Policy entrepreneurs are individuals who exploit opportunities to influence policy outcomes so as to promote their own goals, without having the resources necessary to achieve this alone. They are not satisfied with merely promoting their self-interests within institutions that others have established; rather, they try to create new horizons of opportunity through innovative ideas and strategies.^[1] These persistent individuals employ innovative ideas and nontraditional strategies to promote desired policy outcomes. Whether from the private, public or third sector, one of their defining characteristics is a willingness to invest their own resources – time, energy, reputation and sometimes money – in hope of a future return. While policy entrepreneurs may try to block changes proposed by others, entrepreneurial activities usually seek to change the status quo rather than preserve it. It should be stressed, however, that although the literature has focused mainly on entrepreneurs who have led successful changes in policy, not all policy entrepreneurship ends in success. Finally, policy entrepreneurship is but one form of political participation. It is a process that involves individuals who are willing to take risks, identify policy problems and solutions, and use their political skills and timing to achieve a specified outcome" (^[2]). Most accounts and case studies address these individuals in a national context but the emergence of transnational policy entrepreneurs is increasingly apparent.

The term refers to an individual who takes advantage of opportunities to influence policy outcomes to increase their self-interests. The term was first coined by American political scientist John W. Kingdon in his influential work Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies published in 1984.^[3] Kingdon created the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) which outlines that the policy process can be situated into problems, policy and politics. Political entrepreneurs are most active in the policy stream, creating solutions to potential problems and bringing them forth to the agenda setting process. The Multiple Streams Framework is a powerful tool to understand policy making and agenda setting. It was first created to analyze and understand agenda setting in the United States.^[4] Policy entrepreneurs are the most important actors in the Multiple Streams Framework, as they develop policy alternatives and couple them with problems to present solutions to policy makers at the right time. He himself describes them as "advocates who are willing to invest their resources - time, energy, reputation, money - to promote a position in return for anticipated future gain in the form of material, purposive or solidary benefits".^[3] Policy entrepreneurs use innovative ideas and non-traditional strategies to influence society, create opportunities, and promote desired policy outcomes. Policy entrepreneurship usually happens over three phases. It starts with a demand in the political landscape for some form of innovation involving a public good.^[5] Secondly, an innovative policy instrument is proposed to supply that demand. Lastly, strategies are used such as team building, problem definition, and leadership by example to make certain that the innovation is placed on the agenda.^[6] Unlike a public intellect who strives to assert themselves into many different topics and be publicly vocal, a policy entrepreneur will focus on specific topics and possibly work behind the scenes with state and political elite.

Origin

The term entrepreneur is derived from the French word entreprendre, i.e. to undertake. The French economist Jean-Baptiste Say first coined the term in 1803 and defined an entrepreneur as an individual who "shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield". Many decades later, scholars gradually have expanded the use of the idea of entrepreneurship and adapted the concept from business to the public sector. John Kingdon (1984) was one of the earliest scholars to apply the term entrepreneurs to the public sector; he first coined the term "policy entrepreneur" in his work Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies.^[3] This new term has been addressed in other works but hasn't been systematically used by other political scientists in theories of policy change.^[6]

Multiple streams framework

Kingdon's multiple-streams framework (MSF) has been frequently used since the publication of his book Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies in 1984.^[3] His model is an interpretation of the garbage can model of organizational choice.^[7] In a garbage can model, organization is seen as groups of choices that seek out problems, issues and feelings that look for decisions and solutions and people willing to solve them. The multiple-streams adaption of this sees that policies can be created by joining together problems, policies and politics, all of which are seen as decision aspects in a policy process.

Government agendas are created when problems are recognized that have viable solutions that will be politically correct to make at the time of decision making.^[3] Kingdon recognizes when these three aspects join together using the term "policy window". When a policy window is recognized and open, there is a potential for policy making to happen. Policy entrepreneurs function at this time as the action takers who take advantage of these windows while they are open.^[8] In the problems stream, conditions are defined as problems based on how an individual values and believes in it and how much of an impact will happen through change. In the policy stream, ideas and solutions are formulated through policy ideas usually developed by specialists to an issue. Policy development has a better chance of surviving implementation if it has support from various different communities affected by the policy. The politics stream focuses on different elements that will effect a policy such as national mood, efforts by the people to campaign for change and legislative turnover.^[9]

The multiple-streams framework is considered to provide the best conceptual insight in terms of the presence and influence of policy entrepreneurs and their role in emergence of policy windows^[10] by using the three 'streams' to explain the gap between a problem getting attention and the adoption of an impactful solution. Kingdon claims these are not linear processes, instead, these three streams are to be treated as separate streams, able to happen in any order. He states that these three streams must come together at the same time.^[11] These streams are that a window of opportunity must exist, as well as a viable solution, combined with the motivation and the opportunity of the policymakers to select the solution. Many opportunities for policy change open, but most of them close before anyone even has a chance to take advantage because the attention of the policy agenda shifts dramatically.^[11]

Kingdon applied this reasoning to the political system of the United States. Since policymakers do not have the time to devote to detailed policies, they give the responsibility to civil servants who consult with think tanks and interest groups to produce policy solutions.^[12] The likelihood of significant policy change is challenging to predict due to it requiring sustained attention, an acceptable solution, and some compromise of the political system. Building on Kingdon's work, Nikolaos Zahariadis defines it as a tool which explains how government policies are created with conditions of ambiguity.^[9]

The multiple-streams framework has been widely adopted and refined by policy scholars. Whereas Kingdon originally introduced it to describe the process of agenda setting in the United States, the framework was later taken up in the field of comparative policy analysis.^[13] It was also combined with the concept of the policy cycle, allowing it to be used to study not only agenda setting but all stages of the policy process, including policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation.^[14] In terms of actors and agency, Kingdon mainly focused on the role of the policy entrepreneur, raising questions about the role of other actors, especially collective policy actors. As a consequence, leading scholars now describe the different streams in the multiple-streams framework as being populated by distinct collective actors, most notably epistemic communities in the problem stream, policy instrument constituencies in the policy stream, and advocacy coalitions in the politics stream.^[15][16][17]

Since 2000, Kingdon's book has been cited over 10,000 times through Google Scholar and applied over 1,900 times in peer-reviewed articles.^[9]

Idea to implementation

'Bridging research and policy' or effective use of evidence ins policy development, is one key element to policy entrepreneurship. In the multiple-streams frameworks, policy entrepreneurs do most of their work in the policy stream working on agenda setting ideas. The role of a policy entrepreneur is to first identify demand for innovation in the political landscape when a recognizable policy window is open. When this window is open, a policy entrepreneur has a limited amount of time to undergo the initial launch of proposing policy recommendations to supply the demand by utilizing their personal, network and institutional resources to take action on joining streams together on their idea through the policy stages. This is done by addressing issues and problems and coming up with solutions to them by creating policy alternatives into a product that they can present as a persuasive agenda that policy-makers should examine. They will implement persuasive strategies and techniques on the policy-makers to coerce their innovation onto the agenda. A successful policy entrepreneur will manage to get their issues onto a political agenda and potentially pass and influence a form of legislation that relates to their personal benefit. However, not every attempt will be successful. If unsuccessful, a policy entrepreneur may hold onto their agenda for a later time or even apply it to a different issue that they deem may work.^[4]

Characteristics

These individuals have a credential that allows their opinions to be heard over others. This could be having expert knowledge on a topic or holding an important position of power in a corporation or special interest group that allows them to make decisions. A policy entrepreneur usually will have a large network of people with political influence that they utilize when pushing their idea forward. Persistence is essential for a policy entrepreneur to be successful. Many hours must be dedicated to their idea by giving speeches and talks, writing papers and speaking in front of government committees if they are to have success.^[3]

Policy entrepreneurs are crucial actors in policy making, Kingdon himself explained that policy entrepreneurs are "advocates who are willing to invest their resources - time, energy, reputation, money - to promote a position in return for anticipated future gain in the form of material, purposive or solidary benefits".^[3] Other political scientists have taken Kingdon's definition and expanded further. Michael Mintrom applied a public policy perspective to the term stating, “they are individuals who through their creativity, strategy, networking, and persuasive argumentation are able to bring new policy ideas into the open and promote policy change".^[5] Years later, using a constructivist perspective, Michael Mazarr added to this saying, “policy entrepreneurs can be seen as the human embodiment of the social construction of policy. Advocates determined, for one reason or another, to fight inertia, the bureaucracy, opposing interests, and anything else in their way to get the idea through the window [of opportunity] and into law or policy.”.^[18]

Reviews and criticisms

Reviews of Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy display mixed opinions on the approaches and concepts created by Kingdon. Roger Cobb, former professor of political science at Brown University writes in an article for the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law that Kingdon's garbage can model approach is a completely random decision-making tool that lacks content. Cobb states that the greatest contribution of the garbage can model is the creation of new terms like policy entrepreneur that help give the sense of focus on policy problems but then argues that Kingdon himself may not fully believe in what he has created. He criticizes that Kingdon makes a legitimate arguments for structure by writing about “predictable policy windows” that are attributable to different political cycles but makes rations that would contradict his whole argument.^[19]

Evelyn Brodkin, associate professor at The University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration, writes in Political Science Quarterly that Kingdon's book provides a good analysis of how policy participants see their own role in influencing others, raising issue awareness and framing these issues for debate. She finds that his findings are beneficial for pursuing more empirical investigation and debate on different models of the agenda-setting process. In her criticism, Brodkin argues that the book fails to challenge criticisms of the pluralist theory that focus on discrepancies that illustrate how certain groups and issues systematically are excluded from the political process in which Kingdon's work is modelled on.^[20]

The frequent use of Kingdons agenda-setting framework in policy analysis is especially interesting because the book focuses solely on the United States. It can be argued that a framework developed exclusively on the basis of the examination of a single nation should not be able to generate useful insight in comparative research across the globe. Still, the MSF has been used in a large number of studies of subnational politics such as the European Union, the United Nations, and countries beyond the USA. Cairney and Zahariadis explain that this is because Kingdon's MSF possesses a language that is flexible enough to be relevant on a wide range of policy making processes.^[11] Its insights are universal enough to apply in most political systems.^[11]

Harald Sætren, professor at University of Bergen Department of Administration and Organization Theory, writes in Policy Sciences that one of the problems with the multiple-streams framework is that differing methods of finding issues and solutions potentially can affect how successful a policy entrepreneur can be in coupling policy streams.^[8]

Policy entrepreneurs

"Policy entrepreneur" is not a recognized job position. John Kingdon's research consisted of case studies on 23 different people he deemed to be policy entrepreneurs.^[3]

.^[3]

Isambard Kingdom Brunel is a mechanical engineer that engaged in the debate about whether paddle wheels or screw propellers were more powerful for moving boats. He tested this by building one of each and using them in a channel to see which would tug the hardest. The point of his story is that he was engaged on the ground and not just researching in a lab. Policy entrepreneurs need to be practically involved in testing their theories if they want their recommendations to be considered ^[21]

In a study done by Mark Beeson and Diane Stone, Ross Garnaut was examined in a role of a policy entrepreneur. Garnaut was a highly decorated scholar, recognized economist who was also an ambassador to China and a prime ministerial advisor in Australia. In his role as advisor to Prime Minister Hawke, he wrote to him about problems with fixed exchange rates and instituting labour-market reform. The government went on to implement a radical program of economic liberalisation that included addressing some of the issues Garnaut consulted on.^[22]

See also

• Political entrepreneur
• Politician
• Social entrepreneur
• Agenda-setting theory
• Lobbyist

References

External links

Cohen, Nissim (2016) “Policy Entrepreneurs and Agenda Setting”. In Zahariadis, Nikolaos (ed.), Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting. Edward Elgar, pp. 180–199.

Cohen, Nissim (2012) “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Design of Public Policy: Conceptual framework and the Case of the National Health Insurance Law in Israel” Journal of Social Research & Policy, 3 (1): 5-26.