Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Exceptional or just well connected? Political entrepreneurs and brokers in policy making

  • Dimitris Christopoulos (a1) (a2) and Karin Ingold (a3) (a4)

Abstract

Policy brokers and policy entrepreneurs are assumed to have a decisive impact on policy outcomes. Their access to social and political resources is contingent on their influence on other agents. In social network analysis (SNA), entrepreneurs are often closely associated with brokers, because both are agents presumed to benefit from bridging structural holes; for example, gaining advantage through occupying a strategic position in relational space. Our aim here is twofold. First, to conceptually and operationally differentiate policy brokers from policy entrepreneurs premised on assumptions in the policy-process literature; and second, via SNA, to use the output of core algorithms in a cross-sectional analysis of political brokerage and political entrepreneurship. We attempt to simplify the use of graph algebra in answering questions relevant to policy analysis by placing each algorithm within its theoretical context. In the methodology employed, we first identify actors and graph their relations of influence within a specific policy event; then we select the most central actors; and compare their rank in a series of statistics that capture different aspects of their network advantage. We examine betweenness centrality, positive and negative Bonacich power, Burt’s effective size and constraint and honest brokerage as paradigmatic. We employ two case studies to demonstrate the advantages and limitations of each algorithm for differentiating between brokers and entrepreneurs: one on Swiss climate policy and one on EU competition and transport policy.

Copyright

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
Ahuja, G. (2000), ‘Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study’, Administrative Science Quarterly 43(3): 425455.
Arce, D. (2001), ‘Leadership and the aggregation of international collective action’, Oxford Economic Papers 53: 114137.
Barthelt, H. and Gluckler, J. (2011), The Relational Economy, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Beyers, J., Raine, E. and Maloney, William (2008), ‘Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: much we study, little we know?’, West European Politics 31(6): 11031128.
Bonacich, P. (1987), ‘Power and centrality: a family of measures’, American Journal of Sociology 92: 11701182.
Borgatti, S. (2005), ‘Centrality and network flow’, Social Networks 27(1): 5571.
Borgatti, S. and Everett, M. (2006), ‘A Graph-theoretic perspective on centrality’, Social Networks 28(4): 466484.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002), Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis, Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Brandes, U., Kosub, S. and Nick, B. (2012), ‘Was messen Zentralitatsindizes’, in M. Henning and C. Stegbauer (eds), Die Integration von Theorie und Methode in der Netzwerkforschung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 3352.
Burt, R. (1992), Structural Holes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. (2002), ‘Bridge decay’, Social Networks 24: 333363.
Burt, R. (2005), Brokerage and Closure, New York: Oxford University Press.
Carley, K. (2009), ‘Computational modeling for reasoning about the social behavior of humans’, Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 15(1): 4759.
Christopoulos, D.C. (2006), ‘Relational attributes of political entrepreneurs: a network perspective’, Journal of European Public Policy 13(5): 757778.
Christopoulos, D.C. (2008), ‘The governance of networks: heuristic or formal analysis? A reply to Rachel Parker’, Political Studies 56(2): 475481.
Christopoulos, D. and Quaglia, L. (2009), ‘Network constraints in EU banking regulation: the capital requirements directive’, Journal of Public Policy 29(2): 179200.
Christopoulos, D. and Ingold, K. (2011), ‘Distinguishing between political brokerage & political entrepreneurship’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 10: 3642.
Copeland, P. and James, S. (2014), ‘Policy windows, ambiguities and Commission entrepreneurship: explaining the relaunch of the European Union’s economic agenda’, Journal of European Public Policy 21(1): 119.
Diani, M. and Della Porta, D. (2005), Social Movements: An Introduction, 2nd edn., Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Dür, A. (2008), ‘Interest groups in the European Union: how powerful are they?’, West European Politics 31(6): 12121230.
Emirbayer, M. (1997), ‘Manifesto for a relational sociology’, American Journal of Sociology 103(2): 281317.
Fischer, M. (2013), ‘Policy network structures, institutional context, and policy change’, COMPASS Working Paper No. 73, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Fischer, M. and Sciarini, P. (2013), ‘Europeanization and the inclusive strategies of executive actors’, Journal of European Public Policy 20(10): 482498.
Freeman, L. (1979), ‘Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarification’, Social Networks 1: 215239.
Friedkin, N. (1983), ‘Horizons of observability and limits of informal control’, Social Forces 62(1): 5477.
Friedkin, N. (1998), A Structural Theory of Social Influence, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ginty, R. (2010), ‘Social network analysis and counterinsurgency: a counterproductive strategy?’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 3(2): 209226.
Henning, C.H.C.A. (2009), ‘Networks of power in the CAP system of the EU-15 and EU-27’, Journal of Public Policy 29(2): 153177.
Holcombe, R. (2002), ‘Political entrepreneurship and the democratic allocation of economic resources’, The Review of Austrian Economics 15: 143159.
Howlett, M. (2002), ‘Do networks Matter? Linking policy network structure to policy outcomes: evidence from four Canadian policy sectors 1990–2000’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 35(2): 235267.
Ingold, K. (2008), Les mécanismes de décision: le cas de la politique climatique Suisse, Zürich: Politikanalysen, Rüegger Verlag.
Ingold, K. (2009), ‘Understanding advocacy coalitions, policy learning and brokerage: a combination of social network and multicriteria analysis in Swiss climate policy’, Conference Paper, PSA Annual Conference, April 7–9, Manchester.
Ingold, K. (2011), ‘Network structures within policy processes: coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy’, Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 435459.
Ingold, K. and Varone, F. (2011), ‘Treating policy brokers seriously: evidence from the climate policy’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(2): 319346.
Jackson, M.O. (2010), Social and Economic Networks, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kingdon, J. (1995), Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies, New York: Harper Collins.
Kingdon, J. (2003), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd edn., New York and London: Longman.
Knill, C., Schulze, K. and Tosun, J. (2012), ‘Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: exploring a complex relationship’, Regulation & Governance 6(4): 427444.
Knoke, D. (1990), Political Networks: The Structural Perspective, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Knoke, D., Pappi, F.U., Broadbent, J. and Tsujinaka, Y. (1996), Comparing Policy Networks–Labour Politics in the US, Germany and Japan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krackhardt, D. (1999), ‘The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations’, Research in the Sociology of Organizations 16: 183210.
McCaffrey, M. and Salerno, J. (2011), ‘A theory of political entrepreneurship’, Modern Economy 2: 552560.
Mintrom, M. (2000), Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press.
Mintrom, M. and Vergari, S. (1996), ‘Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change’, Policy Studies Journal 24: 420434.
Mintrom, M. and Norman, P. (2009), ‘Policy entrepreneurship and policy change’, Policy Studies Journal 37(4): 649667.
Padgett, J.F. and Ansell, C.K. (1993), ‘Robust action and the rise of the medici, 1400–1434’, American Journal of Sociology 98(6): 12591319.
Peters, G. (1997), ‘Escaping the joint-decision trap: repetition and sectoral politics in the European Union’, West European Politics 20(2): 2236.
Robins, G., Lewis, J. and Wang, P. (2012), ‘Statistical network models’, Policy Studies Journal 40: 375401.
Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press.
Schneider, M. and Teske, P. (1992), ‘Towards a theory of the political entrepreneur: evidence from local government’, The American Political Science Review 86(3): 734747.
Schneider, M., Teske, P. and Mintrom, M. (1995), Public Entrepreneurs: Agents of Change in American Government, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sheingate, A. (2003), ‘Political entrepreneurship, institutional change, and American political development’, Studies in American Political Development 17(2): 185203.
Smith, J.M., Halgin, D.S., Kidwell-Lopez, V., Labianca, G., Brass, D.J. and Borgatti, S.P. (2014), ‘Power in politically charged networks’, Social Networks 36: 162176.
Stokman, F.N. and Zeggelink, E.P.H. (1996), ‘Is politics power or policy oriented? A comparative analysis of dynamic access models in policy networks’, Journal of Mathematical Sociology 21(1−2): 77111.
Svensson, T. and Öberg, P. (2005), ‘How are coordinated market economies coordinated? Evidence from Sweden’, West European Politics 28(5): 10751100.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. and Meindl, J.R. (eds) (2008), Complexity Leadership, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis: Method and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zachariadis, N. (2007), ‘The multiple streams framework: structure, limitations, prospects’, in P. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of The Policy Process, 2nd edn., Bolder: Westview Press.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed