How Policy Entrepreneurs Reduce Corruption in Israel

Abstract

This article suggests a new perspective for analyzing anticorruption policies by emphasizing the important role of policy entrepreneurs. We maintain that these entrepreneurs combat corruption in three ways: (1) by initiating attempts to reduce corrupt practices, whether through legislation or judicial decisions; (2) by being recognized as honest brokers for informants and insiders; and (3) by providing reliable information from these sources to promote scandals. Even when they are unsuccessful in getting legislation passed, anticorruption entrepreneurs reduce corruption because they raise the level of scrutiny into corrupt practices. In addition, they foment uncertainty, deterring those considering abusing their power. We test our theoretical framework on several anticorruption entrepreneurs in Israel, demonstrating that their existence increases the potential cost of corruption. By creating networks, sharing information with others, and building reputations of honesty and courage, they encourage those involved in or considering illegal activities to refrain from such actions.

How street‐level bureaucrats become policy entrepreneurs: The case of urban renewal

“…They are not satisfied with merely promoting their goals within institutions that others have established; rather, they try to influence a given reality to create new horizons of opportunity using innovative ideas and strategies (Mintrom & Norman, 2009). These individuals share a common willingness to invest their resources (time, reputation, knowledge) in order to promote a policy they favor (Kingdon, 1984;Mintrom, 2013;Navot & Cohen, 2015;Zahariadis, 2016). The literature generally regards those individuals as members of the elite (Baker & Steuernagel, 2009) who use innovative ideas (Jordan, 2014) and nontraditional strategies to promote desired policy outcomes (Cohen, 2016).…”

Who coupled which stream(s)? Policy entrepreneurship and innovation in the energy–water nexus in Gujarat, India

“…Within the policy stream, the focus of the entrepreneur is on creating broad policy alternatives or promoting specific policies to “solve” a policy problem (Boasson & Wettestad, ; Kalafatis et al, ; Roberts & King, ). To do so, a policy entrepreneur can share new and reliable knowledge about the proposal and design alternatives (Anderson, DeLeo, & Taylor, ; Braun, ; Navot & Cohen, ), construct models of best practice (Mukhtarov & Gerlak, ), use a “shadow networks” to develop or test an idea (Meijerink & Huitema, ), initiate an experiment or a pilot project (Brouwer & Huitema, ; McFadgen, ; Meijerink & Huitema, ), or leverage conditions of funding as a donor agency (Meijerink & Huitema, ; Mukhtarov & Gerlak, ; Shpaizman, Swed, & Pedahzur, ). Further, a policy entrepreneur can increase the attractiveness of a specific policy alternative by framing it within the dominant policy paradigm (Béland, ); pitching it as feasible, necessary, and superior (Brouwer & Huitema, ; Goldfinch & Hart, ; Palmer, ); using high valence to sell the proposal (Cox & Béland, ); manipulating its ownership or the salience and valence of its memory (Maor, ); linking it to the political agenda (Mukhtarov & Gerlak, ); or appealing to moral or professional values (Maor, ; Mukhtarov & Gerlak, ).…”

Design activation in multi-level settings

“…They propose new visions of a problem; they develop the policy content of policy change by enlisting stakeholders and the expertise of strong allies; they enrol local policy teams as well as national and regional stakeholders; and they clarify the problem repeatedly to attract interest from potential users and contributors (Oborn, Barrett and Exworthy, 2011, p. 330). This multi-level dimension of coalition-building emerges in different studies on policy change, including delicate instances such as anti-corruption policies (Navot and Cohen, 2015) and post-conflict cooperation (Arieli and Cohen, 2013, pp. 252-3), where policy entrepreneurs engage in horizontal and vertical coalition-building across levels of government and support bottom-up initiatives to overcome local opposition.…”