Is There an Instrument Constituency Behind the Popularity of Entrepreneurship Promotion Policies?

This paper explores whether the concept of instrument constituencies can provide a sufficient explanation for the sustained popularity of entrepreneurship promotion policies. The concept of instrument constituencies is a recent theoretical innovation, and there were only few empirical demonstrations so far. Their presence has not been studied for the policy measures in question. This paper can contribute to a better understanding of the trajectory of this policy instrument and can also help the advancement of theory. In recent years, policy measures aimed at increasing the number of entrepreneurs have been widely popular and have been promoted across different jurisdictions and issue areas. These policies try to motivate more people to become entrepreneurs, and they include a combination of promotion activities, provision of free or subsidised services (like mentoring), and financial support. Despite their popularity, their effectiveness was repeatedly questioned by scholars (see for example Acs et al., 2016). Regardless of concerns, the instrument remains actively promoted both by local experts and by international organisations. It is “prescribed” to alleviate various problems like unemployment, slow economic growth, inclusion of marginalised groups, etc. These observed peculiarities can indicate that there is an instrument constituency behind this sustained popularity. Instrument constituencies are composed of actors dedicated to the promotion of a particular policy instrument across different issue areas and jurisdictions (Voß & Simons, 2014). Actors are amalgamated by their commitment to a particular policy instrument or a particular way of implementing certain policies. Their presence was most notably demonstrated for some policy instruments like emissions trading systems (Voß & Simons, 2014), and some social policy instruments (Béland & Howlett, 2016). In line with previous applications, this paper includes a casual case study on the entrepreneurship policies of the OECD Countries in the last three decades. To find empirical evidence it relies on the large number of available policy documents on the topic, using recommendations and position papers, evaluations, as well as scholarly articles. Acs, Z., Åstebro, T., Audretsch, D., & Robinson, D. T. (2016). Public policy to promote entrepreneurship: A call to arms. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9712-2 Béland, D., & Howlett, M. (2016). How Solutions Chase Problems: Instrument Constituencies in the Policy Process: Instrument Constituencies in the Policy Process. Governance, 29(3), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12179 Voß, J.-P., & Simons, A. (2014). Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation: The social life of emissions trading. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.923625