Bricolage or Entrepreneurship? Lessons from the Creation of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

Abstract

This paper belongs to the field of theories of the Policy process and contributes to the literature on the multiple streams approach (MSA), by investigating bricolage as an alternative type of agency in agenda‐setting and policy formulation. The bricoleur frames conditions as a problem that can and must be fixed and emerges as the one who looks for a solution. For the bricoleur outcome goals, or rather, the choice of a particular outcome is less important than the process goal. Therefore, the bricoleur selects policy ideas depending on the properties they display and combines them to create the best “fit” to couple the streams. Bricolage relates to the organizational properties of certain actors, in this case the European Commission. Evidence comes from the case of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and its origins, created in the aftermath of the severe acute respiratory syndrome crisis. I will demonstrate that the crisis did not trigger the creation of the ECDC but rather was framed as a salient issue to be resolved by the Commission. The process of policy formulation that followed resulted in a bespoke solution. As such, this paper contributes to the development of the MSA but also to the literature on ideational politics and European agencies.

The Multiple‐Streams Framework and Knowledge Utilization: Argumentative Couplings of Problem, Policy, and Politics Issues

“…Argumentative coupling activities for operational use typically get stronger if policy aspects are addressed not only as a conclusion, but considered at several points of the research. This comes closer to what Deruelle () describes as “bricolage,” where actors do not have fixed preferences for a solution, but consequentially search for one, starting from the problem. A typical example is the large amount of social science research which focuses on determinants of a certain phenomenon (such as fertility or labor market participation), by relating outcomes to policies or policy reforms.…”

“…As regards the MSF, this article followed the recently rising call to read the approach through an ideational lens (Béland, ) and “understand streams as discursive patterns” (Winkel & Leipold, ; see also Blatter et al., ; Deruelle, ). Knaggård (, p. 451) argued that the problem stream has been neglected vis‐à‐vis the two other streams but is important as problems are not just “out there” and “the definition of problems creates the stage on which policy entrepreneurs act.” Entrepreneurs not only act on the definition of problems, though, but also on the linkages that have been set between the ingredients of all three streams.…”

“…What was out of the scope of this article, but would be a necessary next step to apply the concept, for example, in the MSF, is to link it more systematically with its elements. It could then, for instance, be used to investigate the argumentative coupling practices employed by policy entrepreneurs and in what ways they—or also bricoleurs (Deruelle, ; cf. Ackrill & Kay, )—draw on the argumentative couplings of the policy community.…”

“…Lately, the “shortcoming of the notions of individual policy entrepreneurial activity” (Mukherjee & Howlett, , p. 68) has been increasingly discussed. Knaggård (, p. 450) suggests introducing the figure of problem broker into the MSF, to develop the problem stream further: “The problem broker is a role in which actors frame conditions as public problems and work to make policy makers accept these frames.” With the “bricoleur,” Deruelle () introduces an alternative agent in agenda‐setting and policy formulation: For the case of consequential, problem‐driven coupling, he argues that this agent renders coupling possible without a policy entrepreneur. To conclude: All participants of the streams may, in principle, make argumentative couplings between problem, policy, and politics issues— but this is particularly performed by knowledge brokers or “bricoleurs,” and, certainly strategically, by policy entrepreneurs.…”

“…As the researcher describes it, it is him who, in science–policy interaction with the ministry officials, draws on politics knowledge (losers of the regulation, objection of the federal court) to tell them that a certain policy alternative “won't work.” In the words of Deruelle (, p. 46), he may act as bricoleur, who considers the ripeness of the politics stream for the selection of ideas. Another researcher stated that understanding politics is essential for whether scientific experts are “heard” or not: “You can see this at the report of the German Council of Economic Experts, it definitely includes also political factors” (Interview 10).…”