Relational attributes of political entrepreneurs: a network perspective

Christopoulos, Dimitrios

doi:10.1080/13501760600808964

Cited by 87 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent analyses of public entrepreneurs have directed attention to the macro politicoinstitutional conditions that enable and constrain these actors, as well as to their individual characteristics and attributes (Christopoulos, 2006;Pierson, 2004: 155;Scnellenbach, 2007). What has been given less attention is the potential agency of local networks of entrepreneurs within a system of MLG.…”

Section: Entrepreneurial Strategic Action At the Local Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While public entrepreneurs are similar to economic entrepreneurs in some respects -for example, opportunity recognition, risk taking, networking and social skills, reputation, providing a strategic vision, and so on -actors within state structures operate in fundamentally different institutional contexts (Carpenter, 2001;Christopoulos, 2006;Fligstein, 2001;Hederer, 2007;Scnellenbach, 2007). They face a number of distinct obstacles.…”

Section: Public Entrepreneurialism In Mlgmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public entrepreneurship and the politics of regeneration in multi-level governance

Catney

Henneberry

2016

Environ Plann C Gov Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper uses a case study of urban regeneration policy in Sheffield, UK, to explore local public entrepreneurship in a system of multi-level governance. Recent analyses of public entrepreneurs have directed attention to the macro-political structural and institutional conditions that enable and constrain these actors, and to their individual characteristics and attributes. The stress has been on the national level and on individual action at the expense of the agency of local networks of entrepreneurs. In order to address this lacuna, we consider how local policy entrepreneurs work across governance levels and develop ideas, institutional structures and support in pursuit of their goals, using Kingdon's notion of policy streams as a vehicle for our analysis. We highlight the contingent and path-dependent nature of such entrepreneurship. In particular, we identify the temporal sequencing of agenda shifts and entrepreneurial actions as a crucial aspect of the policy process.Keywords Public entrepreneurship, multi-level policy, policy streams, policy windows IntroductionThe dominant narrative of central-local government relations in the UK has been the power of central government to make and remake the institutional landscape and, in so doing, to erode the institutional cohesiveness, policy competences and autonomy of local political institutions (c.f. Pratchett, 2004;Wilson, 2003). However, the past two decades have also seen the advance of multi-level governance (MLG) (Keating, 2014) and increased opportunities for 'authority migration' (Broschek, 2014) to institutional actors at supraand sub-national levels, allowing greater scope for the exercise of local autonomy. The UK's institutional regime is currently the subject of rapid restructuring. Examples of this include the rise of city regions (c.f. Deas, 2014;Etherington and Jones, 2009;Harding, 2007; Harrison, 2010Harrison, , 2012Jonas and Ward, 2007) and institutional innovations such as combined authorities and elected mayors. The implementation of these changes has been selective. The paper explores one explanation for this uneven distribution of powers: public entrepreneurship. While the concept challenges institutionalism's limited treatment of institutional change, accounts often fail properly to locate the actions of entrepreneurs within a context of MLG, restricting our understanding of how such a setting may enable or constrain agency. In a multi-level polity -or more specifically, in policy fields that incorporate institutional actors from many sites -numerous policy processes play out across different levels and are often misaligned. Within the UK, sub-national actors have been firmly subordinate to actors at higher levels and the former are reliant on the latter for resources to devise and implement policies. MLG is a potential alternative source of mobilization by sub-national actors (Marshall, 2005(Marshall, , 2006. Successful entrepreneurship thus depends on how well actors operate within and across governmental levels and the ways in ...

show abstract

Section: Entrepreneurial Strategic Action At the Local Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Public Entrepreneurialism In Mlgmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public entrepreneurship and the politics of regeneration in multi-level governance

Catney

Henneberry

2016

Environ Plann C Gov Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They more than just support or advocate innovative solutions (Mintrom 2000); they also actively oppose rival ideas. From an individual's point of view, they behave opportunistically (Christopoulos 2006), but from a system's point of view, they create meaning for policy makers with problematic preferences. Manipulation encompasses both views clarifying March's (1997, 23) argument: "decision making may, in many ways, be better conceived as a meaning than as an action factory.…”

Section: Policy Entrepreneursmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Access is a function of two dimensions: position and presence (March and Romelaer 1976). Position is tied to relational attributes (Christopoulos 2006). For example, position within a hierarchy gives some individuals access to policy makers to "make their case."…”

Section: Policy Entrepreneursmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity and choice in European public policy

Zahariadis¹

2008

Journal of European Public Policy

221

238

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I apply the multiple streams lens, which was originally developed to explain agenda-setting in national systems, to the EU policy formation (agenda-setting and decision-making) process. Choice is the result of coupling by policy entrepreneurs of three relatively independent streams-problems, politics, and policies. Each stream is conceptualized as having a life and dynamics of its own. At fortuitous moments in time, skilled policy entrepreneurs will attempt to couple the streams together by "selling" their pet package of problem and policy to a receptive political audience. The chances that a particular policy will be adopted increase when all three streams are coupled together. I conclude with implications for the debate of the role of institutions, actors, and ideas in EU policy-making and a clarification of two paradoxes of EU policy. The first paradox stresses the centrality of political power in the absence of institutional hierarchies. The second paradox highlights but also circumscribes the role of epistemic communities in the EU.

show abstract

“…Policy entrepreneurs establish and maintain political alliances, seek support from internal and external agents, and avoid political risks to ensure the success of political innovations (Christopoulos 2006;Mintrom and Vergari 1996;Wilson 1989). It was hard for the SSDNC to maintain policy innovations alone because of its marginal role in the government.…”

Section: Make Alliances and Defeat The Oppositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy entrepreneur and social policy innovation in China

Zhu

Xiao

2015

J. Chin. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fostering policy innovation at the local level and spreading the successful practice have been pervasive features of policy making in postreform China. The existing literature explains why the local government launches innovations and what enables these innovations. However, little research has been done on the emerging process of the new ideas and the process in which new policies are accepted by stakeholders. This article is an case study based on the policy innovation in the health insurance system in the city of Nanguo. We applied policy entrepreneur theory to analysis of the innovation process of the Chinese local government, with a special focus on the key agents and their interaction in the innovation process. The study reveals that bureaucrats play the role of policy entrepreneurs to elevate the rank of the organization and to acquire more administrative resources. With knowledge and technical expertise, these bureaucrats construct policy agendas; suggest innovative ideas; design policy programs; and acquire the support and approval of other stakeholders, especially local leaders, by strategies such as marketing, alliances, and fostering political achievements. By these means, they facilitate the formation and further development of the innovation policy.

show abstract

Relational attributes of political entrepreneurs: a network perspective

Cited by 87 publications

References 38 publications

Public entrepreneurship and the politics of regeneration in multi-level governance

Public entrepreneurship and the politics of regeneration in multi-level governance

Ambiguity and choice in European public policy

Policy entrepreneur and social policy innovation in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About