Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The fable of policy entrepreneurship? Understanding policy change as an ontological problem with critical realism and institutional theory

  • Discussion and Commentary
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How is policy change possible if policy entrepreneurs’ cognition, rationality and identity are conditioned by the very policy institutions they wish to change? To solve this paradox of embedded agency, we must avoid either voluntarism that inflates the role of actors to change policies as by existing policy entrepreneurship applications, or determinism whereby policy changes are decided by contextual forces. Instead, drawing on institutional theory, critical realism sees structures, institutions, and actions that constitute policy dynamics as existing in separate yet intertwined reality domains: structures (e.g., social relationships), and institutions (e.g., formal rules and norms such as institutional logics) in the Real domain, enable and constrain policy actors’ navigation of their social environments; the Actual domain represents the level at which events (actions) happen, as these actors constantly interpret varied institutions to adjust their structurally embedded actions when pursuing policy changes that can be observed in the Empirical domain. Put differently, structures and institutions are mechanisms in the Real domain that affect individual practices and events in the Actual domain, and only some of these events are realized in the Empirical domain as policy changes. We empirically illustrate this critical realist approach with a Chinese example on health care reform.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2019). Neo-institutional theory and organization studies: A mid-life crisis? Organization Studies, 40(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M. (1996). Culture and agency. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M. (2003). Structure, agency, and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, G., et al. (2017). Social networks and policy entrepreneurship. Policy Studies Journal, 45(3), 414–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, G. (2022). A threat-centered theory of policy entrepreneurship. Policy Sciences, 55, 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakir, C. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and institutional change. Governance, 22(4), 571–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakir, C. (2013). Bank behaviour and resilience. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bakir, C. (2017). How can interactions among interdependent structures, institutions, and agents inform financial stability? Policy Sciences, 50, 217–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakir, C., et al. (2021). Why does the combination of policy entrepreneur and institutional entrepreneur roles matter for the institutionalization of policy ideas? Policy Sciences, 54, 397–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakir, C., & Gunduz, K. A. (2017). When, why and how institutional change takes place. Policy and Society, 36(4), 479–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakir, C., & Gunduz, K. A. (2020). The importance of policy entrepreneurs in developing countries: A systematic review. Public Administration and Development, 40(1), 11–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakir, C., & Jarvis, D. (2017). Contextualising the context in policy entrepreneurship and institutional change. Policy and Society, 36(4), 465–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balla, S. (2001). Interstate professional associations and the diffusion of policy innovations. American Politics Research, 29, 221–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béland, D. (2016). Kingdon reconsidered: Ideas, interests and institutions in comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(3), 228–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Béland, D., & Cox, H. (2016). Ideas as coalition magnets: Coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. European Journal of Public Policy, 23, 428–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béland, D., & Howlett, M. (2016). How solutions chase problems. Governance, 29, 393–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1978). A reality theory of science (2nd ed.). Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjerregaard, T., & Jonasson, C. (2014). Managing unstable institutional contradictions. Organization Studies, 35, 1507–1536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D., & Hsiao, W. (2005). Privatization and its discontents. New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 1165–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P. (2018). Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs. Policy and Politics, 46(2), 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G. (2009). Understanding policy change as an epistemological and theoretical problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 7–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., et al. (2013). Medical professionalism among clinical physicians in two tertiary hospitals, China. Social Science & Medicine, 96, 290–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S. (2010). The state, power, and agency. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(1), 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, A. (2004). In defence of objectivity. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Delbridge, R., & Edwards, T. (2013). Inhabiting institutions: Critical realist refinements to understanding institutional complexity and change. Organization Studies, 34(7), 927–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, Z., & Phillips, M. (2008). Evolution of China’s health-care system. Lancet, 372, 1715–1716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. (1984). The Division of Labour in Society (trans. The French edition of 1893 by W. D. Halls with an introduction by Lewis Coser). Macmillan.

  • Elmelund-Præstekær, C., & Klitgaard, M. (2012). Policy or institution? The political choice of retrenchment strategy. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(7), 1089–1107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, G., & Hallett, T. (2014). Group cultures and the everyday life of organizations. Organization Studies, 35, 1773–1792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in the postpositivist perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in organization and management studies. Organization, 12(2), 197–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleetwood, S. (2008). Institutions and social structures. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38, 241–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleetwood, S. (2021). Re-visiting rules and norms. Review of Social Economy, 79(4), 607–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch-Aviram, N., et al. (2019). Entrepreneurship in the policy process. Public Administration Review, 80(2), 88–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, H., et al. (2017). An evaluation of systemic reforms of public hospitals in China. Health Policy and Planning, 32, 1135–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Phillips, N. (2013). Institutional work as logics shift. Organization Studies, 34, 1035–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., et al. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, A. (2018). Maneuvering within a fragmented bureaucracy: Policy entrepreneurship in China’s local healthcare reform. The China Quarterly, 236, 1088–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. (2006). What are institutions. Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 398–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, W. (2007). The political economy of Chinese health reform. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 2, 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Z., et al. (2020). Reluctant policy innovation through profit concession and informality tolerance. Public Administration and Development, 40(1), 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, D., & He, A. (2020). Policy entrepreneurship and intuitional change: Who, how, and why? Public Administration and Development, 40(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M., et al. (2016). A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodeih, F., & Greenwood, R. (2014). Responding to institutional complexity. Organization Studies, 35, 7–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laffan, B. (1997). From policy entrepreneur to policy manager. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(3), 422–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leca, B., & Naccache, P. (2006). A critical realist approach to institutional entrepreneurship. Organization, 13, 627–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28, 993–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, C., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R., et al. (2014). Of bureaucrats and passionate public managers: Institutional logics, executive identities, and public service motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 861–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., et al. (2020). Policy entrepreneurship in Asia. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 13(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24, 420–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. (1994). Economic performance through time. American Economic Review, 84(3), 359–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J., et al. (2003). Social theory: A basic tool kit. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petridou, E., et al. (2021). Policy entrepreneurs in public administration: A social network analysis. Politics & Policy, 49(2), 414–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petridou, E., & Mintrom, M. (2021). A research agenda for the study of policy entrepreneurs. Policy Studies Journal, 49, 943–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1990). A world of propensities. Thoemmes Antiquarian Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porpora, D. (1989). Four concepts of social structure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19, 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porpora, D. (2015). Reconstructing sociology: The critical realist approach. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh, M., et al. (2014). Health governance and healthcare reforms in China. Health Policy and Planning, 29(6), 663–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H., et al. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4), 795–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N., & King, P. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1(2), 147–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runde, J. (1996). On popper, probabilities, and propensities. Review of Social Economy, 54, 465–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. (1995). Institutions and organizations. SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo, M., & Creed, W. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shearer, J., et al. (2016). Why do policies change? Institutions, interests, ideas, and networks in three cases of policy reform. Health Policy and Planning, 31, 1200–1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipan, C., & Volden, C. (2006). Bottom-up federalism. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 825–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. (2011). What is a person. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P., et al. (2012). The institutional logics perspective. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Townley, B. (1997). The institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization Studies, 18(2), 261–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tu, W., et al. (2019). The Sanming three-in-one model. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 67, 2213–2215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., et al. (2019). The development and reform of public health in China from 1949 to 2019. Global Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0486-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., et al. (2021). From grace to violence: Stigmatizing the medical profession in China. Academy of Management Journal, 64, 1842–1872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weissert, C. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs, policy opportunists, and legislative effectiveness. American Politics Research, 19, 262–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlgemut, M. (2000). Political entrepreneurship and bidding for political monopoly. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10, 273–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, D., et al. (2017). Challenges to healthcare reform in China. Health Policy and Planning, 32, 1241–1247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y. (2021). Beyond Weber and Kafka: Conceptualizing a critical realist model of bureaucracy. Administration & Society, 54(3), 500–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yip, W., et al. (2012). Appraisal of China’s huge and health care reforms. Lancet, 379, 833–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yip, W., & Hsiao, W. (2014). Harnessing the privatization of China’s fragmented health-care delivery. Lancet, 384, 805–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2016). Delphic oracles: Ambiguity, institutions, and multiple streams. Policy Sciences, 49(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Social Science Fund of Beijing Municipality [Grant Number: 18ZGC012] and the Institute of Public Governance, Peking University [Grant Number: YBXM202207].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Government, Peking University, Leo KoGuan Building, Beijing, 100871, China

    Yi Yang

Authors
  1. Yi Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi Yang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, Y. The fable of policy entrepreneurship? Understanding policy change as an ontological problem with critical realism and institutional theory. Policy Sci 55, 573–591 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09463-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09463-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation