No abstract

What lessons can we learn from 40 years of policy entrepreneurship scholarship on policy entrepreneurs’ strategies and defining characteristics? While scholars have offered important insights, many questions remain open. This article systematically reviews 229 articles that were published between 1984 and 2017. Our findings provide (i) an analysis of policy entrepreneurship characteristics by sector, policy domain, individual/group, government layer, and geographical spread, (ii) an empirically based identification and classification of policy entrepreneurship strategies, and (iii) a statistical analysis of the relationship between policy entrepreneurs’ characteristics and strategies. We conclude with an agenda for future studies that will continue to examine new theoretical approaches that advance our understanding of the role that individuals and small groups play in the policy process.

Linking street‐level bureaucracy with policy entrepreneurship is a new, ongoing trend in the literature. We claim that in various cases one must consider street‐level policy entrepreneurship in order to fully understand policy processes. Therefore, we call on public policy and administration scholars to devote more resources to this important link. The symposium will promote our understanding of this still underresearched area. We will explore both theoretically and empirically how bureaucrats who interact with the public on a daily basis not only implement policy but also influence how it is designed. We will also assess the contribution of the symposium papers in light of the existing scholarly debate. We will conclude by reflecting on the challenges of studying street‐level policy entrepreneurship and suggest future avenues for research in this field.

Can policy entrepreneurship training affect policy entrepreneurship behavior among street-level bureaucrats? The current research aims to expand our understanding of how and when street-level bureaucrats might use entrepreneurial strategies to directly influence policy design. We suggest that managers and decision makers can increase street-level bureaucrats' willingness and ability to act as policy entrepreneurs through specific training. To test this argument, we conducted a randomized field experiment with 158 nurses in a community-based network of maternal and child healthcare clinics in Israel. Our findings suggest that policy entrepreneurship training has a significant positive effect on street-level policy entrepreneurship behavior. We also find that it reduces the need of street level bureaucrats to have policy entrepreneurship self-efficacy in order to engage in policy entrepreneurship behavior. We discuss our findings in detail, proposing new avenues in theory and practice.

How do different policy environments influence the choice of policy entrepreneurship (PE) strategies? Using data collected from a systematic review of the PE literature, the authors identify subcomponents of the three streams of the policy process and empirically test the relationship between dominance of each stream and PE strategies. Findings show that when the political and policy streams dominate, policy entrepreneurs focus on policy formation and policy implementation strategies and not on problem identification and policy evaluation strategies. Surprisingly, there is no correlation between dominance of the problem stream and PE strategies. This should lead to the normative claim that PE is not necessarily a positive phenomenon. The article concludes with suggestions for future research.