Political Entrepreneurs and the Evolution of Democracy

2018 ◽  
pp. 135-140
Author(s):  
Josef Lentsch
Author(s):  
Ronen Mandelkern

This chapter analyzes the role Israeli economists have played as purveyors of pro-market economic ideas and political entrepreneurs of economic liberalization in Israel. Israeli economists were strongly committed to economic liberalism already in the 1950s, but they were lacking decisive political influence. Two mechanisms increased their power over policy. First, long-term institutional changes gradually eroded “political” decision-making mechanism and opened the way to greater involvement of professional economists. This long-term trend was joined and reinforced by economists’ institutional entrepreneurship at the height of the 1980s economic crisis, when they initiated changes of macroeconomic governance. These changes enhanced the political power of the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Israel and supported the institutionalization of neoliberalism in Israel.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Shubha Kamala Prasad ◽  
Filip Savatic

Why do some immigrant diasporas in the United States (U.S.) establish foreign policy interest groups while others do not? While scholars have demonstrated that diasporic interest groups often successfully influence U.S. foreign policy, we take a step back to ask why only certain diasporas attempt to do so in the first place. We argue that two factors increase the likelihood of diaspora mobilization: a community’s experience with democratic governance and conflict in its country of origin. We posit that these conditions make it more likely that political entrepreneurs emerge to serve as catalysts for top-down mobilization. To test our hypotheses, we collect and analyze novel data on diasporic interest groups as well as the characteristics of their respective countries of origin. In turn, we conduct the first in-depth case studies of the historical and contemporary Indian-American lobbies, using original archival and interview evidence.


Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 271
Author(s):  
Michael Daniel Driessen

Recent research on political Catholicism in Europe has sought to theorize the ways in which Catholic politics, including Catholic political parties, political ideals, and political entrepreneurs, have survived and navigated in a post-secular political environment [...]


2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
David Belt

Why, in the aftermath of 9/11, did a segment of the U.S. popular security experts, political elite, media, and other institutions classify not just al-Qaeda but Islam itself as a security threat, thereby countering the prevailing professional consensus and White House policy that maintained a distinction between terrorism and Islam?Why did this “politically incorrect” or counternarrative expand and degenerate into a scare over the country’s “Islamization” by its tiny Muslim population? Why is this security myth so convincing that legislators in two dozen states introduced bills to prevent the Shariah’s spread and a Republican presidential front-runner exclaimed:“I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it”? This analysis offers a framework that conceptualizes popular discourses as highly interested fields of political struggle, deepens the prevailing characterization of this part of the U.S. popular discourse as “Islamophobia,” and analyzes how it has functioned politically at the domestic level. Specifically, it examines how a part of the conservative elite and institutions, political entrepreneurs already involved in the ongoing culture wars, seized upon Islam in the emotion-laden wake of 9/11 as another opportune site to advance their struggle against their domestic political opponents, “the Left,” and the more progressive societal institutions and culture in general.


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-71
Author(s):  
Parrish Bergquist

AbstractAmbiguity – the capacity to have multiple meanings – is endemic to politics. Ambiguity creates political opportunities, structures debates and provides leeway for political entrepreneurs to advance their interests. I use the 2012 passage and 2014 rollback of reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program to show how ambiguity enables political entrepreneurship. In this puzzling case, Congress enacted and rolled back changes that threatened to impose politically unpalatable costs. Using semi-structured interviews and congressional testimony, I show how political entrepreneurs engaged with ambiguity in the buildup to the reforms’ passage. They used information strategically to interpret problems, solutions, rules, and goals; shape legislators’ perceptions of the reforms’ political implications; and adapt their arguments to the policy windows that opened. The case shows that ambiguity facilitates policy reform, but the direction of change depends on the priorities that are salient when a policy window opens and on the interests of political entrepreneurs.


Author(s):  
Catherine E. De Vries ◽  
Sara B. Hobolt

Challenger parties are on the rise in Europe, exemplified by the likes of Podemos in Spain, the National Rally in France, the Alternative for Germany, or the Brexit Party in Great Britain. Like disruptive entrepreneurs, these parties offer new policies and defy the dominance of established party brands. In the face of these challenges and a more volatile electorate, mainstream parties are losing their grip on power. This book explores why some challenger parties are so successful and what mainstream parties can do to confront these political entrepreneurs. Drawing analogies with how firms compete, the book demonstrates that political change is as much about the ability of challenger parties to innovate as it is about the inability of dominant parties to respond. Challenger parties employ two types of innovation to break established party dominance: they mobilize new issues, such as immigration, the environment, and Euroscepticism, and they employ antiestablishment rhetoric to undermine mainstream party appeal. Unencumbered by government experience, challenger parties adapt more quickly to shifting voter tastes and harness voter disenchantment. Delving into strategies of dominance versus innovation, the authors explain why European party systems have remained stable for decades, but also why they are now increasingly under strain. As challenger parties continue to seek to disrupt the existing order, the book shows that their ascendency fundamentally alters government stability and democratic politics.


Author(s):  
Catherine E. De Vries ◽  
Sara B. Hobolt

This chapter studies antiestablishment rhetoric. Antiestablishment rhetoric is not only used by many political entrepreneurs to paint themselves as outsiders, but is also a core feature of populism. Populist parties aim to distinguish themselves from the political mainstream not only by advocating anti-immigration or anti-EU stances, but also by attacking the mainstream political parties. Yet the chapter shows that antiestablishment rhetoric is a strategy used not only by populist parties, but by other political parties as well. It then situates the use of antiestablishment rhetoric in the book's more general argument about party strategy and its theory of political change. Antiestablishment rhetoric by political parties is predominantly aimed at attacking the competence of competitors, and is especially used by challenger parties.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document