984) is an enduring issue that continues to shape theoretical and empirical inquiry. In order to advance our understanding, it is crucial to examine both the institutional contexts in which decisions are made and the roles, repertoires and strategies through which human actors exert influence.

Recent scholarship has clarified this by distinguishing between actors and agents (Capano et al., 2025). Actors are collective or individual entities that occupy formal organisational or institutional positions, while agents are individuals defined by the patterns of action they perform, such as brokerage, leadership or entrepreneurship. This distinction highlights that agency is not inherent in institutional roles, but rather emerges from what individuals actually do in practice. Actors become agents by performing recurring patterns of action. Leadership involves steering the process, entrepreneurship involves innovating ideas and instruments, brokerage involves intermediating resources at multiple levels, and knowledge production involves providing the necessary capacities to create intelligent policies (Capano et al., 2025). While all four patterns of action are necessary for the policy process to progress, their features and configurations need to be studied in different contexts.

Building on decades of scholarship, this workshop will explore agency through five interrelated dimensions: resources, constraints, drivers, dynamics and patterns. 'Resources' refers to the tangible and intangible assets mobilised by actors and agents, 'constraints' denote the institutional and cultural boundaries of action, 'drivers' capture the interests, beliefs and emotions that motivate engagement, 'dynamics' highlight how agency unfolds over time through learning and interaction, and 'patterns' point to the recurring forms of agency that allow for comparative generalisation.

By bringing these perspectives together, the workshop aims to foster cumulative knowledge about how actors and agents shape policymaking. We aim to bridge disciplinary boundaries and empirical domains across all areas of policymaking, offering a common language for studying how agency unfolds in contexts as diverse as climate politics, health governance, migration, digital transformation, and many others.

The workshop invites theoretical and empirical contributions to clarify concepts, bridge fragmented frameworks and illuminate the evolving role of agency in governance in contexts of stability, contestation and crisis.

- Giliberto CAPANO is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Bologna. He is one of the editors of the prestigious and highly-ranked journal Policy & Society. He was a member of the Executive Committee of the International Political Science Association (2009-2014) and of the Executive Committee of the European Consortium of Political Research (2018-2024). In 2014, he was one of the 12 founders of the International Public Policy Association, of which he is still a member of the Executive Committee. He specialises in public administration and public policy. His research focuses on governance dynamics and performance in higher education and education; policy design and policy change; the impact and performance of policy instruments; the social role and impact of political science and public policy; crisis governance; policy capacities and policy making. 

- Maria Tullia Galanti is Associate Professor at the Department of Social and Political Science at the University of Milan. She is interested in agency, entrepreneurship, leadership and in the role of knowledge in policymaking. Her recent work focuses on the role of experts in education and labour market reforms and in sustainable development at the local level. She is editor in chief of the Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche and editorial board member of Policy and Politics.

- Evangelia Petridou is research professor at NTNU Social Research in Norway and associate professor of political science at Mid Sweden University, in Sweden. She is associate editor of the International Review of Public Policy and Policy Design and Practice. She studies agency in the policy process and specifically policy entrepreneurs and crisis governance. She is the PI of Boundaries of Legitimation: Crisis Normalization and Preparedness funded by the Swedish Research Council. Her latest publications include Policy Entrepreneurs, Crises, and Policy Change (with Jörgen Sparf, Nikolaos Zahariadis and Tom Birkland) published by Cambridge Press.