Policy entrepreneurship across boundaries: a systematic literature review

Abstract

Although policy entrepreneurs are assigned an important role in crossing policy boundaries and addressing complex problems, our understanding of the process is limited. This article systematically reviews 51 studies on conditions, strategies and implications of crossboundary entrepreneurship. Findings show that (1) the literature predominantly mentions issue promotion and coalition-building as crossboundary strategies; (2) vertical boundary-crossing is discussed more frequently than horizontal boundary-crossing; (3) the most reported boundary-crossing function is to expand issue arenas; (4) conditions that enable crossboundary strategies include institutional overlap, issue interpretation, power vacuum, overruling policies and lacking resources; and (5) implications of entrepreneurship include raised opposition, increased competition over leadership, augmented complexity hindering collective action, raised costs and resources, and issues regarding trust, legitimacy and authority. Policy entrepreneurship allows for micro-level insights in the emergence of crossboundary processes. We suggest future research to focus on causal processes between conditions, strategies and implications to better understand their interplay.

From government to governance…to meta-governance: a systematic literature review

“…The latter was impossible because many articles include multiple cases and often it was not possible to relate a specific means of meta-governance (how) or a reason (why) to a specific case in the article. Additionally, the sheer number of different possible combinations and variations in the variables made it impossible to establish meaningful inferences about the relationships (see also Faling et al 2019). Nevertheless, by combining the data on the who and what of metagovernance, it is possible to identify four ideal types of meta-governance, namely: network meta-governance; multilevel meta-governance; meta-governance of multiplicity; and meta-governance of modes (see Figure 2)…”

Cross-boundary policy entrepreneurship for climate-smart agriculture in Kenya

“…Third, ACF has demonstrated that entrepreneurship across boundaries seems to require brokerage between different groups, such as different coalitions, to align ideas (Faling et al 2018b). Concrete brokerage activities include demonstrating authority and providing impartial leadership, funding, and a neutral institutional environment.…”

“…CSA was launched in 2010 as an approach to transform the agricultural sector to increase farmers' resilience, enhance agricultural outputs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It promotes the inclusion of various sectors including agriculture and climate change, various levels from global to local, and various actor types including businesses and NGOs (Faling et al 2018b). CSA policies were developed through the involvement of an amalgam of actors from different global, regional, and national organizations and various ministries.…”

“…Policy entrepreneurship refers to agency deployed by actors to effect policy change using resources and strategies available to achieve a desired outcome (Faling et al 2018b;Green 2017). What sets entrepreneurship apart from other forms of agency is the use of strategies and actions to effect change, whereby entrepreneurship is treated as a label for a "set of behaviours in the policy process, rather than a permanent characteristic of a particular individual or role" (Ackrill and Kay 2011:78), as espoused previously in the literature (Boasson and Huitema 2017).…”

Policy dynamics and types of agency: From individual to collective patterns of action

“…Hence, policy entrepreneurship emerges the pattern of action in which policy change is catalyzed not only by advancing new ideas but also by mobilizing supporters inside and outside political institutions and by building transorganizational teams (Arieli & Cohen, 2013;Faling, Biesbroek, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen & Termeer, 2018;Mintrom et al, 2014;Watts et al, 2015).…”