Despite the relevance of structures and constraints to the outcomes of policy‐making, agency emerges as a key aspect in accounting for policy dynamics. Indeed, agency is a concept that may embrace different components according to their empirical reference and policy context. In policy studies, different agents are conceptualized to be relevant in policy‐making, but they address the issues of similar individuals who randomly jump into the policy process to make a specific contribution. This paper proposes to de‐personalize agency in policy dynamics by arguing that the different types of agents can be attributed to specific patterns of action and that related tasks are a necessary element of stability and change in policy dynamics. Thus, we propose three types of patterns—entrepreneurship, brokerage, and leadership—and we show how the use of these concepts can help to better order, describe, and grasp agency in policy dynamics.

Policy entrepreneurs are considered key actors in public policy. However, there are so many definitions of what they can do that it is difficult to use this concept in a systematic, analytical way. Starting with a critique of the tendency to overstretch the concept of the policy entrepreneur, we propose a more parsimonious conceptualisation by de-personalising entrepreneurial actions and by focusing on a specific pattern of action whose main task is to promote innovation. Thus, policy entrepreneurship is conceptualised as a pattern of action (involving different types of actors) focused on innovation promotion that is pursued by activities such as framing a problem, developing solutions, building a coalition in support, and seeking opportunities and attention. We also highlight prevalent resources for those activities. We then apply this conceptualisation to two cases of urban planning in Italy to discuss the activities of successful policy entrepreneurship as a collective effort.

The concept of coproduction primarily refers to direct user involvement in the production of services. This paper identifies the main dimensions of this broad and at times fuzzy concept and focuses on types and styles of leadership that can emerge from, and sustain, effective coproduction practice. We do so by carrying out a narrative review of cases of coproduction in the UK, with a focus on the role of citizens, bureaucrats and, specifically, local politicians, to unpick how the latter can facilitate or hinder coproductive processes. The analysis distances itself from a traditional understanding of leadership to examine relational dynamics rather than organisation structures as the key variable of leadership within coproductive practices.

Can relatively short-term political leadership affect long-term national policy styles, and if so, how? We examine these questions in order to explain the temporal dynamics in national policy styles observed in several recent studies whose findings have challenged the traditional view that policy styles lend continuity and stability to policy-making. In its original formulation, the concept of policy styles refers to the extent to which governments are committed to anticipatory or reactive policy-making, as well as to whether they seek to reach consensus with societal groups over policies or simply impose decisions on them. Following these definitions, we contend that political leaders can alter a long-held policy style and often do so due to strategic considerations, either in an attempt to improve their policy performance or in response to an exogenous shock, such as an economic crisis. We illustrate this argument by using longitudinal records of changes in country-level governance indicators which include data on dimensions of policy styles. Specifically we examine how two of the Sustainable Governance Indicators compiled by the Bertelsmann Foundation changed for Ireland, Italy, Malta, and Poland between 2014 and 2020. As the cases show, government leaders sought to alter long-standing processes and the arrangements of governance and policy-making. Our empirical findings support the overarching argument that the study of national policy styles should be combined with that of political leadership.

Italy was the first Western country to be dramatically overwhelmed by Covid-19, the first country outside of China to implement lockdown measures and, until mid-April 2020, the country in the world most affected in terms of number of victims. This article aims to sketch the evolution of the first phase of the Covid-19 crisis in Italy and demonstrates that the health crisis moved forward hand in hand with some typical shortcomings characterising the Italian political, administrative and institutional system. The incremental reaction by the unprecedented M5S-PD coalition government showed the huge difficulties in facing the most serious challenge since the end of WWII, with the institutional system already afflicted by its scarce capacity and the economy still recovering from the 2012 crisis.