Conceptualising and Mapping Norm, Policy and Social Entrepreneurship: Potential and Significance of Individual Agency in International Relations

“Entrepreneurship” has become a catch phrase pointing to the transformative role of individual actors. Norm (or moral), policy and social entrepreneurs have been identified. The paper aims for a conceptual clarification and mapping of these different types of entrepreneurs, distinguishing IR concepts of norm and policy entrepreneurship (Elgström; Finnemore/Sikkink; and Kingdon; Mintron; Huitema/Meijerink etc.) from concepts of social entrepreneurship (Drayton; Mair; Nicholls; Ziegler etc.). All types of entrepreneurs describe individuals who take agency on behalf of others without being appointed or delegated by citizens or “those affected”. While, however, the role of “norm entrepreneurs” and “policy entrepreneurs” is mainly analyzed in terms of their influence on (international) policy cycles, the study of “social entrepreneurs” is focused on (local) societal change, ignoring political conflict or impact associated with it. A second difference is the significance ascribed to the individual: Scholars of norm and policy entrepreneurship emphasize that individual entrepreneurs need organizational platforms, coalitions and networks in order to be successful (e.g. Henry Dunant and the International Red Cross movement), while in SE research the image of a lonely hero with a “new idea” (e.g. Muhammed Yunus with his idea of micro-credits) is dominant. The paper aims to resolve these alleged dualities and differences (political/societal, international/local, collective/solo attempt). By providing empirical evidence, the paper shows that norm, policy and social entrepreneurship mainly stand for different research perspectives but deal with the very same people. Their agency in all three cases has major potential and significance for international relations.