Element contents
Policy Entrepreneurship at the Street Level
Understanding the Effect of the Individual
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 April 2021
Summary
This Element aims to connect the literature of street-level bureaucrats with that of policy entrepreneurship in order to analyze why and how bureaucrats operating at the street level can promote policy change in public administration at the individual level. I demonstrate how street-level bureaucrats act as policy entrepreneurs in different contexts around the globe to promote policy change and analyze what they think of policy entrepreneurship and what they do about it in practice. For this purpose, I use multiple research methods: a survey, in-depth interviews, focus groups and textual analyses. I also offer recommendations to decision-makers to promote street-level policy entrepreneurship, highlighting the benefits of doing so. Lastly, I critically discuss the normative aspects of street-level policy entrepreneurship: ultimately, is it desirable?
Keywords
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108864299Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 13 May 2021
References
Aberbach, J.D., Putnam, R.D., & Rockman, B.A. (1981). Bureaucrats and politicians in western democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464.Google Scholar
Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, S., & Sened, I. (1993). The role of lobbyists: Entrepreneurs with two audiences. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 834–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 170–211.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology and Health, 26(9), 1113–1127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Anderson, S.E., DeLeo, R.A., & Taylor, K. (2019). Policy entrepreneurs, legislators, and agenda setting: Information and influence. Policy Studies Journal, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12331.Google Scholar
Arieli, T., & Cohen, N. (2013). Policy entrepreneurs and post-conflict cross-border cooperation: A conceptual framework and the Israeli–Jordanian case. Policy Sciences, 46(3), 237–256.Google Scholar
Arnold, G. (2015). Street-level policy entrepreneurship. Public Management Review, 17(3), 307–327.Google Scholar
Arnold, G. (in press). Does entrepreneurship work? Understanding what policy entrepreneurs do and whether it matters. Policy Studies Journal.Google Scholar
Arrow, K.J. (1985). Informational structure of the firm. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 303–307.Google Scholar
Baarspul, H.C., & Wilderom, C.P. (2011). Do employees behave differently in public- vs. private-sector organizations? A state-of-the-art review. Public Management Review, 13(7), 967–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baines, D., & Armstrong, P. (2019). Non‐job work/unpaid caring: Gendered industrial relations in long‐term care. Gender, Work & Organization, 26(7), 934–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baines, D., Cunningham, I., & Shields, J. (2017). Filling the gaps: Unpaid (and precarious) work in the nonprofit social services. Critical Social Policy, 37(4), 625–645.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, W., & Pagliarello, M.C. (2016). Agenda-setting for vet policy in the western Balkans: Employability versus social inclusion. European Journal of Education, 51(3), 305–319.Google Scholar
Barzelay, M. (2001). The New Public Management: Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Batra, R., & Ray, M.L. (1986). Situational effects of advertising repetition: The moderating influence of motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 432–445.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R., & Jones, B.D. (2010). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Béland, D. (2005). Ideas and social policy: An institutionalist perspective. Social Policy and Administration, 39(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendor, J., Taylor, S., & Van Gaalen, R. (1987). Politicians, bureaucrats, and asymmetric information. American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 796–828.Google Scholar
Bernier, L., & Hafsi, T. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 488–503.Google Scholar
Binhas, A., & Cohen, N. (2019). Policy entrepreneurs and anti-racism policy. Policy Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1634190Google Scholar
Birkland, T.A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(01), 53–74.Google Scholar
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). Street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184.Google Scholar
Bridson, E.Y. (1996). Iatrogenic epidemics of puerperal fever in the 18th and 19th centuries. British Journal of Biomedical Science, 53(2), 134–139.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E.Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review, 71(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E.Z. (2007). Bureaucracy redux: Management reformism and the welfare state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E.Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, i253–i277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E.Z. (2012). Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: Past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 940–949.Google Scholar
Brouwer, S., & Huitema, D. (2018). Policy entrepreneurs and strategies for change. Regional Environmental Change, 18(5), 1259–1272.Google Scholar
Burke, J.P. (1987). A prescriptive view of the implementation process: When should bureaucrats exercise discretion? Review of Policy Research, 7(1), 217–231.Google Scholar
Byrd, M.E., Costello, J., Shelton, C.R., Thomas, P.A., & Petrarca, D. (2004). An active learning experience in health policy for baccalaureate nursing students. Public Health Nursing, 21(5), 501–506.Google Scholar
Bysted, R., & Hansen, J.R. (2015). Comparing public and private sector employees’ innovative behaviour: Understanding the role of job and organizational characteristics, job types, and subsectors. Public Management Review, 17(5), 698–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bysted, R., & Jespersen, K.R. (2014). Exploring managerial mechanisms that influence innovative work behaviour: Comparing private and public employees. Public Management Review, 16(2), 217–241.Google Scholar
Caiden, G.E. (1991). What really is public maladministration? Public Administration Review, 51(6), 486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairney, P., & Jones, M.D. (2016). Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaghan, T., & Sylvester, S. (2019). Private citizens as policy entrepreneurs: Evidence from autism mandates and parental political mobilization. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cantillon, R. (1755). Essay on the nature of trade in general. Ebook available at: www.amazon.com/Essay-Nature-General-Richard-Cantillon-ebook/dp/B07WVNT75N.Google Scholar
Carter, K.C., & Carter, B.R. (2017). Childbed fever: A scientific biography of Ignaz Semmelweis. Milton Park: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, P., & Wilson, J. (1961). Incentive systems: A theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(2), 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, T.H., Demircioglu, M.A., & Alsos, G.A. (2020). Intensity of innovation in public sector organizations: The role of push and pull factors. Public Administration, 98(1), 159–176.Google Scholar
Cobb, R.W., & Elder, C.D. (1981). Communication and public policy. In Nimmo, D. & Sanders, K. (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 391–416). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Cobb, R.W. & Elder, C.D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, N. (2012). Policy entrepreneurs and the design of public policy: The case of the national health insurance law in Israel. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 3(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
Cohen, N. (2016). Policy entrepreneurs and agenda setting. In Zahariadis, N. (Ed.), Handbook of public policy agenda-setting (pp. 180–199). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Cohen, N. (2018). How culture affects street-level bureaucrats’ bending the rules in the context of informal payments for health care: The Israeli case. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(2), 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, N., & Arieli, T. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and the snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48(4), 423–436.Google Scholar
Cohen, N., Benish, A., & Shamriz-Ilouz, A. (2016). When the clients can choose: Dilemmas of street-level workers in choice-based social services. Social Service Review, 90(4), 620–646.Google Scholar
Cohen, N., & Gershgoren, S. (2016). The incentives of street-level bureaucrats and inequality in tax assessments. Administration and Society, 48(3), 267–289.Google Scholar
Cohen, N., & Golan-Nadir, N. (2020). Why do street-level bureaucrats risk themselves for others? The case of Israeli police officers. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(4), 480–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, N., & Hertz, U. (2020). Street-level bureaucrats’ social value orientation on and off duty. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 442–453.Google Scholar
Cohen, N., & Klenk, T. (2019). Policy re-design from the street level. In Hupe, P. (Ed.), Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy: The ground floor of government in context (pp. 209–222). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Cohen, N., & Naor, M. (2013). Reducing dependence on oil? How policy entrepreneurs utilize the National Security Agenda to recruit government support: The case of electric transportation in Israel. Energy Policy, 56, 582–590.Google Scholar
Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Considine, M., Lewis, J. M., O’Sullivan, S., & Sol, E. (2015). Getting welfare to work: Street-level governance in Australia, the UK, and the Netherlands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crow, D.A. (2010). Policy entrepreneurs, issue experts, and water rights policy change in Colorado. Review of Policy Research, 27(3), 299–315.Google Scholar
Crowley, J.E. (2003). The politics of child support in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Davidovitz, M. & Cohen, N. (2020). Playing defence: The impact of trust on the coping mechanisms of street-level bureaucrats. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1817532.Google Scholar
deLeon, L. (1996). Ethics and entrepreneurship. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 495–510.Google Scholar
Demircioglu, M.A. (2020. The effects of organizational and demographic context for innovation implementation in public organizations. Public Management Review, 22(12), 1852–1875. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1668467.Google Scholar
Demircioglu, M.A., & Audretsch, D.B. (2017). Conditions for innovation in public sector organizations. Research Policy, 46(9), 1681–1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, J. (2010). Is New Public Management really dead? OECD Journal on Budgeting, 10(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
de Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166.Google Scholar
Díaz-García, M.C., & Jiménez-Moreno, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention: The role of gender. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(3), 261–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P.J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Zucker, L. (Ed.), Institutional patterns and culture (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Domanski, M.D. (1998). Prototypes of social work political participation: An empirical model. Social Work, 43(2), 156–167.Google Scholar
Downs, G.W. (1976). Bureaucracy, innovation, and public policy, Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Drucker, P.F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, P. (1992). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Durose, C. (2007). Beyond “street level bureaucrats”: Re-interpreting the role of front line public sector workers. Critical Policy Analysis, 1(2), 217–234.Google Scholar
Evans, T. (2013). Organisational rules and discretion in adult social work. British Journal of Social Work, 43(4), 739–758.Google Scholar
Evans, T. (2016). Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street-level bureaucracy. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
Faling, M., Biesbroek, R., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., & Termeer, K. (2019). Policy entrepreneurship across boundaries: A systematic literature review. Journal of Public Policy, 39(2), 393–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fayolle, A. (2018). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. In Fayolle, A. (Ed.), A research agenda for entrepreneurship education (pp. 127–138). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7), 569–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fayolle, A., & Liñán, F. (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 663–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueira-McDonough, J. (1993). Policy practice: The neglected side of social work intervention. Social Work, 38(2), 179–188.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Folgheraiter, F. , & Raineri, M. L. (2012). A critical analysis of the social work definition according to the relational paradigm. International Social Work, 55(4), 473–487.Google Scholar
Frisch-Aviram, N., Beeri, I., & Cohen, N. (2020). Entrepreneurship in the policy process: Linking behavior and context using a systematic review of policy entrepreneurship literature. Public Administration Review, 80(2), 188–197.Google Scholar
Frisch-Aviram, N., Cohen, N., & Beeri, I. (2018). Low-level bureaucrats, local government regimes and policy entrepreneurship. Policy Sciences, 51(1), 39–57.Google Scholar
Frisch-Aviram, N., Cohen, N., & Beeri, I. (2020). Wind(ow) of change: A systematic review of policy entrepreneurship characteristics and strategies. Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), 612–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12339.Google Scholar
Gal, J., & Weiss-Gal, I. (Eds.) (2013). Social workers affecting social policy: An international perspective. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Gal, J., & Weiss-Gal, I. (2015). The “why” and the “how” of policy practice: An eight-country comparison. British Journal of Social Work, 45(4), 1083–1101.Google Scholar
Garen, J.E. (1994). Executive compensation and principal-agent theory. Journal of Political Economy, 102(6), 1175–1199.Google Scholar
Gartner, W.B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32.Google Scholar
Ginnivan, L. (2014). The dirty history of doctors’ hands. Method Quarterly, 1. www.methodquarterly.com/2014/11/handwashing/.Google Scholar
Gofen, A. (2013). Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 473–493.Google Scholar
Goldfinch, S., & Hart, P.T. (2003). Leadership and institutional reform: Engineering macroeconomic policy change in Australia. Governance, 16(2), 235–270.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.Google Scholar
Goodman, K.W. (2005). Ethics, evidence, and public policy. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48(4), 548–556.Google Scholar
Goyal, N., Howlett, M., & Chindarkar, N. (2020). Who coupled which stream(s)? Policy entrepreneurship and innovation in the energy–water nexus in Gujarat, India. Public Administration and Development, 40(1), 49–64.Google Scholar
Greenwood, S. (2007). Bad for business? Entrepreneurs and democracy in the Arab world. Comparative Political Studies, 41(6), 837–860.Google Scholar
Gulick, L. (1955). Next steps in public administration. Public Administration Review, 15(2), 73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, A. (2017). Policy entrepreneurs and policy formulation. In Howlett, M. & Mukherjee, I. (Eds.), Handbook of policy formulation (pp. 265–282). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Halperin, S., & Heath, O. (2016). Political research: Methods and practical skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hébert, R.F., & Link, A.N. (2009). A history of entrepreneurship. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2014). Implementing public policy: An introduction to the study of operational governance. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hopkins, V. (2016). Institutions, incentives, and policy entrepreneurship. Policy Studies Journal, 44(3), 332–348.Google Scholar
Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (Eds.). (2015). Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Huitema, D., & Meijerink, S. (2010). Realizing water transitions: The role of policy entrepreneurs in water policy change. Ecology and Society, 15 (2), 26. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art26/.Google Scholar
Hung, K., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Ingram, L.J. (2011). Testing the efficacy of an integrative model for community participation. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 276–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hupe, P. (2019). Conceptualizing street-level bureaucracy in context. In Hupe, P. (Ed.), Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy: The ground floor of government in context (pp. 31–48). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hupe, P., & Buffat, A. (2014). A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548–569.Google Scholar
Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299.Google Scholar
Hupe, P., Hill, M., & Buffat, A. (Eds.). (2016). Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Jabotinsky, H., & Cohen, N. (2020). Regulatory policy entrepreneurship and reforms: A comparison of competition and financial regulation. Journal of Public Policy, 40(4), 628–650.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, M., Jacobsen, C.B., & Serritzlew, S. (2019). Managing the behavior of public frontline employees through change-oriented training: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(4), 556–571.Google Scholar
Johannisson, B. (1991). University training for entrepreneurship: Swedish approaches. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 3(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M.D., Peterson, H.L., Pierce, J.J., et al. (2016). A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 13–36.Google Scholar
Kaufman, H. (1960). The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Keiser, L.R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the Social Security Disability Program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, M. (1994). Theories of justice and street-level discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 119–140.Google Scholar
Kickert, W. (2007). The study of public management in Europe and the US: A comparative analysis of national distinctiveness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kickert, W. (2011). Public management reform in continental Europe: National distinctiveness. In Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to New Public Management (pp. 97–112). Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J.W. (1995[1984]). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Klenk, T., & Cohen, N. (2019). Dealing with hybridization in street-level bureaucracy research. In Hupe, P. (Ed.), Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy (pp. 142–156). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Knill, C. & Tosun, J. (2012). Public policy. A new introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Koehn, P.H. (2009). Globalization, decentralization, and public entrepreneurship: Reorienting bureaucracy in the People’s Republic of China. In Farazmand, A. (Ed.), Bureaucracy and administration (pp. 409–432). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Kosar, K.R. (2011). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas endure. Public Administration Review, 71(2), 299–302.Google Scholar
Lapuente, V., & Suzuki, K. (2020). Politicization, bureaucratic legalism, and innovative attitudes in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 454–467.Google Scholar
Lavee, E. (2020). Who is in charge? The provision of informal personal resources at the street level. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa025.Google Scholar
Lavee, E., & Cohen, N. (2019). How street-level bureaucrats become policy entrepreneurs: The case of urban renewal. Governance, 32(3), 475–492.Google Scholar
Lavee, E., Cohen, N., & Nouman, H. (2018). Reinforcing public responsibility? Influences and practices in street-level bureaucrats’ engagement in policy design. Public Administration, 96(2), 333–348.Google Scholar
Lavee, E., & Pindek, S. (2020). The costs of customer service citizenship behaviors: A qualitative study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00460.Google Scholar
Lavee, E., & Strier, R. (2019). Transferring emotional capital as coerced discretion: Street-level bureaucrats reconciling structural deficiencies. Public Administration, 97(4), 910–925.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Levin, L., Goor, Y., & Tayri, M.T. (2013). Agency advocacy and organisational development: A feasible policy practice alliance. British Journal of Social Work, 43(3), 522–541.Google Scholar
Lewis, E. (1984). Public entrepreneurship: Toward a theory of bureaucratic political power. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Liebenberg, L., Ungar, M. & Ikeda, J. (2013). Neo-liberalism and responsibilisation in the discourse of social service workers. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(3), 1006–1021.Google Scholar
Lieberherr, E., & Thomann, E. (2019). Street-level bureaucracy research and accountability beyond hierarchy. In Hupe, P. (Ed.), Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy: The ground floor of government in context (pp. 223–239). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Liñán, F. (2004). Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccolla Impresa/Small Business, 3(1), 11–35.Google Scholar
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y.W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593–617.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (2010[1980]) Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Locke, E.A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 288–299.Google Scholar
Longest, B. (2016). Health policymaking in the United States (6th ed.). Chicago: Health Administration Press.Google Scholar
Lu, H., Mayer, A.L., Wellstead, A.M., & Zhou, S. (2020). Can the dual identity of policy entrepreneur and policy implementer promote successful policy adoption? Vertical greening policymaking in Shanghai, China. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 13(1), 113–128.Google Scholar
Luke, D.F. (1995). Building indigenous entrepreneurial capacity: Trends and issues. In Rasheed, S. & Fashole, D. (Eds.), Development management in Africa: Toward dynamism, empowerment and entrepreneurship (pp. 149–171). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
MacInnis, D.J. & Jaworski, B.J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1–23.Google Scholar
MacInnis, D.J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B.J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 32–53.Google Scholar
Mair, J., Robinson, J., & Hockert, K. (Eds.) (2006). Social entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen/Oslo/Tromo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Martin, B.C., McNally, J.J., & Kay, M.J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224.Google Scholar
May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2009). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453–476.Google Scholar
Mayer, A.K. (2011). Does education increase political participation? The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 633–645.Google Scholar
Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Maynard-Moody, S., & Portillo, S. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy theory. In Durant, R.F. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 252–277). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mayo, E. (1923). The irrational factor in society. Journal of Personnel Research, 110, 419–426.Google Scholar
McDonald, L. (2001). Florence Nightingale and the early origins of evidence-based nursing. Evidence-Based Nursing, 4(3), 68–69.Google Scholar
McFadgen, B.K. (2019). Connecting policy change, experimentation, and entrepreneurs: Advancing conceptual and empirical insights. Ecology and Society, 24(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10673-240130.Google Scholar
Mebane, F., & Blendon, R.J. (2001). Political strategy 101: How to make health policy and influence political people. Journal of Child Neurology, 16(7), 513–519.Google Scholar
Meier, K.J. (2019). Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), 39–56.Google Scholar
Meier, K.J., & Bohte, J. (2001). Structure and discretion: Missing links in representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 455–470.Google Scholar
Meier, K.J., & O’Toole, L.J. (2006). Political control versus bureaucratic values: Reframing the debate. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 177–192.Google Scholar
Meijerink, S., & Huitema, D. (2010). Policy entrepreneurs and change strategies: Lessons from sixteen case studies of water transitions around the globe. Ecology and Society, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03509-150221.Google Scholar
Meyers, M. K., Vorsanger, S. (2007). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In Peters, G. & Jon, P. (Eds.), The handbook of public administration (pp. 153–163). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738–770.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M. (2013). Policy entrepreneurs and controversial science: Governing human embryonic stem cell research. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 442–457.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2017). Policy entrepreneurs and problem framing: The case of climate change. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(8), 1362–1377.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M., & Salisbury, C. (2014). Policy entrepreneurs, creative teamwork, and policy change. In Alexander, D. & Lewis, J.M. (Eds.), Making public policy decisions: Expertise, skills and experience (pp. 129–145). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M., Salisbury, C., & Luetjens, J. (2014). Policy entrepreneurs and promotion of Australian state knowledge economies. Australian Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 423–438.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Moe, T.M. (1980). The organization of interests: Incentives and the internal dynamics of political interest groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Monteiro, L.A. (1985). Florence Nightingale on public health nursing. American Journal of Public Health, 75(2), 181–186.Google Scholar
Mosher, F. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nakamura, R.T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The politics of policy implementation, New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Navot, D., & Cohen, N. (2015). How policy entrepreneurs reduce corruption in Israel. Governance, 28(1), 61–76.Google Scholar
Neff, C. (2012). Australian beach safety and the politics of shark attacks. Coastal Management, 40(1), 88–106.Google Scholar
Ng, E. S., Gossett, C. W., & Winter, R. (2016). Millennials and public service renewal: Introduction on millennials and public service motivation (PSM). Public Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 412–428.Google Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, S., Grissom, J.A., Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Redding, C. (2016). Disentangling the causal mechanisms of representative bureaucracy: Evidence from assignment of students to gifted programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 745–757.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W.A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. New York: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
Oborn, E., Barrett, M., & Exworthy, M. (2011). Policy entrepreneurship in the development of public sector strategy. Public Administration, 89(2), 325–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Brien-Larivée, C. (2011). A service-learning experience to teach baccalaureate nursing students about health policy. Journal of Nursing Education, 50(6), 332–336.Google Scholar
Oliver, T.R., & Paul-Shaheen, P. (1997). Translating ideas into actions: Entrepreneurial leadership in state health care reforms. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 22(3), 721–788.Google Scholar
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Osborne, S.P., & Brown, L. (2011). Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king? Public Administration, 89(4), 1335–1350.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005). Unlocking public entrepreneurship and public economies. EGDI Discussion Paper 2005/01, Expert Group on Development Issues, United Nations University.Google Scholar
Palmer, J.R. (2015). How do policy entrepreneurs influence policy change? Framing and boundary work in EU transport biofuels policy. Environmental Politics, 24(2), 270–287.Google Scholar
Pastor Seller, E., Verde Diego, C., & Lima Fernandez, A.I. (2019). Impact of neo-liberalism in Spain: Research from social work in relation to the public system of social services. European Journal of Social Work, 22(2), 277–288.Google Scholar
Petchey, R., Williams, J., & Carter, Y. (2008). From street-level bureaucrats to street-level policy entrepreneurs? Central policy and local action in lottery-funded community cancer care. Social Policy & Administration, 42(1), 59–76.Google Scholar
Peters, B.G. (1987). Politicians and bureaucrats in the politics of policy making, In Lane, J.E. (Ed.), Bureaucracy and public choice (pp. 256–282). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Peters, B.G. & Pierre, J. (Eds.) (2004). Politicization of the civil service in comparative perspective: The quest for control. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Petridou, E., & Mintrom, M. (in press). A research agenda for the study of policy entrepreneurs. Policy Studies Journal.Google Scholar
Pierre, J., & Peters, B.G. (2017). The shirking bureaucrat: A theory in search of evidence? Policy & Politics, 45(2), 157–172.Google Scholar
Pitt, D., & Aubin, J.M. (2012). Joseph Lister: Father of modern surgery. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 55(5), E8.Google Scholar
Plein, L.C. (1994). Agenda setting, problem definition, and policy studies. Policy Studies Journal, 22(4), 701–704.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Porter, R. (1997). The greatest benefit to mankind: A medical history of humanity from antiquity to the present. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Pradhan, R. (2020). Doctors push back as Congress takes aim at surprise medical bills. National Public Radio. https://n.pr/2ZUi9ES.Google Scholar
Pralle, S. (2006). The “mouse that roared”: Agenda setting in Canadian pesticides politics. Policy Studies Journal, 34(2), 171–194.Google Scholar
Prottas, J.M. (1979). People processing: The street-level bureaucrat in public service bureaucracies. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Pülzl, H., & Treib, O. (2007). Implementing public policy. In Fischer, F., Miller, G.J. & Sidney, M.S. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 89–107). New York: Dekker.Google Scholar
Raaphorst, N., Groeneveld, S., & Van de Walle, S. (2018). Do tax officials use double standards in evaluating citizen‐clients? A policy‐capturing study among Dutch frontline tax officials. Public Administration, 96(1), 134–153.Google Scholar
Rabe, B. (2004). Statehouse and greenhouse: The stealth politics of American climate change policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Raimondo, E., & Newcomer, K.E. (2017). Mixed-methods inquiry in public administration: The interaction of theory, methodology, and praxis. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(2), 183–201.Google Scholar
Ramamurti, R. (1986). Effective leadership of public sector organizations: The case of public entrepreneurs. In Nagel, S. (Ed.), Research in public policy analysis and management, vol. 3 (pp. 69–88). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Riccucci, N.M. (2005). Street-level bureaucrats and intrastate variation in the implementation of temporary assistance for needy families policies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 89–111.Google Scholar
Ridde, V. (2009). Policy implementation in an African state: An extension of Kingdon’s multiple-streams approach. Public Administration, 87(4), 938–954.Google Scholar
Ringius, L. (2001). Radioactive waste disposal at sea: Public ideas, transnational policy entrepreneurs, and environmental regimes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, N.C., & King, P.J. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1(2), 147–175.Google Scholar
Sætren, H. (2009). Explaining radical policy change against all odds: The role of leadership, institutions, program design and policy windows. In Raffel, J.A. (Ed.), Public sector leadership: International challenges and perspectives (pp. 53–72). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Sætren, H. (2014). Implementing the third generation research paradigm in policy implementation research: An empirical assessment. Public Policy and Administration, 29(2), 84–105.Google Scholar
Sætren, H. (2016). From controversial policy idea to successful program implementation: The role of the policy entrepreneur, manipulation strategy, program design, institutions and open policy windows in relocating Norwegian central agencies. Policy Sciences, 49(1), 71–88.Google Scholar
Sager, F., Thomann, E., Zollinger, C. van der Heiden, N. & Mavrot, C. (2014). Street-level bureaucrats and new modes of governance: How conflicting roles affect the implementation of the Swiss ordinance on veterinary medicinal products. Public Management Review, 16(4), 481–502.Google Scholar
Salisbury, R.H. (1969). An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 13(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Salisbury, R.H. (1984). Interest representation: The dominance of institutions. American Political Science Review, 78(1), 64–76.Google Scholar
Sandfort, J. R. (2000). Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: Examining public management from the front lines of the welfare system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 729–756.Google Scholar
Schneider, M., & Teske, P. (1992). Toward a theory of the political entrepreneur: Evidence from local government. The American Political Science Review, 86(3), 737–747.Google Scholar
Schneider, M., Teske, P. & Mintrom, M. (1995). Public entrepreneurs: Agents for change in American government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schnellenbach, J. (2007). Public entrepreneurship and the economics of reform. Journal of Institutional Economics, 3(2), 183–202.Google Scholar
Schott, C., & van Kleef, D. (2019). Mixed-methods designs in street-level bureaucracy research. In Hupe, P. (Ed.), Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy (pp. 294–303). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J.A. (1994[1942]). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J.A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic History, 7(2), 149–159.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., & Bohner, G. (2001). The construction of attitudes. In Tesser, A. & Schwarz, N. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes, vol. 1 (pp. 436–457). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scott, P.G. (1997). Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: An experiment in street-level decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), 35–58.Google Scholar
Scott, S.G., & Bruce, R.A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.Google Scholar
Selden, S.C. (1997). The promise of the representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. Armonk: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
Self, P. (2000). Rolling back the state: Economic dogma and political choice. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Shpaizman, I., Swed, O., & Pedahzur, A. (2016). Policy change inch by inch: Policy entrepreneurs in the Holy Basin of Jerusalem. Public Administration, 94(4), 1042–1058.Google Scholar
Smith, K.A. (2011). Edward Jenner and the small pox vaccine. Frontiers in Immunology, 2, 21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2011.00021.Google Scholar
Soss, J. , Fording, R.C., Schram, S.F., & Schram, S. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sowa, J.E., & Selden, S.C. (2003). Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 700–710.Google Scholar
Spenceley, S.M., Reutter, L., & Allen, M.N. (2006). The road less traveled: Nursing advocacy at the policy level. Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice, 7, 180–194.Google Scholar
Stevenson, H.H., & Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.Google Scholar
Strier, R., & Feldman, G. (2018). Reengineering social work’s political passion: Policy practice and neo-liberalism. British Journal of Social Work, 48(3), 751–768.Google Scholar
Sullivan, M., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76–88.Google Scholar
Taylor, F. (1947[1911]). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Thomann, E. (2019). Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) as a tool for street-level bureaucracy research. In Hupe, P. (Ed.), Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy (pp. 370–391). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Thomann, E., Hupe, P.L. & Sager, F. (2018). Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation. Governance, 31(2), 299–319.Google Scholar
Thomann, E., & Sager, F. (2017). Moving beyond legal compliance: Innovative approaches to EU multilevel implementation. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(9), 1253–1268.Google Scholar
Thomas, T.W., Seifert, P.C., & Joyner, J.C. (2016). Registered nurses leading innovative changes. The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol21No03Man03Google Scholar
Tkachev, A., & Kolvereid, L. (1999). Self-employment intentions among Russian students. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(3), 269–280.Google Scholar
Tummers, L.G. (2011). Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: A policy alienation framework. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), 555–581.Google Scholar
Tummers, L.G. (2013). Policy alienation and the power of professionals: Confronting new policies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547.Google Scholar
Tummers, L., Bekkers, V., & Steijn, B. (2009). Policy alienation of public professionals: Application in a new public management context. Public Management Review, 11(5), 685-706.Google Scholar
Tummers, L., Steijn, B., & Bekkers, V. (2012). Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement public policies: Content, context, and personality characteristics. Public Administration, 90, 716–736.Google Scholar
Turale, S. (2015). Writing about nursing and health policy perspectives. International Nursing Review, 62(4), 433–434.Google Scholar
van Ewijk, A.R., & Belghiti-Mahut, S. (2019). Context, gender and entrepreneurial intentions. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 11(4). http://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-05-2018-0054.Google Scholar
Vazire, S., & Mehl, M.R. (2008). Knowing me, knowing you: The accuracy and unique predictive validity of self-ratings and other-ratings of daily behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1202–1216.Google Scholar
Walker, R.M. (2006). Innovation type and diffusion: An empirical analysis of local government. Public Administration, 84(2), 311–335.Google Scholar
Watkins-Hayes, C. (2009). The new welfare bureaucrats: Entanglements of race, class, and policy reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Webb, T.L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268.Google Scholar
Weiss-Gal, I. & Gal, J. (2014). Social workers as policy actors. Journal of Social Policy, 43(01), 19–36.Google Scholar
Westley, F. (2002). The devil in the dynamics: Adaptive management on the front lines. In Gunderson, L.H. & Holling, C.S. (Eds.), Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 333–360). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Wharf, B. & McKenzie, B. (1998). Connecting policy to practice in the human services. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whyte, W.F. (1943). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wiggins, J. (2004). Motivation, ability and opportunity to participate: A reconceptulization of the RAND model of audience development. International Journal of Arts Management, 7(1), 22–33.Google Scholar
Wilkins, V.M., & Keiser, L.R. (2006). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 87–102.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (1989). Bureaucracy: What governments do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.Google Scholar
Wood, B.D., & Vedlitz, A. (2007). Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 552–568.Google Scholar
Wood, B.D., & Waterman, R.W. (1993). The dynamics of political-bureaucratic adaptation. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 497–528.Google Scholar
Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2005). Re-approaching the politics/administration dichotomy and its impact on administrative ethics. Public Integrity, 7(2), 110–127.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R.W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342.Google Scholar
Zacka, B. (2017). When the state meets the street: Public service and moral agency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zahariadis, N. (2003). Ambiguity and choice in public policy: Political decision making in modern democracies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 514–530.Google Scholar
Zahariadis, N. (2016a). Delphic oracles: Ambiguity, institutions, and multiple streams. Policy Sciences, 49(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
Zahariadis, N. (2016b). Political leadership, multiple streams and the emotional endowment effect: A comparison of American and Greek foreign policies. In Zohlnhӧfer, R. & Rüb, F.W. (Eds.), Decision-making under ambiguity and time constraints (pp. 147–166). Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Zahariadis, N., & Exadaktylos, T. (2016). Policies that succeed and programs that fail: Ambiguity, conflict, and crisis in Greek higher education. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 59–82.Google Scholar
Zauderer, C.R., Ballestas, H.C., Cardoza, M.P., Hood, P., & Neville, S.M. (2007). United we stand: Preparing nursing students for political activism. Journal of the New York State Nurses’ Association, 39(2), 4–7.Google Scholar
Zhu, X. (2008). Strategy of Chinese policy entrepreneurs in the third sector: Challenges of “technical infeasibility.” Policy Sciences, 41(4), 315–334.Google Scholar
- 64
- Cited by