IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v58y2025i1d10.1007_s11077-024-09563-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Theorizing the functions and patterns of agency in the policymaking process

Author

Listed:
  • Giliberto Capano

    (University of Bologna)

  • Maria Tullia Galanti

    (University of Milan)

  • Karin Ingold

    (University of Bern
    Environmental Social Science Department, Eawag)

  • Evangelia Petridou

    (NTNU Social Research
    Mid Sweden University)

  • Christopher M. Weible

    (University of Colorado Denver)

Abstract

Theories of the policy process understand the dynamics of policymaking as the result of the interaction of structural and agency variables. While these theories tend to conceptualize structural variables in a careful manner, agency (i.e. the actions of individual agents, like policy entrepreneurs, policy leaders, policy brokers, and policy experts) is left as a residual piece in the puzzle of the causality of change and stability. This treatment of agency leaves room for conceptual overlaps, analytical confusion and empirical shortcomings that can complicate the life of the empirical researcher and, most importantly, hinder the ability of theories of the policy process to fully address the drivers of variation in policy dynamics. Drawing on Merton’s concept of function, this article presents a novel theorization of agency in the policy process. We start from the assumption that agency functions are a necessary component through which policy dynamics evolve. We then theorise that agency can fulfil four main functions – steering, innovation, intermediation and intelligence – that need to be performed, by individual agents, in any policy process through four patterns of action – leadership, entrepreneurship, brokerage and knowledge accumulation – and we provide a roadmap for operationalising and measuring these concepts. We then demonstrate what can be achieved in terms of analytical clarity and potential theoretical leverage by applying this novel conceptualisation to two major policy process theories: the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF).

Suggested Citation

  • Giliberto Capano & Maria Tullia Galanti & Karin Ingold & Evangelia Petridou & Christopher M. Weible, 2025. "Theorizing the functions and patterns of agency in the policymaking process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 58(1), pages 3-26, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:58:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-024-09563-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-024-09563-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-024-09563-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-024-09563-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sabine Saurugger & Fabien Terpan, 2016. "Do crises lead to policy change? The multiple streams framework and the European Union’s economic governance instruments," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(1), pages 35-53, March.
    2. Leach, William D. & Sabatier, Paul A., 2005. "To Trust an Adversary: Integrating Rational and Psychological Models of Collaborative Policymaking," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(4), pages 491-503, November.
    3. Sabine Saurugger & Fabien Terpan, 2016. "Do crises lead to policy change? The multiple streams framework and the European Union’s economic governance instruments," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(1), pages 35-53, March.
    4. Ishani Mukherjee & Michael Howlett, 2015. "Who Is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Public Policy-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 65-75.
    5. Ishani Mukherjee & Michael Howlett, 2015. "Who Is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Public Policy-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 65-75.
    6. Jonathan J. Pierce & Katrina Miller‐Stevens & Isabel Hicks & Dova Castaneda Zilly & Saigopal Rangaraj & Evan Rao, 2024. "How anger and fear influence policy narratives: Advocacy and regulation of oil and gas drilling in Colorado," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(1), pages 12-34, January.
    7. Christopher M. Weible & Paul Cairney & Jill Yordy, 2022. "A diamond in the rough: digging up and polishing Harold D. Lasswell’s decision functions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 209-222, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nihit Goyal & Michael Howlett & Araz Taeihagh, 2021. "Why and how does the regulation of emerging technologies occur? Explaining the adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation using the multiple streams framework," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1020-1034, October.
    2. Bernhard Zeilinger, 2021. "The European Commission as a Policy Entrepreneur under the European Semester," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(3), pages 63-73.
    3. Elizabeth A. Koebele, 2021. "When multiple streams make a river: analyzing collaborative policymaking institutions using the multiple streams framework," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 609-628, September.
    4. Richard Parrish, 2022. "EU Sport Diplomacy: An Idea Whose Time Has Nearly Come," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1511-1528, September.
    5. Matúš Mišík & Veronika Jursová Prachárová, 2023. "Coal Is a Priority for Energy Security, until It Is Not: Coal Phase-Out in the EU and Its Persistence in the Face of the Energy Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Laura Mastroianni, 2024. "How Do Crises Affect Policy Subsystems? The Evolution of Policy Core Beliefs in the EU Asylum Policy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(6), pages 1475-1499, November.
    7. Bernhard Zeilinger, 2021. "Die Wirkmächtigkeit des Europäischen Semesters und ihre Auswirkung auf die Interessensvertretung durch Arbeitnehmer:innenverbände," Working Paper Reihe der AK Wien - Materialien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 231, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik.
    8. Schreiber, Tim, 2017. "Post-crisis economic policy coordination in the EU: The European Semester as trigger for the Europeanization of national policies? An analysis of the European Semester's impact on French environmental," PIPE - Papers on International Political Economy 29/2017, Free University Berlin, Center for International Political Economy.
    9. Bernhard Zeilinger, 2021. "The European Commission as a Policy Entrepreneur under the European Semester," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(3), pages 63-73.
    10. Mišík, Matúš & Oravcová, Veronika, 2022. "Ex Ante Governance in the European Union: Energy and climate policy as a ‘test run’ for the post-pandemic recovery," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    11. Pim Derwort & Nicolas Jager & Jens Newig, 2019. "Towards productive functions? A systematic review of institutional failure, its causes and consequences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 281-298, June.
    12. Hossein Shirazi & Valiallah Vahdaninia & Ali Maleki, 2024. "COVID‐19 as an opportunity window for policy change; insights from electronic authentication case study in Iran," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(3), pages 471-490, May.
    13. Mark Lubell & Adam Douglas Henry & Mike McCoy, 2010. "Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 287-300, April.
    14. Jens Nilsson & Annica Sandström & Daniel Nohrstedt, 2020. "Beliefs, social identity, and the view of opponents in Swedish carnivore management policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 453-472, September.
    15. Peter Dithan Ntale & Jude Ssempebwa & Badiru Musisi & Genza Gyaviira Musoke & Kimoga Joseph & C. B. Mugimu & Ngoma Muhammed & Joseph Ntayi, 2020. "Gaps in the structuring of organizations in the graduate employment context in Uganda," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Gabriel Leonardo & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2016. "Politicians, bureaucrats, and tax morale: What shapes tax compliance attitudes?," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1608, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    17. Andrew F Smith, 2014. "Political deliberation and the challenge of bounded rationality," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 13(3), pages 269-291, August.
    18. Patricia A. McKay & Laura Schmitt Olabisi & Christine A. Vogt, 2020. "Assessing improvements in socio-ecological system governance using mixed methods and the quality governance framework and its diagnostic capacity tool," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 41-66, March.
    19. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder, 2024. "Perception and performance in environmental policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(1), pages 6-11, January.
    20. Russell W. Mills & Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, 2014. "Secondary learning and the unintended benefits of collaborative mechanisms: The Federal Aviation Administration's voluntary disclosure programs," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 437-454, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:58:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-024-09563-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.