Different and Common Point in The Role of Policy Entrepreneur and Policy Broker
Keywords:
Policy Entrepreneur, Policy Broker, Multiple Stream Theory, Advocacy Coalition FrameworkAbstract
The purpose of this academic paper is to present differences and common points in the role of policy entrepreneur and policy brokers through a Multiple Stream Theory (MST) and Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). As well as presenting the roles of policy entrepreneur and policy brokers in advocated National Health Act B.E. 2007. The findings show that policy entrepreneur in multiple stream aim to raise awareness of public problems at large so that those issues get the attention of policy-makers. But policy broker in advocacy coalition framework play a role in the stability of the alliance by harnessing the policy's key ideas and beliefs including promoting policy learning. Finally, the role of policy entrepreneur and policy brokers has a common point, which is to build policy partnerships and adaptation in the face of external events that are key factors for policy change.
References
Boasson, E. L., & Wettestad, J. (2014). Policy invention and entrepreneurship: Bankrolling the burying of carbon in the EU. Global Environmental Change, 29, 404–412.
Brouwer, S., & Huitema, D. (2018). Policy entrepreneurs and strategies for change. Regional Environmental Change, 18(5), 1259–1272.
Christopoulos, D. C. (2006). Relational attributes of political entrepreneurs: A network perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), 757–778.
Exworthy, M. & M. Powell. (2004). ‘Big Windows and Little Windows: Implementation in the ‘‘Congested State’’, Public Administration, 82, 2, 263–81
Goldfinch, S., & Hart, P. T. (2003). Leadership and institutional reform: Engineering macroeconomic policy change in Australia. Governance, 16(2), 235–270.
Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2015). Straightening the three streams: Theorising extensions of the multiple streams framework. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 435–449.
Hysing, E. (2009). Greening transport‐explaining urban transport policy change. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 11(3), 243–261.
Ingold, Karin, & Frederic Varone. (2011). “Treating Policy Brokers Seriously: Evidence from the Climate Policy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22 (2): 319-346.
John, p. (2003). 'Is There Life after Policy Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, and Punctuations: Using Evolutionary Theory to Explain Policy Change?', Policy Studies Journal, 31, 4, 481-98.
King, D. & R. Hansen. (1999). 'Experts at Work: State Autonomy, Social Learning and Eugenic Sterilization in 1930s Britain', British Journal of Political Science, 29, 1, 77-107.
Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy. New York: HarperCollins.
Koebele, E. (2016). Using the advocacy coalition framework to understand collaborative policy processes. Paper presented at the Western Political Science Association Conference, San Diego, California, 24–26 March.
Mallett, A., & Cherniak, D. (2018). Views from above: Policy entrepreneurship and climate policy change on electricity in the Canadian Arctic. Regional Environmental Change, 18(5), 1323–1336.
Maor, M. (2017). Policy entrepreneurs in policy valuation processes: The case of the coalition for environmentally responsible economies. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(8), 1401–1417.
Mintrom, M. (1997). 'Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation', American Journal of Political Science, 41, 3, 738-70.
Mintrom, M., & Norman, p. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649-667.
Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420-434.
Mukhtarov, F., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). River Basin organizations in the global water discourse: An exploration of agency and strategy. Global Governance, 19(2), 307–326.
Nohrstedt, D. (2011). Shifting resources and venues producing policy change in contested subsystems: A case study of Swedish signals intelligence policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 461—484.
Roberts, N. and p. King. (1991). 'Policy Entrepreneurs: Their Activity Structure and Function in the Policy Process', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 2, 147-75.
Sabatier, P., & Weible, C. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. Sabatier & C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189–217). Boulder: Westview Press
Sabatier, Paul A. (1999). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sabatier, Paul A., & Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. (1993). Policy Change and Learning. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.
Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Waranyoo Senasu. (2016). sēnthāng kotmāi sukkhaphāp hǣng chāt : čhāk ratthabān thaksin thưng ratthabān sura yut [Path to national health law: from Thaksin to Surayud government]. (Master of political science). Thammasat university, Thailand.
Weible, C. and Sabatier, P. (2006). A Guide to the Advocacy Coalition Framework. (2020, October 11). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286358383_A_Guide_to_the_Advocacy_Coalition_Framework
Weible, c. M., Sabatier, p. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121-140.
Zahariadis, N. (2003). Ambiguity and choice in public policy: Political decision making in modern democracies. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press
Zhu, X. (2008). Strategy of Chinese policy entrepreneurs in the third sector: Challenges of ‘technical infeasibility’. Policy Sciences, 41(4), 315–334.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
- Content published in the journal is personal opinions of authors which the office of Ombudsman and the editorial team are not bound to be accordance with.
- Articles, content, images, etc. published in the Journal of Ombudsman are copyright of the Journal. If any person or entity wants to bring all or part of it to publish or to do any action. Must obtain written permission from the journal's first.
