Policy invention and entrepreneurship: Bankrolling the burying of carbon in the EU

Abstract

This article presents the case of a policy invention where various kinds of entrepreneurship and a window of opportunity played important roles. In 2008 the EU adopted a new Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) policy with an inventive funding instrument at its core: the NER 300 fund, based on revenues from the auctioning of emissions trading allowances. Thus far, the literature on policy entrepreneurs has focused more on success factors that enable particular persons to be especially influential than on the defining characteristics of entrepreneurship. We contribute to the literature on entrepreneurship and windows of opportunity by distinguishing two entrepreneurial techniques -framing and procedural engineering -and two categories of commitment -'tortoise' and carpe diem. We conclude that 'tortoises' who contributed to creating the broad and general climate policy window paved the way for issue-specific carpe diemers who promoted the more specific NER 300 policy invention. Furthermore, we distinguish and discuss four different entrepreneurship mechanisms that may influence policy invention processes.

Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects

“…We have already noted how such studies tend to gloss over the subtle but important differences between and within individual policies; analysts are also becoming more aware of their insensitivity to slow processes of refinement as policies diffuse and take root in particular jurisdictions 54 . Case study analyses have shown that groups advocating particular policy instruments (such as emissions trading 11 ) drive these processes, often in collaboration with policy entrepreneurs 55,56 .…”

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

“…Following Knaggård (, p. 450), we term the role that an entrepreneur plays in this stream as the problem broker. This could involve generally creating awareness about the problem (Boasson & Wettestad, ; Kalafatis, Grace, & Gibbons, ; Knaggård, ; Meijerink & Huitema, ); capitalizing on specific focusing events to draw attention (Mallett & Cherniak, ); altering problem perception using performance indicators and standards (Maor, ); altering societal norms through legal, moral, or political authority (Maor, ); linking issues (Brouwer & Huitema, ; Mallett & Cherniak, ) or brokering knowledge (Knaggård, ). The problem broker relies on discursive or narrative reframing (Lovell, ; Meijerink & Huitema, ), institutional delegitimization (Goldfinch & Hart, ), or rhetorical persuasion (Brouwer & Huitema, ) to make policy makers accept the problem frame.…”

“…Following Knaggård (2015, p. 450), we term the role that an entrepreneur plays in this stream as the problem broker. This could involve generally creating awareness about the problem (Boasson & Wettestad, 2014;Kalafatis, Grace, & Gibbons, 2015;Knaggård, 2016;Meijerink & Huitema, 2010); capitalizing on specific focusing events to draw attention (Mallett & Cherniak, 2018); altering problem perception using performance indicators and standards ; altering societal norms through legal, moral, or political authority ; linking issues 1 Although elite interviews are useful for uncovering entrepreneurial activity , they can also lead to bias as "success may well be attributed to those adept at playing the media" (Meijerink & Huitema, 2010, p. 24). 2 For news reports, we used the Lexis Academic database to obtain and parse over 1000 news reports specifically on JGY and, more broadly, the electricity sector in Gujarat.…”

“…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, 2014;Kalafatis et al, 2015;Roberts & King, 1991). To do so, a policy entrepreneur can share new and reliable knowledge about the proposal and design alternatives (Anderson, DeLeo, & Taylor, 2019;Braun, 2009;Navot & Cohen, 2015), construct models of best practice (Mukhtarov & Gerlak, 2013), use a "shadow networks" to develop or test an idea (Meijerink & Huitema, 2010), initiate an experiment or a pilot project (Brouwer & Huitema, 2018;McFadgen, 2019;Meijerink & Huitema, 2010), or leverage conditions of funding as a donor agency (Meijerink & Huitema, 2010;Mukhtarov & Gerlak, 2013;Shpaizman, Swed, & Pedahzur, 2016).…”

Strategizing beyond boundaries : policy entrepreneurship for climate-smart agriculture

“…We find that the literature on policy entrepreneurship pays limited explicit analytical or conceptual attention to cross-boundary strategies. An exception is the notion of "venue shopping", "venue shifting" or "venue manipulation" (Boasson and Wettestad 2014, Boekhorst et al 2010, Carter and Jacobs 2014, Mukhtarov et al 2013, Pralle 2006, an activity related to shifting the decisionmaking authority to a different arena, which is discussed not only in the policy entrepreneurship literature but also more broadly in relation to the policy process literature, most importantly punctuated equilibrium theory (Baumgartner andJones 2010, Pralle 2003a). The increasing number of articles addressing boundary-crossing in our sample might well be aligned to the increasing attention for crosscutting policy issues.…”