Institutional design. Policy entrepreneurs operate within particular institutional settings, but may also try to change the rules of the game. Bureaucratic entrepreneurs in particular often have numerous opportunities to change the setting for networks and to influence the design of decision-making processes. This raises questions that include: how open or closed is the policy process? Is the policy process organized as blueprint planning or as a social learning process? Bureaucratic change agents may not always direct change deliberately in one direction, but instead purposefully design institutions that offer opportunities for learning, for instance by stimulating a variety of problem definitions and the develop- ment of a variety of policy options. Xxxxxx and Xxxxx (Chapter 17, this volume), referring to Xxxxxx (2005), argue that unicentric, simple, large-scale governance units do not, and cannot, have the variety of response capabilities that polycentric, multilevel governance systems can have. Awareness of which institutional settings are more conducive than others to learning helps policy entrepreneurs to change institutions purposefully in order to create a ‘learn- ing environment’ that allows for variation and experimentation. Moreover, Xxxxxx and Xxxxx specifically address the need for a new role for central managers, which may entail a change in management function from authoritative allocation to activation: ‘instead of superimposing ready-to-use plans for ecosystem management on local contexts, the role of central authorities and agencies could hence be to legislate to enable self-organization processes’ (Xxxxxx and Xxxxx, Chapter 17, this volume). Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx, in their contribution on US water policies (Chapter 4) citing X’Xxxxx and Xxxxxxx (2007), argue that ‘cross-[ways of knowing] networks can be advanced by policy entrepreneurs through such practices as identifying the appropriate players and establishing legitimacy and transparency of policy processes’, thus recognizing the usefulness, too, of careful institutional design. From a normative point of view, we fully agree with the need for polycentric institu- tions allowing for variety and spaces for (social) learning. However the case studies in this volume show discrepancies between this normative standpoint and the strategies that policy entrepreneurs use in the real world. Successful entrepreneurs are good net- workers, boundary-spanners or brokers who aim to create institutions for experimenting and s...
Institutional design. Clear ground rules and process transparency are also important design features (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2005; Xxxxxx and Day 2003; Imperial 2005; Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, and Xxxxxx 2005; Xxxxxx et al. 1993). A final institutional design problem is the use of deadlines (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2005) primarily because collaborative meetings can be endless, but Xxxxxxx (1997) observes that deadlines can arbitrarily limit the scope of discussion. Therefore, the basic protocol or ground rules for collaboration on collaboration between Prof. Xx. XX Xxxxxxxx Regional Public Hospital Kupang and BPJS Kesehatan Kupang Branch will be described as follows:
