CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
5.1.0 Findings on research questions
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
98
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
After the analysis in chapter four, succinct propositions on policy entrepreneurs in higher education policies are depicted in this chapter. On the basis of these propositions, the author propels practical implications for policy makers. In this section, potential directions for future research are also presented.
5.1.0 Findings on research questions
I. How policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments go through a politics stream? Do they adopt different strategies?
Proposition1
To both policy entrepreneurs, political coalition is the goal in a politics stream, but they should go through a multiple-principals competition as a prerequisite of
political buffering. In order to attain effective power coalition, policy entrepreneurs adopted diverse strategies of power sharing. Their strategies are implemented in following steps, inclusive of obtaining information from critical stakeholders, persuading targeted stakeholders, and devising format of delegated power.
However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a politics stream.
A. Goal: Effective political coalition
Party ideology, national mood and the identity of policy entrepreneurs explain that political coalition represents the goal for policy entrepreneurs in a politics stream. Both policy entrepreneurs were located in newly emerging political regimes utilizing political coalition to consolidate their power; they sensed and followed the party ideology
aforementioned. Meanwhile, for the national mood indicated unhampered bureaucracy, both policy entrepreneurs aimed at gaining the supports from stakeholders to propel their proposal. Not only due to national mood, as emerging policy leaders without
conventional authorities, policy entrepreneurs also relied on political supports from stakeholders to strengthen their legitimacy of policy formulation.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
99
B. Contextualized prerequisite: Multiple-principals competition
The multiple-principals competition constitutes a prerequisite in a politics stream. Once policy entrepreneurs expected to enter a politics stream, they should compete with other principals for the targeted agents’ support. University councils, teachers’ unions or students’ associations were major principals to both policy entrepreneurs; these principals not only delegated tasks to universities, but also proposed their own competing agenda to win universities’ support. In a politics stream, stakeholders and universities from both cases challenged policy entrepreneurs and other principals to clarify potential benefit of their proposal. Thus, policy entrepreneurs should actively interpret those issues and they can survive in multiple-principals competition.
C. Strategy: Approaches of power sharing
After passing the threshold of a politics stream, policy entrepreneurs adopted diverse approaches of power sharing to reach their goals. Though their approaches of power sharing are diverse, but the implementation of strategies can be broken down into three stages, inclusive of obtaining information from critical stakeholders, persuading targeted stakeholders, and devising format of delegated power.
D. Difference in strategies of sharing power
Policy entrepreneurs adopted diverse strategies in a politics stream in terms of three stages aforementioned. First, about obtaining information from critical stakeholders, policy entrepreneurs from governments prefer formal pattern of communication with conventional representatives while their peers from universities utilize formal and informal occasions with diverse audience. As to persuading targeted stakeholders, policy entrepreneurs from governments tend to propel institutional value but those from
universities are aware of personal benefit. When it comes to devising format of delegated power, policy entrepreneurs from governments choose to shift complete authority to higher education institutions while those from universities select gradual approach.
Figure 12 shows variables and their relationship in this proposition aforementioned.
To policy entrepreneurs who enter a politics stream, their strategy of power sharing plays a role as an independent variable, aiming at obtaining effective political coalition. During the stream, multiple-principals competition operates as a control variable to intermediate the effect of policy entrepreneurs’ strategies. And the effectiveness of political coalition
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
100
is taken as a dependent variable and that variable demonstrates the outcome of the
interaction between strategies of power sharing and multiple-principals competition.
Figure 12 Variables in a politics stream Source: Author
II. How policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments go through a problem stream? Do they adopt different strategies?
Proposition2
To policy entrepreneurs, gaining stakeholders’ problem preference is the goal in a problem stream, but they should meet the requirement on legitimacy of identity first, a contextualized prerequisite. In order to obtain stakeholders’ problem preference, policy entrepreneurs demonstrate legitimacy of content by various strategies, which contain flexibility of issue framing and acuity of stakeholders.
However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a politics stream.
However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a problem stream.
A. Goal: Stakeholders’ problem preference
Gaining stakeholders’ problem preference is the major goal for policy entrepreneurs in a politics stream. In this stream, both policy entrepreneurs interpreted their problem preference to win critical stakeholders’ recognition via focusing events and feedbacks.
Effective political coalition Approaches of
power sharing
Multiple-principals competition
Goal (DV) Strategy
(IV)
Contextualized prerequisite (CV)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
101
B. Contextualized prerequisite: Legitimacy of identity
In a problem stream, before policy entrepreneurs propelled their proposals to appeal stakeholders’ attention, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments both should prove their legitimacy of identity. The legitimacy of identity means if policy entrepreneurs have appropriate identities to interpret an issue as a problem to
stakeholders; their legitimacy of identity derives from official authority, expertise or representative of stakeholders.
C. Strategy: Legitimacy of content
After fulfilling the prerequisite of legitimacy of identity, policy entrepreneurs should demonstrate their legitimacy of content. The legitimacy of content indicates if policy entrepreneurs’ statement of problem is supported by majority of stakeholders. The more stakeholders recognized the problem is a crisis in priority, the more legitimacy of content a policy entrepreneur obtains. Flexibility of framing and acuity of stakeholders are critical elements determining the legitimacy of content in a problem stream. Flexibility of issue framing means the constraints and capability a policy entrepreneur bears while acuity of stakeholders indicates the degree policy entrepreneurs link problem with potential treats and incentives of targeted audience.
D. Difference in strategies of identities of content
Policy entrepreneurs adopted diverse strategies in a problem stream by demonstrating various identities of content. About flexibility of framing, policy entrepreneurs from governments are constrained by hierarchical bureaucracy while their peers from universities are free to do risky choices, such as crisis or scandals. As to acuity of
stakeholders, policy entrepreneurs from governments prefer positive spillover to negative feedbacks but those from universities are prone to negative feedbacks close to
stakeholders’ pursuits.
Figure 13 shows variables and their relationship in this proposition aforementioned.
To policy entrepreneurs who enter a problem stream, their strategies about demonstrating legitimacy of content plays a role as an independent variable, aiming at gaining
stakeholders’ problem preference. During the stream, legitimacy of identity operates as a control variable to intermediate the outcome of policy entrepreneurs’ strategies. And the recognition of stakeholders’ problem preference is taken as a dependent variable; that
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
102
variable shows the result of interaction between legitimacy of content and legitimacy of identity.
Figure 13 Variables in a problem stream Source: Author
III. How policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments go through a policy stream with different motivation, strategies and conditions? Do they adopt different strategies?
Proposition 3
To policy entrepreneurs, creating or seizing a window of policy is the goal of a policy stream. First, they should go through a contextualized prerequisite of political acceptability in a policy stream. After meeting the requirement above, policy entrepreneurs adopted strategies to demonstrate technological feasibility, consisting of scope of reform, available workforce and option of alternatives.
However, policy entrepreneurs from universities and governments have identical goals, face similar prerequisite but adopted diverse strategies in a policy stream.
A. Goal: Window of policy
Creating or seizing a window of policy is the goal for policy entrepreneurs in a policy stream. A window of policy, theorized by Kingdon’s theory, is a crisis, an event or a political turnover that facilitates policy entrepreneurs to submit their proposal to the authorities. Once their agenda goes through a policy window, policy entrepreneurs’
proposals can be listed in decision agenda. In this stream, the format of a policy solution Gaining stakeholders’
problem preference Legitimacy of
content
Legitimacy of identity
Goal (DV) Strategy
(IV)
Contextualized prerequisite (CV)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
103
determines which organization owns the power of approval. So, policy entrepreneurs’
selections are never random choices; they select the very arena in which they have relative strength to create or seize windows of policy by selecting the format of policy solutions.
B. Contextualized prerequisite: Political acceptability
Political acceptability is a contextualized prerequisite in a policy stream; it indicates that policy proposals from a policy entrepreneur conform to benefit of stakeholders and that of their affiliated institutions. Not until policy entrepreneurs’ policies meet the definition of political acceptability, they don’t have chance to demonstrate details of policy design for stakeholders.
C. Strategy: Technological feasibility
In addition to political acceptability, policy entrepreneurs should prove their policy design is technologically feasible. The definition of technological feasibility means policy entrepreneurs can demonstrate details of implementation, technicalities, and actual mechanisms. In a policy stream, technological feasibility can be broken down into following major elements, inclusive of scope of reform, available workforce and option of alternatives.
D. Difference in strategies of technological feasibility
Policy entrepreneurs adopted diverse strategies in a policy stream by presenting different technologically feasibility. First, about scope of reform, policy entrepreneurs from governments with pressure of election are apt to dramatic innovation while their peer from universities has currency to brew a project in controllable scope. As to available workforce, the combination of policy entrepreneurs from governments tends to be public officers and part-time scholars while those from universities can find experts from diverse fields to be their team members. In terms of the number of alternatives, policy entrepreneurs from governments located in hierarchical system have limited alternatives, but those from universities surrounded by professional networks can own flexible
options.
Figure 14 illustrates variables and their relationship in this proposition aforementioned.
To policy entrepreneurs who enter a policy stream, their strategies about demonstrating technological feasibility plays a role as an independent variable, aiming at creating or
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
104
seizing window of policy. During the stream, political acceptability operates as a control variable to intermediate the outcome of policy entrepreneurs’ strategies. Creating or seizing window of policy is taken as a dependent variable; that variable shows the outcome of the interaction between their strategies with technological feasibility and stakeholders’ policy acceptability.
Figure 14 Variables in a policy stream Source: Author