Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Low-level bureaucrats, local government regimes and policy entrepreneurship

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Can professional low-level bureaucrats who implement policy act as policy entrepreneurs and affect policy design? Does the transition from traditional, hierarchical administrations to local governance systems play a role in enabling policy entrepreneurship among such low-level bureaucrats? We explore these questions using the case study of waste separation in Israeli local authorities. We maintain that the attributes of local governance can explain their success in affecting policy. Our findings demonstrate how low-level bureaucrats who act as policy entrepreneurs use the structural characteristics of governance as a window of opportunity for reform. When the mode of governance is more lateral and less traditional, these bureaucrats have a better chance of acting as policy entrepreneurs.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnold, G. (2015). Street-level policy entrepreneurship. Public Management Review, 17(3), 307–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, G., Nguyen Long, L. A., & Gottlieb, M. (2016). Social network and policy entrepreneurship: How relationships shape municipal decision making about high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Policy Studies Journal. doi:10.1111/psj.12175/full.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayalon, O., Nuvik, A., Elimelech, E., & Avnimelech, Y. (2008). Alternatives to separation, recycling and handling of waste. Haifa: Shamuel Neeman Institute. (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beeri, I. (2009). Recovery plans for failing authorities in Israel: A comparative view, in light of the British experience. Jerusalem: Florsheim Institute. (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beeri, I., & Yuval, F. (2012). The performance of the local government in Israel: Analysis of resident’s positions and a national situation evaluation. Beer Sheva: Series of research papers in public policy and administration. (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben Elia, M. (2004). The fourth generation: New local government for Israel. Jerusalem: The Floersheim Institute for Policy.

  • Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, I. (1994). The local space: Local government law, decentralization and spatial inequality in Israel. Mishpatim, 34, 197–299. (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). Street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62, 174–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodkin, E. Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. The Social Service Review, 71(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christopoulos, D. C. (2006). Relational attributes of political entrepreneurs: A network perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), 757–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, H. D., & Stewart, M. C. (1998). The decline of parties in the minds of citizens. Annual Review of Political Science, 1(1), 357–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda building. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, N. (2012). Policy entrepreneurs and the design of public policy: The case of the national health insurance law in Israel. Journal of Social Research and Policy, 3(1), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, N. (2016a). Policy entrepreneurs and agenda setting. In N. Zahariadis (Ed.), Handbook of public policy agenda-setting (pp. 180–199). Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, N. (2016b). How culture affects street-level bureaucrats’ bending the rules in the context of informal payments for health care: The Israeli case. The American review of public administration. (Early view).

  • Cohen, N., & Arieli, T. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48(4), 423–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derry, D. (1999). Local governance: De-facto decentralization. In Nachmias, D., & G. Menahem. (Eds.), Public policy in Israel (pp. 159–73). Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute.

  • DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and culture (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P. (1992). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • Durose, C. (2007). Beyond ‘Street-Level Bureaucrats’: Re-interpreting the role of front line public sector workers. Critical Policy Analysis, 1(2), 217–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, K. (2011). ‘Street-Level Bureaucracy’ revisited: The changing face of frontline discretion in adult social care in England. Social Policy and Administration, 45(3), 221–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, D. (2013). Indicators for estimating organic waste disposal. Santa Monica: Milken Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunn, A. (2017). Policy entrepreneurs and policy formulation. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Handbook of policy formulation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M. J., & Hupe, P. L. (2002). Implementing public policy: Governance in theory and practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huitema, D., & Meijerink, S. (2010). Realizing water transitions: The role of policy entrepreneurs in water policy change. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. J., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Lamberta Raney, H., et al. (2016). A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kersting, N., Caulfield, J., Nickson, R. A., Olowu, D., & Wollmann, H. (2009). Local governance reform in global perspective (Vol. 12). Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1984) [1995]. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.

  • Knesset Research Center Report. (2010). Analysis of the request of the Ministry of Environmental Protection to increase the landfill levy. Jerusalem: Knesset Research Center Reports.

  • Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services, 30th anniversary edition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 657–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, NO: Universitetsforlaget.

  • Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M. (2013). Policy entrepreneurs and controversial science: Governing human embryonic stem cell research. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 442–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M. (2014). Policy entrepreneurs and morality politics: Learning from failure and success. In I. Aflaki, L. Miles, & E. Petridou (Eds.), Entrepreneurship in the polis: Contested entrepreneurs and dynamics of change in diverse contexts (pp. 103–118). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. 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(3), 420–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrell, K. (2009). Governance and the public good. Public Administration, 87(3), 538–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navot, D., & Cohen, N. (2015). How policy entrepreneurs reduce corruption in Israel. Governance, 28(1), 61–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrovsky, G., Kotzer, R., & Gelkin, E. (2014). Waste separation in Israel 2014. Jerusalem: Adam Teva Vadin.

  • Petchey, R., Williams, J., & Carter, Y. H. (2008). From street-level bureaucrats to street-level policy entrepreneurs? Central policy and local action in lottery-funded community cancer care. Social Policy and Administration, 42(1), 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (1987). Politicians and bureaucrats in the politics of policy making. In J. E. Lane (Ed.), Bureaucracy and public choice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2001). The politics of bureaucracy. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). (2004). Politicization of the civil service in comparative perspective: The quest for control. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pralle, S. (2006). The ‘Mouse That Roared’: Agenda setting in Canadian pesticides politics. Policy Studies Journal, 34(2), 171–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razin, E. (1999). Budget gaps in local municipalities in Israel. Jerusalem: Florsheim Institute. (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saetren, H. (2016). From controversial policy idea to successful program implementation: The role of the policy entrepreneur, manipulation strategy, program design, institutions and open policy windows in relocating norwegian central agencies. Policy Sciences, 49(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoker, G., Gains, F., Greasley, S., John, P., & Rao, N. (2004). Operating the new council constitutions in english local authorities: A process evaluation. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tal, U. (2008). Domestic waste in Israel. Jerusalem: The Knesset Information Center. (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor-Gooby, P., Hastie, C., & Bromley, C. (2003). Querulous citizens: Welfare knowledge and the limits to welfare reform. Social Policy and Administration, 37(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen, J. (1994). A model of recycling behaviour, with evidence from danish source separation programmes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11(2), 145–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westlake, K. (2014). Landfill waste pollution and control. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westley, F. (2002). The devil in the dynamics: Adaptive management on the front lines. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.), Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 333–360). Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zafrir, R. (2015). A cold shower on waste separation. Haaretz Daily (p. 4), November 4, 2015. (Hebrew).

  • Zahariadis, N. (1999). Ambiguity, time, and multiple streams. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 73–93). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

  • Zahariadis, N. (2003). Ambiguity and choice in public policy: Political decision making in modern democracies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 514–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerbinati, S., & Souitaris, V. (2005). Entrepreneurship in the public sector: A framework of analysis in European local governments. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 17(1), 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 144/13). We are grateful for the comments and suggestions of Dr. Anat Gofen (from The Hebrew University) for an early draft of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration and Policy, The University of Haifa, 31905, Haifa, Israel

    Neomi Frisch-Aviram, Nissim Cohen & Itai Beeri

Authors
  1. Neomi Frisch-Aviram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nissim Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Itai Beeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nissim Cohen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frisch-Aviram, N., Cohen, N. & Beeri, I. Low-level bureaucrats, local government regimes and policy entrepreneurship. Policy Sci 51, 39–57 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9296-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9296-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation