Policy entrepreneurs in national climate change policy processes

Abstract

The multi-level and multi-actor character of the international climate governance regime, as well as the imminent need for action to combat climate change, stimulates the introduction of new and innovative cross-sectoral policy proposals by policy entrepreneurs. To date, academic literature has extensively studied and discussed the importance of policy entrepreneurs for agenda-setting. The role of policy entrepreneurs in providing continuous support for a new climate policy resulting in its implementation, has on the other hand, so far received only little attention. Taking the Norwegian Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation commitment as an exemplary case, this paper explores the potential of entrepreneurial engagement throughout a country’s climate policy-making process. It aims to demonstrate the importance of policy entrepreneurs beyond agenda-setting, namely for the policy formulation phase in which responsibilities for the implementation are designated to governmental bodies. We refer to this step as institutional anchoring. Following an explorative approach, this paper shows that different types of actors – non-governmental organisations and governmental actors – act as policy entrepreneurs. It demonstrates the roles and importance of policy entrepreneurs for not only gaining, but also maintaining attention on a new policy by means of coalition building and framing.

Private Citizens as Policy Entrepreneurs: Evidence from Autism Mandates and Parental Political Mobilization

“…Early in the policy process, they work to publicly define the policy problem they would like to see addressed, help in the development of proposals to solve that problem, and work to ensure that a bill designed to implement that policy makes it onto the agenda (Roberts & King, 1991). Later in the process, policy entrepreneurs promote the proposal in the legislature, publicly push for its passage, and often go on to carefully observe the policy's implementation (Reimer & Saerbeck, 2017;Roberts & King, 1991). Simply put, policy entrepreneurs regularly have a hand in every step required to shepherd a policy from initial conceptualization through implementation.…”

“…Growing research also suggests that these entrepreneurs are not isolated to particular issue areas. They have been identified working on varied policy topics including water management (Brouwer & Biermann, 2011;Huitema & Meijerink, 2010), health insurance (Cohen, 2012;Guldbrandsson & Fossum, 2009), obesity (Craig, Felix, Walker, & Phillips, 2010), climate (Pattberg, 2017;Reimer & Saerbeck, 2017), and Medicaid policy (Sardell & Johnson, 1998).…”

Governance entrepreneurship in regional economic development: individual agency in Austria

“…Second, governance entrepreneurs might contribute to changes in modes or forms of interaction. Studies on policy and institutional entrepreneurship frequently highlight the importance of networking and cooperation for entrepreneurial individuals (Reimer & Saerbeck, 2017;Sotarauta, 2010) without explaining the wider implication of these strategies for the governance arrangement itself. In terms of entrepreneurial activities, hierarchical modes of interaction are often seen as a hindering factor, giving one or a few actors with formal authority the possibility to make decisions without the approval of others.…”

Individual agency and socio‐spatial change in regional development: Conceptualizing governance entrepreneurship

“…The concept of entrepreneurship (Schumpeter, 1961), apart from other approaches such as leadership (Sotarauta, 2016) or brokerage (Leick & Gretzinger, 2018a;Sabatier, 1993), however emphasizes the role of entrepreneurial individuals (or groups of individuals) in decision-making and processes of change (Gailing & Ibert, 2016). Policy and institutional entrepreneurship are central concepts in policy research as well as in organizational and management studies and have particularly received broad attention in studies focusing on (trans-)national changes in the environmental, economic, or health sectors (Huitema & Meijerink, 2010;Levy & Scully, 2007;Mintrom & Luetjens, 2017;Mintrom, Salisbury, & Luetjens, 2014;Reimer & Saerbeck, 2017). Urban and regional research has long remained rather silent on policy and institutional entrepreneurship, but recently, scholars have increasingly begun to draw on these concepts to investigate the role of entrepreneurial individuals in regional economic development (Miörner & Trippl, 2017;Sotarauta, 2017;Sotarauta & Suvinen, 2018) or urban regeneration (Catney & Henneberry, 2016;Cocks, 2013;Svensson, Klofsten, & Etzkowitz, 2012).…”