Navigating the policy stream: Contested solutions and organizational strategies of policy entrepreneurship

Livia Johannesson, Martin Qvist
{"title":"Navigating the policy stream: Contested solutions and organizational strategies of policy entrepreneurship","authors":"Livia Johannesson, Martin Qvist","doi":"10.4000/irpp.740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), policy entrepreneurs are primarily defined by their ability to promote and seek support for policy solutions. Recent research, however, points to the importance of policy entrepreneurs as “arena shapers” who attempt to create favorable conditions for their solutions in conflictual policy settings. In this paper, we seek to incorporate such strategies into the MSF by drawing on the organizational foundations of the original garbage can model. The main question is what role do policy entrepreneurs play in “organizing out” opposition from pre-decision processes, as a way of advancing contested policy solutions. We answer this question in a case study of a controversial hospital “mega-project” in Stockholm healthcare that shows how a small but influential team of entrepreneurs used the project as an opportunity for policy change. The study helps to identify three different organizational strategies: 1) regulating participation in order to neutralize opponents: 2) specializing attention to limit the “searchlight” and 3) sequential attention in order to reduce complexity and build commitment. While effective for advancing solutions in the face of conflict and entrenched positions, organizational strategies also have important democratic implications for the legitimacy of pre-decision processes and the prospects for broad deliberation.","PeriodicalId":33409,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.740","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), policy entrepreneurs are primarily defined by their ability to promote and seek support for policy solutions. Recent research, however, points to the importance of policy entrepreneurs as “arena shapers” who attempt to create favorable conditions for their solutions in conflictual policy settings. In this paper, we seek to incorporate such strategies into the MSF by drawing on the organizational foundations of the original garbage can model. The main question is what role do policy entrepreneurs play in “organizing out” opposition from pre-decision processes, as a way of advancing contested policy solutions. We answer this question in a case study of a controversial hospital “mega-project” in Stockholm healthcare that shows how a small but influential team of entrepreneurs used the project as an opportunity for policy change. The study helps to identify three different organizational strategies: 1) regulating participation in order to neutralize opponents: 2) specializing attention to limit the “searchlight” and 3) sequential attention in order to reduce complexity and build commitment. While effective for advancing solutions in the face of conflict and entrenched positions, organizational strategies also have important democratic implications for the legitimacy of pre-decision processes and the prospects for broad deliberation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
引导政策流:有争议的解决方案和政策创业的组织策略
在多流框架(MSF)中,政策企业家主要由他们促进和寻求政策解决方案支持的能力来定义。然而,最近的研究指出,政策企业家作为“舞台塑造者”的重要性,他们试图在冲突的政策环境中为他们的解决方案创造有利条件。在本文中,我们试图通过借鉴原始垃圾桶模型的组织基础,将这些策略纳入MSF。主要问题是,政策企业家在“组织”决策前过程中的反对意见方面发挥了什么作用,作为推进有争议的政策解决方案的一种方式。我们通过对斯德哥尔摩一家颇具争议的医院“大型项目”的案例研究来回答这个问题,该案例展示了一个规模虽小但颇具影响力的企业家团队如何利用该项目作为政策变革的机会。该研究有助于确定三种不同的组织策略:1)调节参与,以抵消对手;2)专门关注,以限制“探照灯”;3)顺序关注,以减少复杂性和建立承诺。在面对冲突和根深蒂固的立场时,组织战略在推动解决办法方面是有效的,但它也对决策前程序的合法性和广泛审议的前景具有重要的民主影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Institutional Grammar: Evolving Directions in Current Research Pádraig CARMODY, Gerard McCANN, Clodagh COLLERAN & Ciara O’HALLORAN (Eds.), COVID- 19 in the Global South. Impacts and Responses Understanding the Effects of Social Value Orientations in Shaping Regulatory Outcomes through Agent-Based Modeling: An Application in Organic Farming Comparing and Analyzing Policy Formulation of Proposed and Final Public Policies Institutions, Voids, and Dependencies: Tracing the Designs and Robustness of Urban Water Systems
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1