Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:26:02.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exceptional or just well connected? Political entrepreneurs and brokers in policy making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2014

Dimitris Christopoulos  and
Karin Ingold
Dimitris Christopoulos*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Governance and Sustainable Development, MODUL University, Vienna, Austria Department of Geography, CEPS/INSTEAD, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
Karin Ingold
Affiliation:
Institute of Political Science and Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Environmental Social Science Department, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science & Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland
*
*E-mail: dimitriscc@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Policy brokers and policy entrepreneurs are assumed to have a decisive impact on policy outcomes. Their access to social and political resources is contingent on their influence on other agents. In social network analysis (SNA), entrepreneurs are often closely associated with brokers, because both are agents presumed to benefit from bridging structural holes; for example, gaining advantage through occupying a strategic position in relational space. Our aim here is twofold. First, to conceptually and operationally differentiate policy brokers from policy entrepreneurs premised on assumptions in the policy-process literature; and second, via SNA, to use the output of core algorithms in a cross-sectional analysis of political brokerage and political entrepreneurship. We attempt to simplify the use of graph algebra in answering questions relevant to policy analysis by placing each algorithm within its theoretical context. In the methodology employed, we first identify actors and graph their relations of influence within a specific policy event; then we select the most central actors; and compare their rank in a series of statistics that capture different aspects of their network advantage. We examine betweenness centrality, positive and negative Bonacich power, Burt’s effective size and constraint and honest brokerage as paradigmatic. We employ two case studies to demonstrate the advantages and limitations of each algorithm for differentiating between brokers and entrepreneurs: one on Swiss climate policy and one on EU competition and transport policy.

Keywords

policy entrepreneurspolicy brokerssocial network analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , August 2015 , pp. 475 - 498
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahuja, G. (2000), ‘Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study’, Administrative Science Quarterly 43(3): 425–455.Google Scholar
Arce, D. (2001), ‘Leadership and the aggregation of international collective action’, Oxford Economic Papers 53: 114–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barthelt, H. and Gluckler, J. (2011), The Relational Economy, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beyers, J., Raine, E. and Maloney, William (2008), ‘Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: much we study, little we know?’, West European Politics 31(6): 1103–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonacich, P. (1987), ‘Power and centrality: a family of measures’, American Journal of Sociology 92: 1170–1182.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. (2005), ‘Centrality and network flow’, Social Networks 27(1): 55–71.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. and Everett, M. (2006), ‘A Graph-theoretic perspective on centrality’, Social Networks 28(4): 466–484.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002), Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis, Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
Brandes, U., Kosub, S. and Nick, B. (2012), ‘Was messen Zentralitatsindizes’, in M. Henning and C. Stegbauer (eds), Die Integration von Theorie und Methode in der Netzwerkforschung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
Burt, R. (1992), Structural Holes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, R. (2002), ‘Bridge decay’, Social Networks 24: 333–363.Google Scholar
Burt, R. (2005), Brokerage and Closure, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carley, K. (2009), ‘Computational modeling for reasoning about the social behavior of humans’, Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 15(1): 47–59.Google Scholar
Christopoulos, D.C. (2006), ‘Relational attributes of political entrepreneurs: a network perspective’, Journal of European Public Policy 13(5): 757–778.Google Scholar
Christopoulos, D.C. (2008), ‘The governance of networks: heuristic or formal analysis? A reply to Rachel Parker’, Political Studies 56(2): 475–481.Google Scholar
Christopoulos, D. and Quaglia, L. (2009), ‘Network constraints in EU banking regulation: the capital requirements directive’, Journal of Public Policy 29(2): 179–200.Google Scholar
Christopoulos, D. and Ingold, K. (2011), ‘Distinguishing between political brokerage & political entrepreneurship’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 10: 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, P. and James, S. (2014), ‘Policy windows, ambiguities and Commission entrepreneurship: explaining the relaunch of the European Union’s economic agenda’, Journal of European Public Policy 21(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Diani, M. and Della Porta, D. (2005), Social Movements: An Introduction, 2nd edn., Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Dür, A. (2008), ‘Interest groups in the European Union: how powerful are they?’, West European Politics 31(6): 1212–1230.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997), ‘Manifesto for a relational sociology’, American Journal of Sociology 103(2): 281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, M. (2013), ‘Policy network structures, institutional context, and policy change’, COMPASS Working Paper No. 73, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. and Sciarini, P. (2013), ‘Europeanization and the inclusive strategies of executive actors’, Journal of European Public Policy 20(10): 482–498.Google Scholar
Freeman, L. (1979), ‘Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarification’, Social Networks 1: 215–239.Google Scholar
Friedkin, N. (1983), ‘Horizons of observability and limits of informal control’, Social Forces 62(1): 54–77.Google Scholar
Friedkin, N. (1998), A Structural Theory of Social Influence, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ginty, R. (2010), ‘Social network analysis and counterinsurgency: a counterproductive strategy?’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 3(2): 209–226.Google Scholar
Henning, C.H.C.A. (2009), ‘Networks of power in the CAP system of the EU-15 and EU-27’, Journal of Public Policy 29(2): 153–177.Google Scholar
Holcombe, R. (2002), ‘Political entrepreneurship and the democratic allocation of economic resources’, The Review of Austrian Economics 15: 143–159.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. (2002), ‘Do networks Matter? Linking policy network structure to policy outcomes: evidence from four Canadian policy sectors 1990–2000’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 35(2): 235–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, K. (2008), Les mécanismes de décision: le cas de la politique climatique Suisse, Zürich: Politikanalysen, Rüegger Verlag.Google Scholar
Ingold, K. (2009), ‘Understanding advocacy coalitions, policy learning and brokerage: a combination of social network and multicriteria analysis in Swiss climate policy’, Conference Paper, PSA Annual Conference, April 7–9, Manchester.Google Scholar
Ingold, K. (2011), ‘Network structures within policy processes: coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy’, Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 435–459.Google Scholar
Ingold, K. and Varone, F. (2011), ‘Treating policy brokers seriously: evidence from the climate policy’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(2): 319–346.Google Scholar
Jackson, M.O. (2010), Social and Economic Networks, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. (1995), Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies, New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. (2003), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd edn., New York and London: Longman.Google Scholar
Knill, C., Schulze, K. and Tosun, J. (2012), ‘Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: exploring a complex relationship’, Regulation & Governance 6(4): 427–444.Google Scholar
Knoke, D. (1990), Political Networks: The Structural Perspective, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knoke, D., Pappi, F.U., Broadbent, J. and Tsujinaka, Y. (1996), Comparing Policy Networks–Labour Politics in the US, Germany and Japan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krackhardt, D. (1999), ‘The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations’, Research in the Sociology of Organizations 16: 183–210.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, M. and Salerno, J. (2011), ‘A theory of political entrepreneurship’, Modern Economy 2: 552–560.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M. (2000), Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M. and Vergari, S. (1996), ‘Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change’, Policy Studies Journal 24: 420–434.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M. and Norman, P. (2009), ‘Policy entrepreneurship and policy change’, Policy Studies Journal 37(4): 649–667.Google Scholar
Padgett, J.F. and Ansell, C.K. (1993), ‘Robust action and the rise of the medici, 1400–1434’, American Journal of Sociology 98(6): 1259–1319.Google Scholar
Peters, G. (1997), ‘Escaping the joint-decision trap: repetition and sectoral politics in the European Union’, West European Politics 20(2): 22–36.Google Scholar
Robins, G., Lewis, J. and Wang, P. (2012), ‘Statistical network models’, Policy Studies Journal 40: 375–401.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, M. and Teske, P. (1992), ‘Towards a theory of the political entrepreneur: evidence from local government’, The American Political Science Review 86(3): 734–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, M., Teske, P. and Mintrom, M. (1995), Public Entrepreneurs: Agents of Change in American Government, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sheingate, A. (2003), ‘Political entrepreneurship, institutional change, and American political development’, Studies in American Political Development 17(2): 185–203.Google Scholar
Smith, J.M., Halgin, D.S., Kidwell-Lopez, V., Labianca, G., Brass, D.J. and Borgatti, S.P. (2014), ‘Power in politically charged networks’, Social Networks 36: 162–176.Google Scholar
Stokman, F.N. and Zeggelink, E.P.H. (1996), ‘Is politics power or policy oriented? A comparative analysis of dynamic access models in policy networks’, Journal of Mathematical Sociology 21(1−2): 77–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, T. and Öberg, P. (2005), ‘How are coordinated market economies coordinated? Evidence from Sweden’, West European Politics 28(5): 1075–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. and Meindl, J.R. (eds) (2008), Complexity Leadership, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis: Method and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zachariadis, N. (2007), ‘The multiple streams framework: structure, limitations, prospects’, in P. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of The Policy Process, 2nd edn., Bolder: Westview Press.Google Scholar