Brokering change: networks and entrepreneurs in international politics

Abstract

Political entrepreneurs reside at the core of international relations (IR) theory. Structures might constrain agents, but entrepreneurs can remake and transform these structures, contesting norms, shifting identities and creating space for significant political change. Despite this, IR theorists note that key questions about entrepreneurs remain under-theorized. Under what conditions are political entrepreneurs likely to emerge? Who is likely to succeed as an entrepreneur, and how do entrepreneurs produce structural change? I argue scholars could strengthen their answers to these questions by drawing from the growing program of social network theory. Networks influence entrepreneurship in three ways. First, networks provide certain actors – brokers – with resources to effect change. It is not an actor’s attributes or interests but her position, then, that enables entrepreneurial behavior. Second, networks create the conditions of entrepreneurship. While certain networks are extremely stable, others contain contradictions that allow entrepreneurs to emerge. Finally, network theory posits structural mechanisms – including mobilization, polarization, and yoking – to explain political change.

Spaces of Global Security: Beyond Methodological Nationalism

“…Such a theorization could be fruitfully married to already-existing approaches in human security, environmental security, and feminist approaches (e.g., Spike Peterson 1992;True 1995;Paris 2001;Sjoberg 2013;Enloe 2014), and also to approaches that focus on collective mobilization, networks, practices, and relationalism (Jackson and Nexon 1999;Neumann 2002;Sageman 2004;Slaughter 2004;Montgomery 2005;Pouliot 2008;Goddard 2009;Hafner-Burton, Kahler, and Montgomey 2009;Nexon 2009;Adler and Pouliot 2011;Bigo 2011;Shapiro 2013;Bueger and Gadinger 2015;MacDonald 2014). Realist and state-centric approaches, however, would also benefit from paying greater attention to the changing spatial practices of states (such as drone warfare, cybersurveillance, and diaspora engagement policies), as well as how spatial transformations in the exercise of state power affect states' relationships with each other, and with other actors in the global security environment.…”

Distinctions, affiliations, and professional knowledge in financial reform expert groups

“…Brokers, on the other hand, have an interest in spreading their ideas and knowledge between non-connected actors and will seek to carve out their own professional space to L. Seabrooke & E. Tsingou: Financial reform expert groups 399 ensure their place in the network or, in our case, the transnational policy community (cf. Goddard 2009). These dynamics also map onto different career styles, such as technocrats and brokers (Seabrooke 2011), and provide a source of professional competition within the community.…”

Executive Leadership in the Study of International Organization: A Framework for Analysis

“…These network connections make mobilization more efficient, provide the head with additional moral and expert authority, and, once organized, can campaign and lobby other governments to support or at least acquiesce to the EH's initiatives throughout her term in office (Cox :214; Price , ). EH centrality in these networks gives her authority because she can “broker” ties to resource‐rich but peripheral parts of the network (Goddard ; Lake and Wong ). The EH can set up meetings with senior members of a government, prominent policymakers, and celebrities as well as disseminate information and frame issues using her media access and reports to intergovernmental bodies…”