Abstract
Institutional entrepreneurs are vital for facilitating non-incremental health policy change in complex institutional settings where established traditions and practices carry considerable weight. This paper describes a comparative case study of health policy-making which shows that Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework for non-incremental policy change requires enhancement to explain results in policy-making in two Westminster unitary majoritarian jurisdictions. The most similar systems comparative study found that historical, rational choice, organisational and discursive institutionalist approaches explained the policy change and variation observed better than agency-based approaches did. However, institutional entrepreneurs were important in both cases. Differences in coordinative discourse help to explain the differences in degree of change achieved in each case study and highlight the importance of discursive institutionalist approaches in bridging institutional and agency-based approaches.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
