Publication:
Why does the combination of policy entrepreneur and institutional entrepreneur roles matter for the institutionalization of policy ideas?

dc.contributor.coauthorAkgunay, Sinan
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of International Relations
dc.contributor.departmentGLODEM (The Center for Research on Globalization, Peace, and Democratic Governance)
dc.contributor.facultymemberYes
dc.contributor.kuauthorBakır, Caner
dc.contributor.kuauthorÇoban, Mehmet Kerem
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteCollege of Administrative Sciences and Economics
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteResearch Center
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-10T00:06:44Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstractPublic administration, public policy, and political economy literatures are increasingly preoccupied with the role of agency in policy and institutional change, and the effects of institutions on the agency of individual actors. However, linkages between policy and institutional entrepreneurship in processes of institutionalization remain a black box. This article aims to fill this void. It contributes to our understanding of processes underlying the institutionalization of policy ideas in the public sector that have not been investigated adequately. Based on an exploratory case study of the introduction and institutionalization of macroprudential policies to contain macro-financial risks in Turkey, this article argues that policy and institutional entrepreneurship processes are inextricably intertwined and fundamental to the institutionalization of policy ideas: the institutionalization of new policy ideas that resolve conflicting institutional logics and facilitate cooperation and/or collaboration in inter-bureaucratic policy formulation and implementation is most likely when an individual agent with the requisite resources and capabilities builds coalitions through combining the policy and institutional entrepreneur roles while undertaking discursive and powering strategies.
dc.description.fulltextNo
dc.description.harvestedfromManual
dc.description.indexedbyWOS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.openaccessNO
dc.description.peerreviewstatusN/A
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.readpublishN/A
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.description.versionN/A
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11077-021-09417-3
dc.identifier.eissn1573-0891
dc.identifier.embargoN/A
dc.identifier.issn0032-2687
dc.identifier.quartileQ1
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85103176046
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09417-3
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/16663
dc.identifier.wos630996800001
dc.keywordsPolicy entrepreneur
dc.keywordsInstitutional theory
dc.keywordsMacroprudential regulation
dc.keywordsSensemaking
dc.keywordsPowering strategy
dc.keywordsIdeas
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.relation.affiliationKoç University
dc.relation.collectionKoç University Institutional Repository
dc.relation.ispartofPolicy Sciences
dc.relation.openaccessN/A
dc.rightsN/A
dc.subjectPublic administration
dc.subjectSocial sciences
dc.subjectInterdisciplinary
dc.titleWhy does the combination of policy entrepreneur and institutional entrepreneur roles matter for the institutionalization of policy ideas?
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.kuauthorBakır, Caner
local.contributor.kuauthorÇoban, Mehmet Kerem
relation.isGoalOfPublication7346ee28-b548-437c-b7fa-4bbb11c1b5fb
relation.isGoalOfPublication.latestForDiscovery7346ee28-b548-437c-b7fa-4bbb11c1b5fb
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication9fc25a77-75a8-48c0-8878-02d9b71a9126
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationf60b64f7-1166-4939-b4e5-05f6b6fa319b
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery9fc25a77-75a8-48c0-8878-02d9b71a9126
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication972aa199-81e2-499f-908e-6fa3deca434a
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublicationd437580f-9309-4ecb-864a-4af58309d287
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery972aa199-81e2-499f-908e-6fa3deca434a

Files