CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.4 Research gap of policy entrepreneurs in Asia
Table 5 Policy entrepreneurs for networking governance
Source: Adapted from (Brouwer & Biermann, 2011; Heise, 2013; Lu, 2009; Wang & Hsung, 2012)
2.1.4 Research gap of policy entrepreneurs in Asia
Though policy entrepreneurs have been detected in previous dimensions, several
research gaps haven’t been fulfilled yet. The first research gap worthy of notice is insufficient proposition about Asian policy entrepreneurs. Table 6 illustrates extant literature on policy entrepreneurs contextualized in Asia from 1997 to 2015, there are only four articles. Two of them discussed policy entrepreneurs for urban management in China while the rest focuses on policy entrepreneurs’ intermediation for city development in Taiwan (Hammond, 2013;Lu, 2009; Wang & Hsung, 2012; Zhu, 2008). Secondly, as to the role of policy entrepreneurs, 75% of them focus on conventional policy entrepreneurs inside the governments rather than on those with diverse origins. Moreover, as to contribution of theory, except Zhu (2008) proposed a new concept of anti-feasibility, the rest follows conventional structure of multiple streams framework. Limited literature aforementioned that reflects the concept of policy entrepreneurs just newly emerges in Asia, but also reveals how to magnify this role in policy formulation still lacks guidelines for Asian governments and potential policy entrepreneurs.
No. Topic Author Relevant research findings Country
1
Towards adaptive management:
examining the strategies of policy entrepreneurs in Dutch water management linking, and game linking to achieve networking
governance.
Dutch
2
Agenda setting and alternative choices of Su-Hwa highway decision-making: A multiple streams perspective
Lu
Policy entrepreneurs play as flexible communicators among stakeholders, bureaucracies, and business communities.
Taiwan
3
Using network analysis for researching brokerage roles in policy process: the case of Taichung city’s development domain before and after the lifting of martial law
Wang
&Hsung
Local politicians, local elites and construction companies are all effective agencies for resource exchanging among diverse networks.
Taiwan
2
Law and policy entrepreneurs:
empirical evidence on the expansion of school choice policy
Heise
Policy entrepreneurs utilized strategies of networking on policy legislation of school choice.
U.S.
‧
Table 6 Literature of Asian policy entrepreneur
No. Topic Author Case of
Public officers China
3 after the lifting of martial law
Source: Adapted from (Hammond, 2013; Lu, 2009; Wang & Hsung, 2012; Zhu, 2008)
In comparison to research on Asian policy entrepreneurs, literature in Western countries is relatively abundant in amount of paper, research dimensions, and origins of policy
entrepreneurs. From 1997 to 2015, there’re 10 pieces of research paper on policy
entrepreneurs. Those researchers explored policy entrepreneurs in various countries, including the United States. (Botterill, 2013; Crow, 2011; Heise, 2012; Mintrom, 1997), Australia
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
23
(Mintrom, 2013), Brazil (Wampler, 2007), the United Kingdom (Mintrom, 2009), and Dutch (Huitema, Lebel Meijerink, 2011). Moreover, these dimensions of research are quite diverse. First, eighty percent of these articles center on policy entrepreneurs who originated from non-government sector, such as foundations, universities and political parties. Various dimensions of policy entrepreneurs are detected as well, inclusive of policy entrepreneurs’
strategies, identities, influence, ways of idea diffusion, and political coalition. Most important of all, when these papers are put together, those research findings almost depict a model, which elaborates how policy entrepreneurs go through various policy processes and propose their agenda in Western context. These propositions are of benefit to potential policy
entrepreneurs in these countries.
When bottom-up policy formation can be easily accepted by Western culture of
decentralization, policy entrepreneurs may bring more impact confronting the culture of East Asia, who used to centralized governance. As previous researchers identified that though the expansion of democracy also provides citizens with opportunities of policy formation
(Avritzer, 2002; Grindle, 2000; Heller, 2000; Shah, 2007), policy entrepreneurs have chance to stimulate quality of public policies and trigger democracy of policy formulation. Thus, not only contributing a piece of research finding in Asian policy entrepreneurs, this dissertation is designated to clarify East Asian model by elaborating how a policy entrepreneurs go through multiple policy process contextualized in Asia.
‧
Table 7 Literature on policy entrepreneurs in Western countries No. Topic Author Case of research Research
Botterill Drought policies
Policy
Mintrom Education policy
Diffusion of innovation by policy
entrepreneurs U.S.
‧
Source: Adapted from (Botterill, 2013; Crow, 2010; Huitema, Lebel Meijerink , 2011;
Heise, 2012; Hammond, 2013; Mintrom, 1997; Mintrom& Norman, 2009; Mintrom, 2013;
Wampler, 2007)
Another research gap requires fulfilling is the insufficiency of education policy research.
From 1997 to 2015, there’re only two pieces of research paper on education policy. Both of them focus on school choice, a school option for voluntary education, contextualized in America. Mintrom (1997) analyzed the relationship between policy entrepreneurs and diffusion of innovation while Heise (2012) explored how policy entrepreneurs facilitated policy legitimation. However, the complex of education policy formulation contains at least characteristics identified in the beginning of this section, inclusive of competition of
innovation, networking governance, and citizens’ participation. In other words, education policy formulation requires participation of policy entrepreneurs as well; limited literature
No. Topic Author Case of research Research
Heise School choice
Policy
Mintrom Policy with moral issues
Mintrom Education policy
Diffusion
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
26
may undermine the possibility of emergence of policy entrepreneurship in this field. That is another gap this dissertation aims at fulfilling. By analyzing how various policy entrepreneurs propose policy agenda of higher education and how they interact with these stakeholders, our research findings pave a roadmap for Asian policy entrepreneurship.
2.2.0 Theoretical concept and traits of policy entrepreneurs
The theoretical concept of policy entrepreneurs originates from multiple streams
framework. Kingdon (1995) offers a dynamic set of policy processes in his “multiple streams framework”. He contends that policymaking contains dynamic movements from problem, solution/policy and politics processes. These processes operate in a parallel manner, rather than a sequential pattern. This framework premises that a government is an organized anarchy with fluid participation, problematic preferences, and unclear technology (Cohen, 1972;
Kingdon, 1995; Zahariadis, 2007). In terms of public policy research, these assumptions make a step from conventional stage theory, which assumes policy decisions originate from a series of liner stages. To policy makers, the latter one hardly corresponds to the reality of policy formulation (Lu, 2009).
The literature has mentioned various traits of successful policy entrepreneurship (Cobb &
Elder, 1983; Kingdon, 1995; McLendon, 2003). These traits include displaying social acuity, making good use of policy networks and understanding the ideas, motives, and concerns of others in local policy contexts (Mintrom & Norman, 2009). Policy entrepreneurs also build and guide teams or political coalitions as well to effectively promote change of policy (Mintrom & Norman, 2009) and within this, they lead by example. The role of policy entrepreneurs contextualized in problem, solution/policy and politics streams is depicted theoretically as follows and figure 1 illustrates the relationship.
1. Policy entrepreneurs as interpreters in a problem stream
A problem stream consists of various issues from governments and citizens competing for attention. Once an issue is recognized as more important than the rest among decision makers, it is placed on the official agenda in priority. A policy entrepreneur is a critical interpreter who translates a neutral issue into a problem involving most stakeholders’
benefit. Via their sensitivity of the economic, societal and cultural environment, policy entrepreneurs propose public issues to draw public attention (Mintrom, 1997). In order to promote their problem preferences, policy entrepreneurs may develop the evaluation of previous programs as feedbacks translated into negative or positive response based on
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
27
diverse goals (Kingdon, 1995). Policy entrepreneurs utilize focusing events for those events lead people’s perception to specific dimensions of problems (Birkland, 1997;
Jones, 1994; Zahariadis, 2007). The role of policy entrepreneur in a problem stream can be summarized by Kingdon’s note, “Getting people to see new problems, or to see old problems in one way rather than another, is a major conceptual and political
accomplishment”(Kingdon, 1995).
2. Policy entrepreneurs as brokers in a politics stream
In a politics stream, policy actors fighting for their agendas should take following elements into considerations: national mood, interest groups, and party ideology (Kingdon, 1995). National mood means the consensus among the public in a given country (Zahariadis, 2007). Party ideology represents the political impact resulting from administrative or political turnover. As to interest groups, the concept indicates reaction and perspectives from communities involving in the specific policy agenda proposed by policy entrepreneurs. When a policy agenda corresponds to the national mood, pursuit of interest groups, or party ideologies, this agenda has a greater chance to be recognized by stakeholders. In a politics stream, policy entrepreneurs work as brokers. They make good use of policy networks; policy entrepreneurs understand the ideas, motives and concerns of others in local policy context and respond them effectively (Mintrom & Norman, 2009). In parallel, Wang & Sung (2013) pointed out, in the Chinese society, the frequent communication through the informal system facilitates the emergence of policy
entrepreneurs, who act as brokers. Especially, nowadays public policies rely on networking governance; that shines the importance of policy entrepreneurs as an intermediate broker.
3. Policy entrepreneurs as practical team leaders in a policy stream
A policy stream involves various solutions from policy proposers competing to win acceptance in political network. Value acceptability and technology feasibility are critical indexes to gain stakeholders’ supports in this stream. Technology feasibility means a proposal is equipped with the feasibility of implementation (Kingdon, 1995;
Zhu, 2008). Value acceptability is determined by the participants’ view on value promoted by this proposal (Kingdon, 1995). In order to draft solutions with feasibility and acceptability, policy entrepreneurs operate within a tight-knit team composed of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
28
members with diverse knowledge and skills, and that team facilitates policy entrepreneurs to promote change of policy (Mintrom & Norman, 2009).
And they work as practical team leaders to propose their projects.
Figure 1 Theoretical concepts and traits of policy entrepreneurs Source: Adapted from Zahariadis, 2007
2.2.1 Theoretical gap of policy entrepreneurs
In terms of theory development, there’re still research gaps. First, multiple streams framework didn’t identify the background of policy entrepreneurs; in reality, researchers and practitioners expect to figure out if expertise, political power or citizenship are influential to the action of policy entrepreneurs. Mintrom (2013) explored the knowledge economy in Australia and specified the policy entrepreneurs should demonstrate their capability in making compelling arguments based on solid base for changing the status quo. Therefore, with the prevailing wave of knowledge economy, policy entrepreneurs with the expertise are capable of conducting policy change.
Moreover, Crow (2010) researched the water right policy in Colorado and indicated experts rather than citizens demonstrated most influence. Besides policy entrepreneurs from experts and citizens, Wampler (2007) discussed policy entrepreneurs from the authorities in his research on the policy of participatory budgeting proposed by international agencies. Wamper
Policy window
• Value acceptability
• Technology feasibility
Policy entrepreneurs as interpreters in a problem stream
• Feedbacks
• Focusing events
• National mood
• Interest groups
• Party ideology
Policy entrepreneurs as brokers in a politics stream
Policy entrepreneurs as practical team leaders in a policy stream
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
29
(2007) categorized the role from the authorities into three kinds of actors, policy
entrepreneurs, policy advocates and pro forma adopters. Policy advocate are the politician or bureaucrat who promoted successful ideas from other region while pro forma adopters implement these ideas by the top-down order. In conclusion, policy entrepreneurs who own the largest political benefit and take the most enormous risk will contribute the most among these three roles. Thus, when more and more policy entrepreneurs join policy formation in higher education, identifying the suitable background of policy entrepreneurs becomes an urgent research issue. However, from 1995 to 2015, there is limited literature on this part.
In this study, those cases from policy entrepreneurs inside and outside governments facilitate the author to explore diverse backgrounds of policy entrepreneurs.
Moreover, policy entrepreneurs are depicted as critical roles coupling streams of politics, policy and problem together for opportunity of policy window. That is still vague description to practitioners. Several researchers care about practical functions of policy entrepreneurs.
Are they decisive to policy change? Or policy entrepreneurs are just brokers? In the research finding from the drought policy in the United States. and Australia, Botterill (2013) concluded that policy entrepreneurs’ action still requires decisive political action at high level. However, from 1995 to 2015, relevant literature is still limited. Through practical cases in this study, policy entrepreneurs’ roles and functions will be specified, and that the other academic contribution of this dissertation.
2.3.0 Policy context for policy entrepreneurs
As Mintrom (2013) indicated policy entrepreneurs master negotiating at specific operating context. In other word, the operating context determines policy entrepreneurs’
success. In terms of higher education policy, policy entrepreneurs face implicit and explicit contexts influential to higher education policy formation.
2.3.1 Pattern of interaction between governments and universities
In terms of policy formation, the interaction between governments and universities is dominantly interpreted by principal-agency theory (Kivisto, 2007). According to this theory, due to complexity of academia, limited capacity and insufficient information, governments tend to delegate specific tasks to universities by implicit or explicit contracts (Lambert, 2001;
Leifner, 2003). Those tasks consist of fostering talents, conducting research, and contributing to social service. Higher education policies, such as competitive grant based on academic
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
30
performance, funding in accordance with students’ enrollment and university evaluation, are formulated by the contractual rationale aforementioned.
However, even these policy makers set up their tasks as detailed contracts, they still face following risks, such as information asymmetries, goal conflicts, adverse selection and moral hazard (Holtta, 2008; Jongbloed & Vossensteyn, 2001; Kivisto, 2007; Smart, 2001). In order to prevent public interest from being diminished by those risks aforementioned, governments devise various monitoring mechanisms and incentives to secure expected performance from universities (Kivisto, 2007; Saam, 2007). In additional to the contractual interaction,
monitoring mechanisms and incentives constitutes specific devices in higher education policies, such as education quality assurance.
Nevertheless, the conventional assumption of higher education policy formation has been undermined. Single-principal-single-agent pattern has been taken as conventional pattern of interaction among universities and governments in Asia. Extant literature indicated that multiple-principal-single-agent pattern explains the government-university relation more completely than single-principal-single-agent one does (Kivisto, 2007). With increasing complexity of higher education, legislators, faculties’ unions, university associations and industries collaborating with universities all become significant principals to higher education institutions nowadays. These principals set up implicit or explicit contracts with higher education institutions by a variety of ways as well. Legislators passed regulations on
universities’ operation to assure public interests. Faculties’ unions negotiate with universities on the welfare of staff; corporations donating to universities expect to assure universities’
proper conduct. Even in the governmental system, various actors often share the power as a principal from a government.
In brief, the policy environment for policy entrepreneurs no longer suits
single-principal-single-agent pattern, they are situated in a multiple-principal-single-agent situation nowadays. When it comes to multiple-principals-single-agent pattern, the policy agenda become an arena in which diverse principals compete with each other. Therefore, the assumption from principal-agency theory should be redefined. In other words, the
conventional policy formation of higher education has transformed. In terms of policy formation, the interaction between governments and universities nowadays represents following traits.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
31
1. Difficulties of specifying details of contracts
The tasks from diverse principals complicate the process of settling the contract between universities and governments. Due to the complexity of higher education, various tasks from legislators, faculties’ unions and industries collaborating with universities make it tough for governments to specify their requirements of higher education policies. During these years, several grant policies from East Asian government encountered the situation aforementioned. Since 2004, the government in Japan and that in Korea only set up guidelines of higher education development and universities can develop their own mid-term plan based on these general directions. Governments in Taiwan also allow universities to provide their own indexes of accountability rather than abiding by those set by the MOE. So the effect of contractual pattern between universities and governments has diminished.
2. Suspect on conflict of interest, adverse selection, and moral hazard When universities work for diverse principals who also represent various
stakeholders of higher education at the same time, the theoretical assumption about shrinking and conflict of interest may not be severe or even happen. Meanwhile, asymmetry of information between governments and universities are diminished.
When the global competition of higher education gets intensive, short-term, transparent information of accountability and operation are easily accessed via public media or universities themselves in time. Potential negative behaviors from asymmetry of information will be easily detected.
As Kivisto (2007) questioned, “Should a university accept all the goals of the government without questioning their effects on freedom? Or, what happen if universities understand better than the government which higher education goals the government should be
promoting?” When governments face the multiple-principals-single-agent situation nowadays, policy entrepreneurship may be a potential solution for them to replace conventional
contractual relationship with universities.
Policy entrepreneurs may solve the dilemma which governments and universities are
challenged by the multiple-principals-single-agent situation. First, as an agency delegated by various principals, policy entrepreneurs from universities have the capability of integrating diverse principals’ needs; those principals to universities highly overlap with stakeholders of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
32
higher education policy nowadays, such as students, parents, and industries requiring
academic service, governments, and so on. Thus, universities have the strength to understand diverse principals’ needs on the basis of their unique profession and intermediary roles. To governments, policy entrepreneurs from universities facilitate them to meet the stakeholders’
demand and conduct the complexity of academic easily.
Secondly, when universities face multiple principals, they should pursue their interest of efficiency and effect of limited resource to conduct tasks satisfying most of the principals in parallel. That condition shapes a more advantageous condition to governments. If
governments let universities lead the policy agenda in the multiple-principal-single-agent situation, they may have better defined tasks of contract, more support from the stakeholders and more efficiency of resources. Thus, the updated agent-principal theory support this study’s assumptions. And this theory is adopted as analysis tool for cases.
2.4.0 Policy entrepreneurs in cultural dynamics
Cultural impact is significant to education policy formation, and therefore shapes the pattern of policy entrepreneurs in that region (Marginson, 2011; Wu, 2006; Wursten & Jacobs, 2014). Culture has played a significant role in the contextual elements for policy
entrepreneurs; as Hofstede (1980) defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others.” To East Asia and Taiwan, impact from culture derives from the mixture of regional traits, global trends and local society. Thus, in this study, those dynamics are taken as indexes for control variables.
Detailed description will be elaborated in chapter 3.
1. Regional dynamics of culture
Education systems of China, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore and Taiwan are deeply influenced by Confucian education and culture. Marginson (2011) identified four interrelated features of Confucian system; those features are listed as below and illustrated in figure 2.
Education systems of China, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore and Taiwan are deeply influenced by Confucian education and culture. Marginson (2011) identified four interrelated features of Confucian system; those features are listed as below and illustrated in figure 2.