Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1259–1272 | Cite as

Policy entrepreneurs and strategies for change

  • Stijn BrouwerEmail author
  • Dave Huitema
Original Article

Abstract

Despite the fact that we currently witness an increasing interest in the study of the role of agency in policy dynamics, it remains in many respects a puzzle how policy change can be explained, let alone directed. This paper focusses intently on the concept, incidence, and strategic behaviour of policy entrepreneurs. By elucidating their strategic modus operandi, we aim to contribute to a better understanding of the strategies that individual change agents employ in their efforts to effect policy change, as well as to examine their contextual effectiveness. In addition to new data on the incidence and profile of policy entrepreneurs and the (contextual) conditions relating to the selection of strategies, this paper presents a novel typology of entrepreneurial strategies, linking these to circumstances under which they can be effective. Our paper concludes with a discussion on how our findings relate to the main theories of policy change, and what they mean for the larger democratic questions about accountability and legitimacy.

Keywords

Policy entrepreneurs Strategies Water governance Climate change Policy change 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Springer International Publishing who have kindly given permission for the use of material from Brouwer (2015), Policy Entrepreneurs in Water Governance: Strategies for Change.

References

  1. Axelrod R, Keohane RO (1985) Achieving cooperation under anarchy: strategies and institutions. World Polit 38(1):226–254. doi: 10.2307/2010357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD (1993) Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD (eds) (2002) Policy dynamics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumgartner FR, Breunig C, Green-Pedersen C, Jones BD, Mortensen PB, Nuytemans M, Walgrave S (2009) Punctuated equilibrium in comparative perspective. Am J Polit Sci, 53(3):603–620. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25548140
  5. Birkland TA (1998) Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. J Public Policy 18(1):53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaikie N (2003) Analysing quantitative data: from description to explanation. Sage Publications, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bovens M, t’Hart P, Peters BG (2001) Success and failure in public governance: a comparative study. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brouwer S (2015) Policy entrepreneurs in water governance: strategies for change. Springer, New York. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17241-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brouwer S, Biermann F (2011) Towards adaptive management: examining the strategies of policy entrepreneurs in Dutch water management. Ecol Soc 16(4):5. doi: 10.5751/ES-04315-160405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Bruijn H, Ten Heuvelhof E (2000) Networks and decision making. LEMMA, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. De Bruijn H, Ten Heuvelhof E (2008) Management in networks: on multi-actor decision making. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Doig JW, Hargrove EC (eds) (1987) Leadership and innovation: a biographical perspective on entrepreneurs in government. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  13. Fry BR, Nigro LG (1996) Max weber and US public administration: the administrator as ‘neutral servant’. J Manag Hist 2(1):37–46Google Scholar
  14. Huitema D, Meijerink S (eds) (2009) Water policy entrepreneurs: a research companion to water transitions around the globe. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  15. Imperial MT (2005) Using collaboration as a governance strategy: lessons from six watershed management programs. Adm Soc 37(3):281–320. doi: 10.1177/0095399705276111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. John P (1998) Analysing public policy. Continuum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones BD, Baumgartner FR, True JL (1998) Policy punctuations: U.S. budget authority, 1947–1995. J Polit 60(1):1–33. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816%28199802%2960%3A1%3C1%3APPUBA1%3E2.0.00%3B2-S
  18. Kingdon JW (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Koppenjan J, Klijn EH (2004) Managing uncertainties in networks: a network approach to problem solving and decision making. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCown TL (2004) Policy entrepreneurs and policy change examining the linkages between TANF, domestic violence and the FVO. West Virginia University Libraries, MorgantownGoogle Scholar
  21. McFadgen B, Huitema D (2016) Are all experiments created equal? A framework for analysis of the learning potential of policy experiments in environmental governance. J Environ Plan Manag (CJEP):1–20. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1256808
  22. Mintrom M (1997) Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. Am J Polit Sci 41(3):738–770. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-5853%28199707%2941%3A3%3C738%3APEATDO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C
  23. Mintrom M (2000) Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Georgetown University Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. Mintrom M, Salisbury C, Luetjens J (2014) Policy entrepreneurs and promotion of Australian state knowledge economies. Aust J Polit Sci 49(3):423–438. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2014.934657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nair S, Howlett M (2015) Scaling up of policy experiments and pilots: a qualitative comparative analysis and lessons for the water sector. Water Resour Manag 29:4945. doi: 10.1007/s11269-015-1081-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Noordegraaf M, Brandsen T, Huitema D (2006) Fragmented but forceful: Dutch administrative sciences and their institutional evolution. Public Adm 84(4):989–1006. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00623.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roberts NC (1992) Public entrepreneurship and innovation. Rev Policy Res 11(1):55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roberts NC, King PJ (1991) Policy entrepreneurs: their activity structure and function in the policy process. J Public Adm Res Theor 2:147–175Google Scholar
  29. Sabatier PA (1988) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 21:129–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC (eds) (1993) Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  31. Sabatier PA, Weible CM (2007) The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 189–222Google Scholar
  32. Scharpf FW (1997) Games real actors play: actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  33. Schneider M, Teske PE, Mintrom M (1995) Public entrepreneurs: agents for change in American government. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner, how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor A, Cocklin C, Brown R, Wilson-Evered E (2011) An investigation of champion-driven leadership processes. Leadersh Q 22:412–433. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Leussen W, Lulofs K (2009) Governance of water resources. In: Reinhard S, Folmer H (eds) Water policy in the Netherlands: integrated management in a densely populated delta. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, pp 171–184Google Scholar
  37. Verduijn SH, Meijerink SV, Leroy P (2012) How the Second Delta Committee set the agenda for climate adaptation policy: a Dutch case study on framing strategies for policy change. Water Altern 5(2):469–484Google Scholar
  38. Westley F (2002) The devil in the dynamics: adaptive management on the front lines. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, pp 333–360Google Scholar
  39. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KWR Watercycle Research InstituteNieuwegeinThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental StudiesVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Faculty of Management, Science and TechnologyNetherlands Open UniversityHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations