IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v40y2023i4p490-508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The times make a hero: Street‐level policy entrepreneurship in major crisis responses in China

Author

Listed:
  • Na Tang
  • Muyu He

Abstract

Street‐level bureaucrats are often grassroots officials, and they are regarded as passive practitioners of policy with no authority to change policy or innovate, while policy entrepreneurs are usually high‐level officials. Based on observations of China's responses to two national crises, this study found that the times do make a hero. When acting as innovative frontline technocrats, major transboundary crisis practitioners, and management savvy operators within the top‐down bureaucracy, street‐level bureaucrats can become policy entrepreneurs. To innovate and drive policy change, street‐level policy entrepreneurs will adopt innovative strategies. They will make efficient use of their expertise and discretion, integrate various resources, strive for attention from superiors, consolidate their achievements, and expand their influence. 街头官僚往往是基层官员,他们被视为政策的被动实践者,没有权力改变政策或推动创新,而政策企业家通常是高层官员。基于对中国两次国家危机响应的观察,本研究发现,时代的确造就英雄。当在自上而下的官僚体制中充当创新的一线技术官僚、主要的跨边界危机实践者和精通管理的操作者时,街头官僚可以转变为政策企业家。为了创新和推动政策变革,街头政策企业家将采用创新战略。他们将高效利用自己的专业知识和自由裁量权、整合各种资源、争取上级的重视、巩固自己的成就、并扩大其影响力。 Los burócratas de nivel de ventanilla a menudo son funcionarios de base, y se los considera practicantes pasivos de políticas sin autoridad para cambiar políticas o innovar, mientras que los empresarios de políticas suelen ser funcionarios de alto nivel. Basado en las observaciones de las respuestas de China a dos crisis nacionales, este estudio encontró que los tiempos hacen a un héroe. Cuando actúan como tecnócratas innovadores de primera línea, importantes practicantes de crisis transfronterizas y operadores expertos en gestión dentro de la burocracia de arriba hacia abajo, los burócratas de nivel de ventanilla pueden convertirse en empresarios de políticas. Para innovar e impulsar el cambio de políticas, los emprendedores de políticas a nivel de calle adoptarán estrategias innovadoras. Harán un uso eficiente de su experiencia y discreción, integrarán diversos recursos, buscarán la atención de sus superiores, consolidarán sus logros y ampliarán su influencia.

Suggested Citation

  • Na Tang & Muyu He, 2023. "The times make a hero: Street‐level policy entrepreneurship in major crisis responses in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(4), pages 490-508, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:4:p:490-508
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12550
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12550
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12550?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexander C. Henderson & Sanjay K. Pandey, 2013. "Leadership in Street-Level Bureaucracy: An Exploratory Study of Supervisor-Worker Interactions in Emergency Medical Services," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 7-23, April.
    2. Caner Bakir & Sinan Akgunay & Kerem Coban, 2021. "Why does the combination of policy entrepreneur and institutional entrepreneur roles matter for the institutionalization of policy ideas?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 397-422, June.
    3. Chunyu Shi & Emilie Frenkiel, 2021. "Policy entrepreneurship under hierarchy: how state actors change policies in China," Journal of Chinese Governance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 351-374, July.
    4. Gwen Arnold, 2015. "Street-level policy entrepreneurship," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 307-327, March.
    5. Deserai Anderson Crow, 2010. "Policy Entrepreneurs, Issue Experts, and Water Rights Policy Change in Colorado," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(3), pages 299-315, May.
    6. Ian Goldin & Mike Mariathasan, 2015. "The Butterfly Defect: How Globalization Creates Systemic Risks, and What to Do about It," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10214-2.
    7. Lars Tummers & Victor Bekkers, 2014. "Policy Implementation, Street-level Bureaucracy, and the Importance of Discretion," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 527-547, May.
    8. Dylan Henderson, 2019. "Policy entrepreneurship in context: Understanding the emergence of novel policy solutions for services innovation in Finland and Ireland," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(5), pages 668-678.
    9. Gitte Sommer Harrits & Marie Østergaard Møller, 2014. "Prevention at the Front Line: How home nurses, pedagogues, and teachers transform public worry into decisions on special efforts," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 447-480, May.
    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. Gwen Arnold & Meghan Klasic & Changtong Wu & Madeline Schomburg & Abigail York, 2023. "Finding, distinguishing, and understanding overlooked policy entrepreneurs," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 657-687, December.
    2. Hani Nouman & Nissim Cohen, 2023. "When active representation is not enough: ethnic minority street-level workers in a divided society and policy entrepreneurship," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 777-795, December.
    3. Nihit Goyal & Michael Howlett & Namrata Chindarkar, 2020. "Who coupled which stream(s)? Policy entrepreneurship and innovation in the energy–water nexus in Gujarat, India," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1), pages 49-64, February.
    4. Changkun Cai & Qiyao Shen & Na Tang, 2022. "Do visiting monks give better sermons? “Street‐level bureaucrats from higher‐up” in targeted poverty alleviation in China," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 55-71, February.
    5. Norin Arshed & Colin Mason & Sara Carter, 2016. "Exploring the disconnect in policy implementation: A case of enterprise policy in England," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1582-1611, December.
    6. Resnick, Danielle & Okumo, Austen, 2017. "Subnational Variation in Policy Implementation: The Case of Nigerian Land Governance Reform," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 265412, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    7. Flynn Brendan, 2016. "The EU’s Maritime Security Strategy: a Neo-Medieval Perspective on the Limits of Soft Security?," Croatian International Relations Review, Sciendo, vol. 22(75), pages 9-37, August.
    8. Nick King & Aled Jones, 2021. "An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-32, July.
    9. Khalid Mehmood & Yaser Iftikhar & Aamir Suhail & Adil Zia, 2024. "How high-involvement work practices, public service motivation, and employees’ commitment influence employees' proactive work behavior: evidence from China," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 55-81, February.
    10. Didier Wernli & Lucas Böttcher & Flore Vanackere & Yuliya Kaspiarovich & Maria Masood & Nicolas Levrat, 2023. "Understanding and governing global systemic crises in the 21st century: A complexity perspective," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(2), pages 207-228, May.
    11. Frank L.K. Ohemeng & John K. Grant, 2023. "Studying Policy Entrepreneurs: How Phenomenology can Help Researchers," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1213-1228, September.
    12. Domenico Delli Gatti & Elisa Grugni, 2022. "Breaking bad: supply chain disruptions in a streamlined agent-based model," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(13-15), pages 1446-1473, October.
    13. Valeria Biffi Isla, 2022. "Community‐level bureaucrats conserving the Peruvian Amazon," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 44-54, February.
    14. Neomi Frisch-Aviram & Nissim Cohen & Itai Beeri, 2018. "Low-level bureaucrats, local government regimes and policy entrepreneurship," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(1), pages 39-57, March.
    15. Hachigian Heather, 2015. "Ambiguity, discretion and ethics in Norway’s sovereign wealth fund," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 17(4), pages 603-631, December.
    16. Mohammed Salah Hassan & Raja Noriza Raja Ariffin & Norma Mansor & Hussam Al Halbusi, 2021. "An Examination of Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Discretion and the Moderating Role of Supervisory Support: Evidence from the Field," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, June.
    17. Georg Wenzelburger & Pascal D. König & Frieder Wolf, 2019. "Policy Theories in Hard Times? Assessing the Explanatory Power of Policy Theories in the Context of Crisis," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 97-118, March.
    18. Ryan Wong & Jeroen van der Heijden, 2022. "How does symbolic commitment strengthen the resilience of sustainability institutions? Exploring the role of bureaucrats in Germany, Finland, and the UK," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 10-22, February.
    19. Mette Sønderskov & Rolf Rønning, 2021. "Public Service Logic: An Appropriate Recipe for Improving Serviceness in the Public Sector?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, June.
    20. Oelberger Carrie, 2024. "Avoiding Burnout with Compassionate Accompaniment: A Novel Approach to Training, Selecting, Managing, and Regulating Frontline Workers," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 153-166, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:4:p:490-508. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    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.