Government officials as policy entrepreneurs – under what conditions do they take on this role in phases of policy design, and how do contextual factors influence how it evolves?

Government officials have an essential role in any policy process. They are important contributors to policy design, implementation, and evaluation. Research on the role of government officials in policy processes also shows that they have a greater potential for influencing policy processes compared to other stakeholders without the same access to politicians (Blom-Hansen et al., 2021). As a result, if they take on the role of a policy entrepreneur in a policy process, government officials have a greater potential for influencing how a policy process proceeds and the outcome of it. However, in contrast to other stakeholders, to maintain legitimacy and autonomy, government officials must find a balance between maintaining their bureaucratic neutrality and delivering adequate responses to demands from other stakeholders (politicians, interest groups, public interests, etc.) (Rimkutė & van der Voet, 2023). Consequently, being a policy entrepreneur carries risks, but research suggests that government officials often take on this role despite its associated risks (Frisch Aviram et al., 2020). However, it is still poorly understood how policy entrepreneurs emerge and how contextual factors influence how policy entrepreneurship evolves throughout a policy process (Petridou & Mintrom, 2021). Considering this, we suggest zooming in on the policy design phase of a policy process and asking: Under what conditions do government officials take the role of a policy entrepreneur in phases of policy design, and how do contextual factors influence how it evolves? To answer this question, we draw on the literature on institutional entrepreneurship (Battilana et al., 2009) and investigate this through a case study of the policy design phase within a policy process in Norway that aims to develop a new innovation policy oriented towards solving grand challenges. The government gave two different groups, consisting of government officials at the agency level, the task of each designing policy proposals for this new innovation policy within two thematic areas that cut across policy subsystems: (1) sustainable feed and (2) inclusion of children and young people in education, employment and society. Each group consisted of representatives from around ten government agencies. The data consists of meeting observations from each group, conducted throughout the design phase (May 2023-May 2024), interviews with group members, and documents related to their work. References: Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903053598 Blom-Hansen, J., Baekgaard, M., & Serritzlew, S. (2021). How bureaucrats shape political decisions: The role of policy information. Public Administration, 99(4), 658–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12709 Frisch Aviram, N., Cohen, N., & Beeri, I. (2020). Wind(ow) of Change: A Systematic Review of Policy Entrepreneurship Characteristics and Strategies. Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), 612–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12339 Petridou, E., & Mintrom, M. (2021). A Research Agenda for the Study of Policy Entrepreneurs. Policy Studies Journal, 49(4), 943–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12405 Rimkutė, D., & van der Voet, J. (2023). When do bureaucrats respond to external demands? A theoretical framework and empirical test of bureaucratic responsiveness. Public Administration Review, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13749