Search results

This chapter explores two comparative longitudinal cases studies involving policy entrepreneurs inside and outside government in Taiwan. From 2003 to 2007, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan played the conventional role of policy entrepreneur to initiate the “University Corporation Project.” Through this project, the MOE sought to transform all national universities in Taiwan into independent entities, gaining them more autonomy and increasing their accountability as well. From 2008 to 2014, as a policy entrepreneur outside the government, National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) took the lead and proposed the “University Autonomous Governance Project.” This project sought an alternative solution based on public universities’ needs to improve university autonomy and accountability.

The method undertaken in this study includes document analysis and participants’ observation. First, both policy entrepreneurs adopted the strategy of power sharing, but the effectiveness of the strategy is determined by the interaction between policy entrepreneurs and stakeholders. Moreover, facing a multiple-principals condition in both cases, both policy entrepreneurs should negotiated with or compete with other potential agenda competitors. Those findings will be a detailed roadmap for policy makers in East Asia once they plan to initiate policy entrepreneurship in their countries.

Neoliberal political leaders such as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979–1990) and President Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) heralded entrepreneurs as capitalist heroes, yet for the most part, the policies they enacted did not help real entrepreneurs. Their image of a self-made entrepreneur who thrives in the absence of government action was fundamentally flawed. Their ideology impaired their ability to promote entrepreneurship because they viewed support for entrepreneurs primarily in negative terms as the removal of government tax and regulatory burdens rather than in positive terms as the cultivation of a dynamic market infrastructure. This article presents this argument in four steps, focusing on the US case: (1) how neoliberal reforms embodied internal contradictions; (2) how reforms to market governance undermined entrepreneurship; (3) how other neoliberal policies also failed to support entrepreneurs; and (4) how policies that violated neoliberal principles, such as industry and technology policies, were actually more supportive of entrepreneurs.

Policy entrepreneurs often experience thorny dilemmas, finding themselves between the “rock and a hard place” or, as the Italian equivalent idiom would have it, between the “hammer and the anvil.” Crisis and the associated problems that arise often bring changes in politics and policy in its wake, and this begs the question of what are the resources and assets required to operate successfully as a place-based public policy entrepreneur. The role of policy entrepreneurs has been studied over many years with one of the most influential theories being the multiple streams approach (MSA) originally devised in the 1980s which sought to counter perceptions of the random or “garbage can” nature of policymaking and implementation. MSA describes a more rational process where policy entrepreneurs shape “windows” of opportunity where streams of problem, policy, and politics are brought together to create innovative responses to situations in society. The authors explore these ideas through the lens of a longitudinal case study of Labor Market policy interventions (including the role of a personal budget system for education and training called “Dote”) in the Lombardy Region, Italy, using MSA as an analytical framework. This case suggests that the pressing need to move away from short-term structural responses to complex social issues is potentially addressed by an emerging approach for the parallel deployment of sociotechnical platform infrastructure resources and superstructure. Adoption of the approaches outlined here afford streaming opportunities on which policy entrepreneurs can dynamically bring the multiple streams of problem–policy–politics together across political cycles in a more persistent and sustainable way.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, disability rights found a place on the U.S. policy agenda. However, it did not do so because social movement groups pressured political elites or because politicians were responding to changes in public preferences. Drawing from recent work in neo-institutionalism and social movements, namely the theory of strategic action fields, I posit that exogenous shocks in the 1960s caused a disability policy monopoly to collapse giving way to a new policy community. Using original longitudinal data on congressional committees, hearings, bills, and laws, as well as data from the Policy Agendas Project, I demonstrate the ways in which entrepreneurs pursued a new policy image of rights within a context of increasing committee involvement, issue complexity, and space on the policy agenda, and the consequences this had on policy.

This chapter uses discourse analysis to explain why entrepreneurship has become a primary response to Africa’s youth employment challenge. It analyses almost 20 years of academic literature and publications from one of the world’s foremost authorities on entrepreneurship: the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). The study found that youth were positioned within a discourse of entrepreneurial essentialism; where entrepreneurship was narrativised as the only option for youth employment; and youth were framed as entrepreneurship being the natural solution for them. Youth were concurrently framed within numerous contradictory entrepreneurial discourses which were used to elevate and legitimise entrepreneurship as the key pathway for addressing Africa’s youth employment challenge. An important finding in this study was that the dominant model of entrepreneurship being promoted by GEM to address the challenge is a mainly skills-based pathway to self-employment and low-growth microenterprise development. This is concerning for two reasons: firstly, global evidence does not demonstrate much support for such an approach, and secondly, it undermines other responses to youth unemployment, particularly those which seek to address more structural, demand-side barriers to employment.

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to gain insights into strategies used by entrepreneurs developing radical innovations to influence the system surrounding them. Specific attention is given to determine the differences between environmental-technology entrepreneurs (ETEs) and non-eco radical innovation entrepreneurs.

Methodology/approach – Ten entrepreneurs (five ETEs) in the Dutch greenhouse horticulture sector are selected for this case study. Their motivations and strategic actions are determined through interviews. The results are analysed using an innovation system function approach.

Findings – Radical innovations in the sector encounter barriers due to the lack of relevant knowledge and subsidies that support the old system. To overcome this, the studied entrepreneurs focus their strategies on building new innovation systems. Interestingly, ETEs receive more governmental support and try to improve the sector as a whole. However, sustainability alone is not enough to create added value.

Social implications – Policy makers can provide better support for radical innovations by increasing the availability of relevant knowledge and creating a level playing field. Alternatively, they can present these pioneering entrepreneurs as examples for others to follow. Sustainability has been important in the sector for some time, but until now has not changed the nature of business.

Originality/value of paper – In innovation systems research, the micro-level actions of entrepreneurs have not received much attention. Furthermore, the insights regarding motivations and strategies of radical innovation entrepreneurs in the context of a mature system are novel. Finally, the results regarding barriers for ETEs are an original addition to the theory of barriers for eco-innovations.

Given the growing interest in social movements as policy agenda setters, this paper investigates the contexts within which movement groups and actors work with political elites to promote their common goals for policy change. In asking how and why so-called outsiders gain access to elites and to the policymaking process, I address several contemporary theoretical and empirical concerns associated with policy change as a social movement goal. I examine the claim that movements use a multipronged, long-term strategy by working with and targeting policymakers and political institutions on the one hand, while shaping public preferences – hearts and minds – on the other; that these efforts are not mutually exclusive. In addition, I look at how social movement organizations and actors are critical in expanding issue conflict outside narrow policy networks, often encouraged to do so by political elites with similar policy objectives. And, I discuss actors’ mobility in transitioning from institutional activists to movement and organizational leaders, and even to protesters, and vice versa. The interchangeability of roles among actors promoting social change in strategic action fields points to the porous and fluid boundaries between state and nonstate actors and organizations.

Walking for transport can contribute significantly to population levels of physical activity. Health agencies are consequently seeking opportunities to influence transport policy to achieve co-benefits of increased physical activity and reduced congestion. This case study utilised Kingdon’s ‘Multiple Stream’ theory as a framework to examine the policy development process that led to the establishment of the first ever state walking target and subsequent state walking strategy in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. This chapter presents how evidence compilation was translated into various policy solutions across sectors before an opportune political environment provided a brief ‘policy window’ (the 2011 state election in NSW, Australia and change of Government). The advantages of a ‘policy entrepreneur’ formally empowered to engage policy makers across multiple agencies and identify forthcoming ‘policy windows’ to frame politically palatable walking policy solutions is highlighted. No data have been compiled to measure the impact of the finalised policy upon walking in NSW. The case study reinforces previous research findings that walking policy development, like other areas of public health, is often based more on politics and professional judgement than on research evidence alone. Differences in walking target measures in the health and transport sectors influence which policy solutions are prioritised. The chapter describes the policy development process of the first state walking strategy in NSW, Australia to better understand factors that may influence similar future policy decisions.