Enablers and Time: How Context Shapes Entrepreneurship in Institutional and Policy Change

  • Maria Tullia Galanti
Part of the Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy book series (PEPP)


Scholars in institutional theory and policy process are rediscovering the importance of agency in accounting for change of different forms, intensities and origins. In particular, scholars increasingly acknowledge the need to go beyond perspectives that advocate the supremacy of approaches based on structure over accounts of situated agency, and vice versa. It seems more fruitful to think about change as the result of interaction between the two, to try to understand how structure and agency mutually influence each other (Garud, Hardy, & Maguire, 2007, pp. 690–691; see also Bakir & Jarvis this volume).


  1. Ackrill, R., & Kay, A. (2011). Multiple streams in EU policy-making: The case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 18, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakir, C. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and institutional change: Multilevel governance of central banking reform. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 22(4), 571–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakir, C. (2013). Bank behavior and resilience: The effect of structures, institutions and agents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakir, C. (2016). How can interactions among interdependent structures, institutions, and agents inform financial stability? What we have still to learn from global financial crisis. Policy Sciences.
  6. Bakir, C. & Gunduz, A. (2017). When, why and how institutional change takes place: a systematic review and a future research agenda on the importance of policy entrepreneurship in macroeconomic bureaucracies. Policy and Society, 36(4), 479–503.Google Scholar
  7. Bakir, C., & Jarvis, D. S. L. (2017) Contextualising the context in policy entrepreneurship and institutional change, Policy and Society, 36(4), 465–478. ​Google Scholar
  8. Batory, A., & Lindstrom, N. (2011). The power of the purse: Supranational entrepreneurship, financial incentives, and European higher education policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 24(2), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization, 13(5), 653–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Battilana, J., & Leca, B. (2008). The role of resources in institutional entrepreneurship: Insights for an approach to strategic management that combines agency and institutions. In L. A. Costanzo & R. B. MacKay (Eds.), Handbook of research on strategy and foresight (pp. 260–274). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (2016). Ideas as coalition magnets: Coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 428–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Capano, G., & Galanti, M. T. (2015). Brokers, entrepreneurs and leaders in policy dynamics: From individual actors to types of agency. Paper presented at the International Conference in Public Policy (ICPP), Milan, July 1–4, 2015.Google Scholar
  15. Chaqués, L., & Palau, A. (2009). Comparing the dynamics of change in food safety and pharmaceutical policy in Spain. Journal of Public Policy, 29, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christopoulos, D. C., & Ingold, K. (2015). Exceptional or just well connected? Political entrepreneurs and brokers in policy making. European Political Science Review, 7(3), 475–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crow, D. A. (2010). Policy entrepreneurs, issue experts, and water rights policy change in Colorado. Review of Policy Research, 27(3), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  19. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Falleti, T. G. (2010). Decentralization and subnational politics in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howlett, M. (1998). Predictable and unpredictable policy windows: Issue, institutional and exogenous correlates of Canadian federal agenda-setting. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 31(3), 495–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsu, C. L. (2006). Market ventures, moral logics, and ambiguity: Crafting a new organizational form in post-socialist China. The Sociological Quarterly, 47(1), 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  25. Leca, B., & Naccache, P. (2006). A critical realist approach to institutional entrepreneurship. Organization, 13(5), 627–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency and power (pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Meijerink, S., & Huitema, D. (2010). Policy entrepreneurs and change strategies: Lessons from sixteen case studies of water transitions around the globe. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 39(4), 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mutch, A. (2007). Reflexivity and the institutional entrepreneur: A historical explanation. Organization Studies, 28(7), 1123–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Natali, D. (2004). Europeanization, policy arenas, and creative opportunism: The politics of welfare state reforms in Italy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(6), 1077–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Navot, D., & Cohen, N. (2015). How policy entrepreneurs reduce corruption in Israel. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 28(1), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nay, O. (2012). How do policy ideas spread among international administrations? Policy entrepreneurs and bureaucratic influence in the UN response to AIDS. Journal of Public Policy, 32(1), 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oborn, E., Barrett, M., & Exworthy, M. (2011). Policy entrepreneurship in the development of public sector strategy: The case of London health reform. Public Administration, 89(2), 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pelletier, D. L., Frongillo, E. A., Gervais, S., Hoey, L., Menon, P., Ngo, T., … Tahmeed, A. (2012). Nutrition agenda setting, policy formulation and implementation: Lessons from the mainstreaming nutrition initiative. Health Policy and Planning, 27, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prälle, S. B. (2003). Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change: The internationalization of Canadian forest advocacy. Journal of Public Policy, 23, 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quaglia, L. (2005a). Civil servants, economic ideas, and economic policies: Lessons from Italy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 18(4), 545–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quaglia, L. (2005b). An integrative approach to the politics of central bank independence: Lessons from Britain, Germany and Italy. West European Politics, 28(3), 549–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (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
  41. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework. Innovations and clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189–220). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  42. Saurugger, S., & Terpan, F. (2016). Do crises lead to policy change? The multiple streams framework and the European Union’s economic governance instruments. Policy Sciences, 49, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Seo, M., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.Google Scholar
  45. Sheingate, A. D. (2003). Political entrepreneurship, institutional change, and American political development. Studies in American Political Development, 17, 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shpaizman, I., Swed, O., & Pedahzur, A. (2016). Policy change inch by inch: Policy entrepreneurs in the Holy Basin of Jerusalem. Public Administration.
  47. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In W. Streeck & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies (pp. 1–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wijen, F., & Ansari, S. (2007). Overcoming inaction through collective institutional entrepreneurship: Insights from regime theory. Organization Studies, 28(7), 1079–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure limitations prospects. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 65–92). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  51. Zahariadis, N., & Exadaktylos, T. (2016). Policies that succeed and programs that fail: Ambiguity, conflict, and crisis in Greek higher education. The Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Tullia Galanti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations