The role of policy entrepreneurs in mobility transitions : the case of bike sharing schemes in Europe

(1)

1

The Role of Policy Entrepreneurs in Mobility Transitions

The case of bike sharing schemes in Europe

(2)

2

Master’s thesis in Urban and Regional Planning (MSc.)

Graduate School of Social Sciences (University of Amsterdam) Version: Final Student: Paolo Ruffino N°11123001 Mail: P.Ruffino@decisio.nl Academic supervision:

Dr. David Evers (First Reader)

d.v.h.evers@uva.nl

Dr. Federico Savini (Second Reader)

(3)

3

Abstract

Research on innovation has, until now, focused mainly on its technological dimension while largely overlooking its political dimension. This is especially the case when it comes to cycling innovations which is a novel topic of research. By combining frameworks and concepts from political science and innovation theory, this research aims to contribute to unravel the relations between politics, emergence and upscale of innovation and the role played by agents (of change or preservers of the status quo). The hypothesis that successful upscaling of (cycling) innovation can be explained by the coupling activity between problem and solutions by supportive policy entrepreneurs acting during open policy windows was tested in three different empirical cases. The results show that indeed technological development and market dynamics do not explain alone why certain innovations emerge. Politics and key agents, such as entrepreneurs have a decisive role to play in such processes. Suggestions for further research and improvement are provided. Originality:

This research contributes to filling two important knowledge gaps. On the one hand, this is the first research focusing on policy entrepreneurship and bike share. On other hand, it provides a novel perspective by combining the multiple streams lenses and innovation theory to explain innovation processes, which so far has not been tested.

(4)

4

Abbreviations

• BSS(s): Bicycle Share Scheme(s) • EC: European Commission • EU: European Union

• MLP: Multi-Level Perspective • MSF: Multiple Streams Framework

(5)

5

Key concepts

• Policy entrepreneur: advocate of a specific policy outcome, who is willing to invest his/her resources – time, energy, reputation and money – to promote a position in return for anticipated future gains by using innovative ideas and/or non-traditional strategies. • Window of opportunity: (short-lasting) opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their

policy solutions, or push attention to their special problems. Also known as policy windows, these open as a result of three streams – problems, policy, politics – coming together at a specific moment in time.

• Coupling: action of attaching a solution to a specific problem.

• Niche innovation: social and technical novelties that are at the beginning small, unstable and precarious but push to emerge and to become mainstream (see more Grin et al., 2010).

• Regime: stable and large social structures composed by markets, regulations, network of actors etc. that have coalesced into stable configurations.

• Upscaling: process of emerging, replication and diffusion of innovation from the niche level. • Transition: shift of socio-technical systems from a stable configuration to another stable

configuration.

• Multi-level perspective (MLP): analytical framework derived from transition and innovation theory to explain the interaction between different levels: niche, regime, landscape. It emphasizes how the alignment of such levels produces transitions.

• Multiple Streams Framework (MSF): analytical framework derived from public choice and policy literature to explain policy processes and policy change in complex decision-making settings. It emphasizes the alignment between different streams (problems, policy, politics) during specific moment of time, defined as window of opportunity, to explain why certain policies are implemented, while other never reach agendas.

(6)

6

List of tables

Table 1 - Summary of key structural concepts from the MSF ... 21

Table 2 – Summary of key policy entrepreneurship activity structures ... 25

Table 3 - Summary of key success factors for policy entrepreneurs ... 26

Table 4 - Problem stream ... 33

Table 5 – Policy Stream ... 34

Table 6 – Politics stream ... 35

Table 7 - Conditions determining the opening / closing of a policy window ... 36

Table 8 - Resources of the policy entrepreneur ... 37

Table 9 - Scoring indicators ... 37

Table 10 - Data used in each case (summary) ... 38

Table 11 - Potential problem indicators ... 46

Table 12 - Map of different problem perceptions ... 48

Table 13 - Policy window summary results ... 54

Table 14 - Policy entrepreneur's resources summary results ... 55

Table 15- Summary problem indicators ... 60

Table 16 - Summary Policy Window ... 69

Table 17 - Policy entrepreneurs' resources ... 70

Table 18 - Reconstructed context specific issues regarding BSS ... 78

Table 19 - Repetitions in the proposal (indicator of boundary work) Source: proposal document. 81 Table 20 - Policy window at EU and local level ... 84

(9)

9

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Multiple Streams Framework (adapted from Zahariadis, 2007) ... 18

Figure 2 - Flowchart representing the research steps ... 29

Figure 3 - White Bicycle provocation (source: Beeldbank Amsterdam) ... 41

Figure 4 - Number of private cars in the Netherlands (SWOV, 2010) ... 44

Figure 5 - Road fatalities in the Netherlands SWOV (2010) ... 45

Figure 6 - Provo's action and actual policy shift ... 49

Figure 7 - Provo's action and actual policy shift ... 49

Figure 8 - John Lennon and Yoko Ono with the White Bicycle (source: internet search) ... 53

Figure 9 - Abadoned Roman Bike Sharing (source: Roma fa Schifo - Blog) ... 56

Figure 10 - Mode share of traffic in Rome (City of Rome, 2011) ... 58

Figure 11 - Vehicles/1000 inhabitants in Rome (City of Rome, 2011) ... 59

Figure 12 - Original Roma’n’Bike locations ... 62

Figure 13 - Billboards began to mushroom everywhere (source: Cartellopoli) ... 66

Figure 14 - VeloCittà Final Conference ... 71

Figure 15 - Car density per 1000 inhabitants (Eurostat) ... 73

Figure 16 - Number of road crashes per country (Eurostat) ... 73

Figure 17 - GHG Change between 1990 and 2014 (source: EEA) ... 74

Figure 18 - Publications on sustainable transport by category (Scopus + WebofScience) ... 75

(10)

10

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Over the last two decades, cycling has re-emerged in the political agendas of many countries around the World as a viable and sustainable mobility practice (OECD, 2013). On the one hand, policy-makers have acknowledged the need to decouple the growing demand for more and flexible mobility from its negative socio-environmental externalities (EC, 2009; EU, 2015). On the other hand, the benefits of cycling on the public health, the environment and the local economy are becoming widely evident (de Hartog et al., 2010; Oja et al., 2011; Pucher & Buehler, 2012; Martens, 2013)1_{. Hence, a growing number of}

cities have committed themselves to increase the share of trips made by active modes, thereby contributing to more liveable and sustainable urban areas. Despite this ambition, the transition initiated in many places has proven a slow and challenging process as existing transport regimes2_{tend to be locked into highly stabilised configurations (Geels,}

2002; Rietveld & Stough, 2004; Hysing, 2009; Geels et al., 2012).

Academic and political interest is therefore rising with regard to the potential of smart cycling innovations (such as intelligent cycling infrastructures, e-bikes, bike sharing schemes, innovative planning practices, infrastructure designs and business models) as means to facilitate and accelerate urban mobility transitions (Raven, 2016; SCF, 2016). By enhancing the overall travel experience (in terms of comfort, speed, convenience, safety etc.), the upscaling of these innovations is expected to reinforce bicycle use and destabilize transport systems that are locked into the automobility regime. Bike sharing systems, for example, provide all the benefits of cycling – such as flexible and agile mobility – while eliminating the need for private ownership and granting a hassel- and maintenance-free cycling experience. Moreover, having bikes directly available on the streets may encourage people to try out bicycling. Once experienced its convenience, people may start cycling

1_{Cycling represents, in fact, an efficient and equitable means of travel through cities for any kind of purpose: commuting,} leisure and logistics. In addition, cyclists require a limited amount of space to be accommodated and the energy to be propelled is produced directly by the user, this contributes to multiple health benefits. Moreover, cycling promotes community cohesion, social inclusion and produces monetary savings – for both the user and society – with positive spill over effects for the local economy (Pucher & Buehler, 2012; Martens, 2013).

2_{By regime I refer to the definition by Grin et al. (2010): the set of social networks, artifacts, regulations, markets,} infrastructures etc. that have coalesced into stable configurations over time (p.19).

(11)

11 more often and advocating in favour of more investments in bike infrastructure, thereby creating a positive feedback loop that attracts other road users to cycling (Shaheen et al., 2010; DeMaio, 2009).

Yet, little is known about the mechanisms of emergence, scale up and integration of novelties into existing dominant socio-technical systems (Naber et al., 2017). In particular, knowledge is scarce regarding how innovations move beyond the niche or living-lab phase when strong political lock-ins are present (Ceschin, 2014; Raven, 2016). For this reason, the Netherlands has recently funded research programs such as Smart Cycling Futures (SCF) to investigate the extent to which these new smart cycling innovations can create favourable transition pathways towards a sustainable mobility system. This thesis fits within the above research agenda and takes a novel perspective to unpack the political dynamics underlying the emergence and upscaling of innovation. In particular, it employs theoretical concepts derived from political science to supplement innovation and transition theory and attempts to overcome some analytical limitations. Three empirical cases are then used to test such perspective and identify further research pathways. This thesis focuses on bike share systems (BSSs) as cycling innovation given its societal relevance and the great availability of cases. Both success and failure cases are addressed as the product of interaction between policy entrepreneurs, as agents of change or preservers of the status quo, and policy windows, as crucial moments in which policy action can be taken. The results clearly show that politics matter within innovation processes and policy entrepreneurs have a key role to play when it comes to turning the innovation pressure from the niche level into fruitful change, but also in preventing (cycling) innovations from emerging.

1.2. Problem statement & Knowledge gap

The desire to understand and to contribute to low carbon transitions has engendered to the proliferation of academic and policy studies that apply transition frameworks and theories to grasp complex patterns of change (Whitmarsh, 2012; Geels, 2012). Above all, the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) and Strategic Niche Management (SNC) have become prominent analytical frameworks in the last few years. These perspectives conceive transitions as the outcome of interaction between innovative practices and technologies (niche innovations), stable socio-technical systems (regime), and long-term exogenous trends (landscape). The overarching idea is that regime shift (transitions) occurs as a result

(12)

12 of the landscape pressure creating a “window of opportunity” which enables niche innovations to scale up and – through a mixture of substitution and (re-)configuration pathways – take over the existing regime (see Geels, 2002; Grin et al., 2010; Geels et al., 2012; Geels, 2014). Although these technology- and market-oriented perspectives are compelling to describe long-term and system-wide technological transformations3_{, they}

exhibit two main analytical shortcomings when studying innovations (directly or indirectly) linked to public choice and political deliberation.

First of all, scholars have criticised the tendency of transition and innovation theories and frameworks to minimize the inherent political character of sustainability transitions (Maedowcroft, 2009; 2011; Norman, 2013; Hess, 2014). In line with Maedowcroft (2011), politics manifests itself on each level of the MLP. Particularly at the niche level, where political agendas and sector interests may exert strong influence on the patterns of innovation. This is especially the case when radical innovations may threaten the status quo maintained by existing (formal or informal) institutions (Roberts & King, 1996). While restrictive regulations, technical standards and cumbersome procedures do play a role in reinforcing existing solutions and/or in limiting the introduction of novelties, the presence of highly entrenched (political) interests also represents a paramount barrier to innovation. Installing new intelligent traffic systems, may not only require the allocation of public subsidies and the issue of permits to exploit public space, but it may also need to fit the local political agenda, as well as specific problem definitions and favoured means by the ruling political party. It follows that the introduction of innovative practices and technologies are not only influenced by market forces or technological progress but they are often a direct outcome of political choices. The mid-range perspective of sustainability transition and innovation theories is, however, ill-suited to thoroughly incorporate and explore these underlying political processes (Maedowcroft, 2009; 2011).

Secondly, and connected to the previous point, individual agency appears to be crucial in facilitating and accelerating innovation (or blocking it) but this has often been widely underexposed (Smith et al., 2005; Smith & Stirling, 2010; Geels, 2011; Konefal, 2015; Markard et al., 2012; Feuenfschilling & Truffer, 2015). Moreover, the strategies that agents employ to promote or constrain the emergence of niche innovations as well as the way in

(13)

13 which opportunities are created and seized have been loosely defined in current research (ibid.). Although innovation cannot be credited to the action of one or few change agents, it appears that these had a key role to play when change involved the disruption to the established practices, institutions and dominant technologies (Mintrom & Norman, 2009). Both gaps represent an important missing link within transition and innovation studies and therefore much room exists for further conceptual and empirical testing (Shove and Walker, 2007; Mintrom & Norman, 2009).

1.3. Policy entrepreneurs and cycling innovations

In light of the academic debate presented above and to gain a fuller picture of the empirical and theoretical puzzle surrounding the mechanisms of innovation, this research draws upon contributions from political science, integrated with insights from innovation theory, transition theory (MLP in particular) and neo-institutionalism, to unravel the relationship between agents and emergence of cycling innovations. Hence, the central research question posed in this research is:

In what way do agents enable or hinder the emergence of cycling innovations?

To approach this question, two fundamental elements are proposed: the policy entrepreneur and the window of opportunity (as treated by scholars such as such as Roberts & King, 1991; 1996, Kingdon, 1984; 1995 and Mintrom & Norman, 2009). Defined as “advocate who is willing to invest his resources – time, energy, reputation and

money – to promote a position in return for anticipated future gains” (Kingdon, 1995), a

policy entrepreneur represents a crucial enabler in the innovation chain by acting either as agent of change or preserver of the status quo. These agents employ innovative ideas and non-traditional strategies to create opportunities to promote their desired policy outputs. These outputs affect, in turn, those institutional structures (broken down into cognitive, normative and regulative elements) that enable or prevent the emergence of socio-technical novelties from the niche level (Roberts & King, 1996; Grin et al., 2010). On the other hand, the window of opportunity (or policy window) represents as short-term (crucial) moment in which an intervention can be made. As proposed by Zahariadis (2015), in politics:

(14)

14 “there is a right time for policies to be adopted, and there is a wrong time, and policy

windows determine that” (ibid.).

Thus, policy windows represent an “opportunity for advocates of proposals [such as policy entrepreneurs] to push their pet solutions, or push attention to their special problems” (Kingdon, 1995, p. 165). It follows the hypothesis that the presence of a supportive policy entrepreneur and an open policy window (or window of opportunity) are two enabling conditions for an innovation to emerge and upscale. Conversely, a policy entrepreneur willing to preserve the status quo will use his resources to avoid that a window of opportunity opens or is seized.

To better contextualise this perspective within the academic and empirical debate two directions are followed. First of all, the concepts of policy entrepreneur and policy window as well as their interplay needs to be clarified and organised in a theoretical framework. In particular, three sub-questions are proposed.

• What conditions determine the opening of a window of opportunity?

• How do policy entrepreneurs attempt to take advantage of such windows? • What factors determine successful policy entrepreneurship outcomes?

To answer these three sub-questions, the research draws upon Kingdon (1984; 1995)’s

Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) expanded with additional insights from the policy

entrepreneurship literature (mostly Mintrom & Norman, 2009 and Roberts & King, 1996) and transition literature (such as Grin et al., 2010) to derive several hypotheses. Secondly, the hypotheses proposed are then tested on a few empirical cases to assess the general applicability of such perspective and as well appraise the great complexity of these dynamics.

To provide relevant empirical observations, this research focuses on bike sharing systems (BSSs)4_{as cycling innovation due to the richness of cases and availability of information.}

Although the concept of shared bicycles has been acknowledged for over 50 years, it is

4_{BSS consists in a service in which bicycle are made available to the public for shared use for a}

(15)

15 only a couple of years since bike sharing has known a world-wide exponential growth5

(Larsen, 2013). For this reason, BSSs have become a prominent object of interest in transportation research with a growing number of academic papers published about the topic6_{. However, most of the literature has focused on the technical aspects of bike sharing}

(such as engineering solutions, embedding of ITC technologies, models) and largely overlooked the underlying political dynamics of this socio-technical innovation. Interestingly, bike sharing has managed to emerge also in cities presenting the strong lock-in problems and path dependencies but little is known about their success (Larsen, 2013; Ó-Tuama, 2015). Conversely, bike sharing systems have also failed in those cities presenting a favourable landscape/built environment and political will but such reasons have not been closely studied (ibid.). Few early evidences support the idea that policy entrepreneurs have had a critical role to play in such contexts (Parkes et al., 2013). In Dublin, for example, JC Decaux – a major advertisement company – proposed the provision of a public bike sharing scheme as part of a series of measure to secure advertising rights in the city. In San Francisco, a project manager from the Municipal Transport Agency was able to champion (political and financial) support for a bike sharing pilot project by acting both within his department and by partnering with outsiders of the agency (ibid.). Despite these few examples, policy entrepreneurship linked to bike sharing is a novel topic of research and therefore this represents an explorative study in the field.

1.4. Outline of the research

This research is structured as follows. In Chapter 2, the main theoretical concepts and underlying mechanisms are introduced and explained. Then, these are clarified and operationalised in the research design in Chapter 3. Here, the research methods and the data collection is also explained. Chapter 4 consists in the empirical part of this research. In particular, three cases are analysed by applying the theoretical lens described in Chapter 2. The first case consists in the Witten Fietsen Plan (or White Bicycles Plan) proposed in Amsterdam in 1965. The second case regards the BSS of the city of Rome. The third, and last case, is the Velocittà project – a 3-years European project with the aim to upscale

5_{Since its first conception in 1965 in Amsterdam, BSSs have developed from being urban}

experiments into mainstream public transport options in over 1,200 cities around the World (Shaheen et al., 2010; DeMaio, 2017).

(16)

16 failing bicycle schemes in several European cities. After the analysis, the research discusses the results and the implications for research in Chapter 5. Finally, this research attempts to answer to the central question and provides limitations and suggestions for further research.

(17)

17

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Multiple streams framework

Political deliberation (in the form of new regulation, laws and decisions) is key for the introduction and, consequently, the upscaling of novelties that belong to the public sphere (Smith & Stirling, 2010; Roberts & King, 1996). As illustrated by Cohen et al (1972) in their

Garbage can model of organisational choice, decisions in complex organisation

environments such as city’s administrations are far from being a linear rational decision-making process in which competing options are chosen on the basis of their pareto-optimal allocation of resources and technical feasibility. Rather, decisions are taken in complex decision-making environments, similar to “garbage cans, in which participants drift in and

out and, dump largely unrelated problems and solutions” (Zahariadis, 2007, p. 66). In such

dynamic and interactive contexts, timing and value acceptability often play a dominant role (ibid.). This perspective has been further expanded by John Kingdon (1984; 1995) in his work Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy. In particular, the scholar incorporates five main “universal” assumptions characterising the policy-making process7_{. In brief:}

• Ambiguity (or there are many ways to think and frame a policy problem); • Competition for attention (or few problems reach the top of the agenda);

• An imperfect selection process (or new information is difficult to gather and subject to manipulation);

• Actors have limited time (which forces people to focus on a problem at a time and make choices before their preferences are clear);

• Decision-making is neither rational nor linear;

Based on these core assumption, Kingdon (1984; 1995) has proposed a theoretical lens defined as Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to explain policy processes (agenda-setting, selection of policy options, and policy change). In the paragraphs below, the structural

7_{In line with Cairney & Jones (2015), these concepts are universal in a sense that they are}

(18)

18 elements, the mechanisms of interaction as well as the role of policy entrepreneurs and their strategies / resources are illustrated.

2.1.1. Structural elements

In a nutshell, the MSF conceives five main structural elements: three independent streams flowing through the system (the problem stream, the politics stream and the policies stream), a window of opportunity (or policy window) opening when the streams align at a specific moment in time and, finally, the policy entrepreneurs who seize the policy windows to promote specific outcomes. See a representation of this theoretical model in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Multiple Streams Framework (adapted from Zahariadis, 2007)

According to Kingdon (1984; 1995) and Zahariadis (2007), the interaction between these five elements is assumed to produce (or not) decisions or deliberations in the form of policy outputs. These outputs affect, in turn, those institutional structures (broken down into cognitive, normative and regulative elements) that enable or prevent the emergence of socio-technical novelties from the niche level (outcome) (Giddens, 1984; Roberts & King, 1996; Grin et al., 2010).

(19)

19 Problems, politics and policies

The problem stream refers to various conditions or situations that individuals (inside or outside decision-making arenas) perceive as a problem and want to be addressed at any given moment in time (Kingdon, 1995). Problems are not always self-evident but they are sometimes framed by those groups who believe (or have an interest) that certain situations should be addressed (Zahariadis, 2007). By drawing from social constructivism (see for a review Ingram et al., 2007), Kingdon (1995) suggests that the means used to define something as a problem are mainly indicators, focusing events and feedback. In the policy

stream, a “primeval soup” of ideas and policy proposals are discussed by a specialised

policy community (i.e. academics, advisors, government officials, consultants etc.) to deal with situations perceived or framed as problems (Kingdon, 1995). These “floating ideas” continuously evolve, transform and recombine (also with ideas originating from other domains) over time and compete for acceptance (Zahariadis, 2007). Ideas are likely to gain wider acceptance (and thus have higher changes of being selected) when they meet both technical-financial feasibility (i.e. they are cost-effective and can be quickly implemented) and value acceptability (i.e. they fit the dominant values of the ruling political class). Finally, the politics stream comprises all those actors inside or outside the government that have the power to take decisions or have an influence on what goes on the agenda. These include politicians, policy-makers, government advisors, administrators, legislators etc. In addition, the politics stream comprises “all those factors that influence the likelihood that

a problem will be added to the decision agenda and the relative priority it is granted vis-à-vis other issues” (Henstra, 2010, p.244) such as the national mood, pressure-group

campaigns and the administrative or legislative turnover (election results). Window of opportunity

Occasionally, the three streams (problem, policy and politics) come together and action can be taken to promote a policy output. Kingdon (1995) defines this concomitance as a

window of opportunity or policy window. These windows originate either from the politics

stream or the problem stream (this is further explained in the next paragraph). For example, an election may open a policy window as a party may be more receptive towards certain ideas. Catastrophes, on the other hand, open a policy window from the problem stream and immediately push governments to search for solutions. Policy windows do not open frequently but when they do, they do not stay open for long (Kingdon, 1995). While some windows are predictable and of fixed duration (such as the elections), others cannot be

(20)

20 predicted (financial crises, earth quakes etc.). When a window is open, this can be seized to promote a specific policy output. Once closed, no action can be taken and policy advocates must wait for the next opportunity.

Policy entrepreneurs

Agents advocating for specific policy outputs are defined by the literature as policy

entrepreneurs (Kingdon, 1984; 1995; Zahariadis, 2007; Mintrom & Norman, 2009). Policy

entrepreneurs are described as actors “willing to invest their resources – time, energy,

reputation, money – to promote a position in return for anticipated future gain in the form of material, purposive, or solidarity benefits” (Kingdon, 1995, p. 179). Unlike traditional

entrepreneurs (such as business entrepreneurs, bureaucratic entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs etc.), policy entrepreneurs aim at promoting a specific course of action by influencing policy outputs (laws, regulations, deliberations, budget allocations etc.) while holding no formal position in the political system (they can either be inside or outside of governments)8_{. Policy entrepreneurs are most active in the policy stream where they are}

busy searching and creating solutions (policy ideas) to potential problems and bringing them forth to the political agenda. This is done by a so-called “coupling process” in which a solution is presented to solve a specific problem (Roberts & King, 1996; Zahariadis, 2007; Kingdon, 1984; 1995). Policy entrepreneurs are also active in the problem stream where they attempt to push specific problem definitions that best fit their pet solution (Knaggard, 2015; Palmer, 2015). Conversely, policy entrepreneurs may attempt to block the action of other policy entrepreneurs by avoiding the opening of a policy window (ibid.). In this latter case, policy entrepreneurs are usually understood by the innovation and transition literature as “agents of the status quo” or “preservers of the status quo”.

Concept Description

Problem stream Conditions or situations (expressed by means of indicators, feedback studies or focusing events) that individuals (inside or outside decision-making arenas) perceive as a problem and want to be addressed at any given moment in time.

8_{Kingdon (1995) and Zahariadis (2007) explain that policy entrepreneurs can be impersonated}

(21)

21

Policy stream Ideas, solutions, policies (etc.) competing for acceptance to solve a recognised problem.

Politics stream All those actors inside or outside the government that have the power to take decisions or have an influence on what goes on the agenda. Plus, other factors that have direct influence in the agenda setting such as elections, national mood and pressure group campaigns.

Policy entrepreneurs Agents inside or outside decision-making arenas who have an interest in achieving a specific course of action by influencing policy outputs.

Window of opportunity (Short-lasting) opportunity for advocates of policy proposals to

push their policy solutions, or push attention to their special problems. Also known as policy windows, these open as a result of three streams – problems, policy, politics – coming together at a specific moment in time.

Table 1 - Summary of key structural concepts from the MSF

2.1.2. Mechanisms of interaction

While the paragraph above has described the structural elements, this paragraphs focuses on the mechanisms of interaction between the five components of the MSF. In particular, it focuses on the determinants that lead to the opening / closing of policy windows and the policy entrepreneurship to seize or block these windows of opportunity.

Opening and closing of windows of opportunity

Kingodon (1995) broadly explains that policy window open when “a problem is recognised;

a solution is ready in the policy community and the potential political constraints are not severe”. This means that a specific situation is perceived by decision-makers as a problem

and there is substantial agreement that the policy idea proposed (either by the policy entrepreneur or the policy community) is ideal to solve it. Moreover, the policy should not only be technically and financially feasible but also politically acceptable. The latter means that the measure should contribute in reaching ruling party or (coalition)’s objectives without negative consequences (in terms of electorate turnover) and it should be in line with the party (or coalition)’s values (Zahariadis, 2007). Hence, a window of opportunity is

(22)

22

open for policy change when there is an alignment between problem, policy and politics occurs at a specific moment of time. Or as Kingdon (1984; 1995) puts it:

“The target planets are in proper alignment, but will not stay that way for long.” (Kingdon,

1995; p. 166).

Windows of opportunity might also open for a variety of other factors too. Drawing from transition and innovation literature (Geels, 2002; Meijerink & Huitema, 2010; Ceschin, 2014), exogenous factors may put pressure on the (political) regime and cause internal restructuring. For example, climate change (from the problem stream) might push higher on the agenda the search for sustainable innovations lying in the policy stream. Secondly, negative externalities from existing technologies (expressed in problem indicators such as health risks, environmental impacts etc.) may pressure politicians to address the situation and challenge the status quo. In addition, developments in the political stream – such as new elections – or exogenous shocks (such as an oil crisis) in the problem stream might lead to a destabilisation or misalignment on functioning of the regime and create window of opportunities for policy change and scale up of radical novelties. According to Zahariadis (2007), the combination of national mood and turnover in government “exerts the most

powerful effect on agendas” (p.73). While the administrative turnover the duration and

likely outcome on the agenda can be easily predicted, the likelihood that exogenous events will occur (such as an extreme weather event or a crisis) will materialise into problems that open policy windows is more difficult (or sometimes impossible) to establish in ex-ante. Conversely, Kingdon (1984; 1995) also explains several ways in which policy windows may close. First of all, participants may feel that the problem has been addressed through their decisions. Secondly, participants fail to translate the policy idea into action before the window closes. Thirdly, the events that prompted the window to open may pass from the scene as replaced by another problem. Fourth, personnel in key public officials change or are replaced by new ones. Finally, no feasible alternative is present to solve a specific policy problem.

Policy entrepreneurship

In what way policy entrepreneurs take advantage of such policy windows? Kingdon (1984; 1995) and Zahariadis (2007) have introduced the concept of coupling of (constructed) problems with proposed solutions by policy entrepreneurs when a window of opportunity is

(23)

23 open to influence policy outcomes. Following the literature on policy entrepreneurship (Roberts & King, 1991; Kindon, 1995; Zahariadis, 2007; Mintrom & Norman, 2009; Henstra, 2010; Meijerink & Huitema, 2010; Cohen & Naor, 2014; Knaggard, 2015; Palmer, 2015), coupling goes beyond the proposal of policy solutions at the right time but it can be broken down into three main policy entrepreneurship activities, organised in a temporal order: nurturing, brokering and exploiting.

The first policy entrepreneurship activity is nurturing innovative policy ideas. This means that policy entrepreneurs must constantly be able to generate innovative policy ideas to couple to problems in the political agenda. Nurturing consists of several sequential processes. First, policy entrepreneurs scan the political landscape to identify signals that may indicate the opening of a window of opportunity. These signals can be seen as a demand for a “policy good”. Based on their findings, they search for ideas in the policy stream and select the policy good (in the form of one or some promising options) that have the potential to be perceived as innovative to solve the perceived problem. Finally, policy entrepreneurs generate their own policy proposal (by repackaging selected idea in such a way that it both maximize their own self-interest and meets all feasibility criteria) and supply it to policy-makers.

The second activity is brokering. Linked to nurturing innovative ideas, policy entrepreneurs must actively construct and manipulate problem perceptions in order to create the ideal (agenda) conditions to push for the policy proposal they have generated (Knaggard, 2015; Palmer, 2015). In doing so, policy entrepreneurs act in the problem stream as “problem

brokers” (ibid.). Brokering involves the following strategies (as in line with Knaggard, 2015;

Mintrom & Norman, 2009; Roberts & King, 1991; Meijerink & Huitema, 2010): Framing, dissemination activities and venue manipulation. Framing entails the process of selecting, organising and interpreting facets or events of a complex reality in order to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation and/or solution (Palmer, 2015). Effective framing of reality means promoting a fitting interpretation of a problem and a solution by strategically using knowledge (scientific, bureaucratic, and local), emotions (positive, or negative), values and boundary work. Palmer (2015) has explained the adoption of EU transport biofuels policy as result of the persuasive problem framing of a small group of policy entrepreneurs. In the words of Roberts & King (1996) policy entrepreneurs “determine the

(24)

24

likely to achieve a desired outcome given the available resources” (p. 3). Dissemination

activities include writing reports, position papers, books, articles, columns for newspapers and newsletters. Finally, Meijerink & Huitema, (2010) mention the importance of creating new forums and/or changing locations (venue manipulation) to discuss the problems and solutions as part of the framing strategy. As posed by True et al. (2007), policy venues are arenas of debate, each one characterised by “its own language, set of participants, and

limitations” (p. 162). For example, policy-makers are invited to some conferences in which

the problem is raised and discussed by (selected) prominent academics to raise awareness. Problem brokering activities are by far the most time/resource consuming (Zahariadis, 2007). Such brokering activities are not necessary when the problem is already recognised and highly ranks in the political agenda.

When policy entrepreneurs sense that a window of opportunity is open or about to open, they move to exploit it. The third policy entrepreneurship activity is comprises two main strategies: connecting problems with the solutions by demonstrating practical feasibility of their proposals (Mintrom & Norman, 2009) and, secondly, mobilizing policy networks and resources to ensure they can secure the legislative action (Roberts & King, 1991; Meijerink & Huitema, 2010). Being aware of the risk aversion of decision-makers, policy entrepreneurs use demonstrations to create a crucial case of the effectiveness of their proposal to win credibility. On the other hand, they mobilize networks around a pilot to create visions and working models as well as heuristics of action, thereby creating momentum and keeping interest awake as well as increasing the number of supporters of the idea. Once an idea has been successfully coupled, policy entrepreneurs “exploit” its long-term benefits and invest their resources to maintain them.

Concept Activity (in temporal order)

Description

Coupling Nurturing Scan the political landscape (dominant problems), search for policy goods (from the policy streams) and generate proposals to supply to policy makers.

Brokering Manipulate problem perceptions by means of framing, boundary work, dissemination activities and venue manipulation.

(25)

25 Exploiting Demonstrating the feasibility of the

proposal and mobilising networks and political resources to seize policy window. Once the coupling has occurred, policy entrepreneurs exploit the benefits and act to maintain the advantage position.

Table 2 – Summary of key policy entrepreneurship activity structures

2.1.3. Determinants of successful policy entrepreneurship

The degree to which policy entrepreneurs are successful in coupling and seizing windows of opportunity depends on several (success) factors (Kingdon, 1995; Zahariadis, 2007, Mintrom & Norman, 2009). First of all, policy entrepreneurs must be responsive to contextual factors. This means that they must be able to accurately read and interpret the situation to understand whether a window is open. If they sense that the right time has come, they must rapidly move to seize the opportunity. Moving too early or too late may prevent their policy idea or proposal to be considered. This requires information (data) and access to relevant knowledge (usually stored in networks) (Dente, 2011). Secondly, policy entrepreneurs require a number of political resources. These are: access, persistence in their brokerage activity and trust. Access means that policy entrepreneurs must have ties with relevant policy actors located inside or outside decision-making arenas. In addition, policy entrepreneurs themselves must be part of relevant policy networks. Drawing from Network Theory, the denser and the broader the network policy entrepreneurs are part of, the better. The position inside the network also plays a relevant role. Centrality in the network is assumed to be a key characteristic of powerful actors. Policy entrepreneurs should not necessarily be at the centre of a network but should at least have access to those who are often referred as “super connectors” or “gate keepers”. Crucial was, for example, the ability of a policy entrepreneur in the electric vehicle sector to create alliances with powerful players inside and outside the government to push for a pro-electric car policy in Israel (Cohen & Naor, 2014). Being in a broad and dense network means also that access to knowledge and financial resources is more effective. Persistence means that policy entrepreneurs must keep going with their brokerage activities until they finally build up momentum around their proposal. Persistence also requires financial resources (money) and time (Dente, 2011). Trust, together with credibility of their proposal, are also

(26)

26 paramount political resources. Being decision-makers risk adverse, policy entrepreneurs must build an image of trust. Thirdly, the ability in understanding and making use of legal

resources has also been reported as a key policy entrepreneurial activity (ibid.). Fourth,

policy entrepreneurs must master skills in using the resources at their disposal (political, legal, financial). This means to know the target and acknowledge when (and how) to use certain policy entrepreneurship strategies. Finally, they must be willing to use such political resources (Knaggard, 2015).

Success factors

Responsiveness • Understand the situation to move at the right time when the window of opportunity is about to open.

Political and financial resources

• Access to relevant (broad and dense) policy (and knowledge) networks and a relatively central position (or access to super connectors and gate keepers).

• Access to financial resources. • Persistence in brokerage activity. • Trust and credibility

Legal resources • Ability in making use of legal resources.

Skill (and will) to use resources

• Know the target and, when and how to use certain resources and strategies.

(27)

27

2.2. Linking between Multiple Streams and Innovation theory

Several links can be identified between the innovation / transition literature and the MSF. According to the MLP transitions as the outcome of the alignment between innovative practices and technologies (niche innovations), stable socio-technical systems (regime), and long-term exogenous trends (landscape). This alignment opens up a “window of opportunity” which enables niche innovations to scale up and – through a mixture of substitution and (re-)configuration pathways – take over the existing regime (see Geels, 2002). This is a similar parallel with MSF in which the alignment between policy, problems and politics creates the policy window for advocates to move and exploit it. Another point of convergence can be found between the policy output, resulting from the coupling process of policy entrepreneurs, and the policy outcome, identified in the emergence / upscale or failure of niche innovations (see Figure 1 above for the distinction between policy input and output). This research assumes (and advances the hypothesis) that niche innovations generate and evolve from the policy stream until their “right time” has come. At the beginning, the innovation (in the form of policy idea) is found in a pre-development stage as yet fuzzy and incomplete. During this phase, policy entrepreneurs nurture the idea and broker for it with policy-makers. Once the window of opportunity opens, the selected idea “leaves” the policy stream and gets implemented. Between the take-off phase and the stabilisation phase, policy entrepreneurs exploit the benefits and act to maintain / protect the policy alive.

(28)

28 These niche innovations, repackaged as proposals to be presented to policy-makers, represent the means through which policy entrepreneurs achieve their own ambitions (material or immaterial). The objective of a policy entrepreneur is not (only) to promote an output that enables the emergence of an advocated innovation but rather to exploit its

“innovative pressure” to achieve a personal interest or utility. In this sort of utility

maximization process, policy entrepreneurs create or remove structural-institutional barriers to innovations by pushing for specific policy outputs. This idea of agency-structure dynamic is rooted in structuration theory and neo-institutional theory. In particular, Giddens (1986) argued that agents, through their interaction with social structures, externalise, objectify and institutionalise new cognitive, normative and regulative elements of regimes. These, in turn, enable or facilitate the emergence and upscale of niche innovation. Hence, favourable policy outputs – in the form of new laws, directives, regulations, budget allocations etc. – may enable innovations to move out from their “living-labs” and scale up, thereby challenging or integrating with existing regimes. Policy entrepreneurs have therefore a key role, especially when the political situation is constrained by strong lock-ins (Mintrom & Norman, 2009).

(29)

29

3. Research design

This chapter elaborates on the design choices and the methodology adopted to answer the research question. The steps carried out in this research are conceptually represented in the flowchart below:

Figure 2 - Flowchart representing the research steps

First of all, a preliminary desk research was conducted to understand the context of the problem, identify relevant scientific knowledge gaps and formulate the central research question and its sub-questions. Upon this, relevant theoretical concepts to answer the question have been selected from political science literature about policy change, transition / innovation theory and policy entrepreneurship. The main concepts are organised in a theoretical and analytical framework operationalised in section 3.2 below. The framework has been revised in an iterative way while gathering empirical data. In the final step and other basis of the empirical results, a discussion and a conclusion has been drawn as well as some limitations and biases in the research. Suggestions on further research improvements are indicated. During all phases of this research academics and relevant experts have been consulted to further improve the scope and direction of this research.

(30)

30

3.1. Empirical case studies

To answer the research question, this thesis makes use of a comparative (qualitative) case study design following Gerring (2004) and Yin (2009) as guidance. In general, case studies are useful for exploratory research (i.e. the effects are known but the sources of the phenomenon are unclear) when data is poor and it is aimed to understand complex (and sometimes unexplored) social phenomena in depth. This research design is relevant for the proposed question as this provides a tool for diagnostic and descriptive inquiry (it gives meaning to what is observed) and, subsequently, allows to make inferences and generates hypotheses on the bases of the observations done. In particular, a comparative method helps to examine the variation of the same unit of analysis across different cases by using the same research design. This is in line with the main rational of this research which tries to test the same hypotheses on different cases. Finally, the choice of a multiple case study enables a more complete, compelling and powerful picture on the object studied. But also to better appraise the applicability of the theoretical framework proposed.

3.1.1. Object of the research and feasibility

This research focuses on three cases, namely the Witten Fietsenplan in Amsterdam, the Roma’n’Bike BSS in Rome and the Velocittà Project.

• The Witten Fietsenplan (or White Bicycle Plan) introduced by Provo’s, an anarchistic group, in 1965 as a reaction to the increasing number of cars in the city of Amsterdam. Commonly regarded as the genesis of BSSs, this utopian plan called the municipality to intervene to stop the “terror caused by mass motorisation” by introducing 20,000 bicycles – to be painted white and distributed around the city for free use and permanently unlocked. The case study explains using the analytical framework the reasons of its failure.

• The second case study is the case of the Roman BSSs “Roma’n’Bike” which was introduced in 2008 as result of the international success of Vélib in Paris and other systems in New York, Milan and London. This shared bicycle system failed in spite of an open window of opportunity and the presence of a supportive policy entrepreneur.

(31)

31 • Finally, this research addresses the EU project VeloCittà. Five European cities, namely London (UK), Krakow (PL), Burgos (SP), Padua (IT) and Szeged (HU), were brought together to upscale their bike sharing schemes. This was part of a policy entrepreneurial strategy of a group of companies to enlarge their European market outreach.

Although very different conditions are present (the cases are in different countries, presenting different contexts and different times), the framework is tailored to study policy processes and agenda-setting within any representative democracy at any given time and level and thus applicable for the cases proposed (Zahariadis, 2007). In addition, the purpose of this research is also to test and appraise the applicability of the theoretical perspective proposed in different cases. The object of study (BSS) is motivated for its societal and academic relevance as explained in the introduction, namely understanding the way in which policy entrepreneurs use and influence public policy and how this in turn affects the emergence of innovation. Moreover, this topic has been chosen for its feasibility. On the one hand, the direct access to all sources of information had already been established earlier on and the willingness to participate to the study had already been confirmed by (most of) the interviewees. The project was also feasible in terms of monetary costs. It did not require costly travel and accommodation expenses as the interviews did not involve long-term permanence in one specific location. Moreover, the data analysis did not require to process big databases or privately owned information. Most of the information is publicly available.

3.2. Analytical structure

The structure to analyse the empirical cases follows these steps: First of all, the case is introduced and the outcome presented (successful or unsuccessful introduction of BSS in a given context). Secondly, the streams are reconstructed to analyse the interaction between the streams, window of opportunity and policy entrepreneur. In particular, the background context is reconstructed to identify the prominent problems, solutions and political situation of the specific case. Secondly, the strategy used by the policy entrepreneurs are assessed as well as the resources used. This analytical scheme allows to provide a holistic and well explanatory picture for each case. Moreover, it provides solid

(32)

32 basis upon which draw conclusions and inform the theoretical discussion. Similar structure has been used by Zahariadis (2007).

3.3. Operationalisation of key concepts

The operationalisation of key concepts and mechanisms of interaction in presented in this paragraph. First the structural elements of the MSF are operationalised. Then, the mechanisms of interaction are translated into hypotheses. Finally, the resources, strategies and successful factors are clarified. The method of data collection is described in the next paragraph.

3.3.1. Indicators of successful coupling

To determine whether a coupling was successful or unsuccessful this research looks at the outcome of the policy output. In particular, it assesses whether the bike sharing was successfully implemented and upscaled. When both the implementation and upscale was successful then this is an indication that the coupling has been successful. Conversely, when the implementation failed, this is explained as failed coupling.

3.3.2. Problem stream

Following the literature review, situations are defined as problems using indicators, focusing events and feedback. Indicators are units of analysis used to monitor changes in the situation. For instance, transport costs, road deterioration, growing traffic fatalities, pollution (etc.) are common indicators used in the transportation domain. Their variation may trigger public and political attention towards a specific (set of) issue(s) and, depending on the core values held by policy-makers, they may acquire the status of “problem”. Additionally, indicators are often used to 1) become aware about trends; 2) to assess the magnitude of a problem; 3) or cherry-picked and framed to justify the use of certain measure, 4) and/or show the achievement of a specific result (ibid.). In this research, only a limited number of system’s indicators are used, namely transport indicators, land-use indicators, landscape indicators as well as socio-economic and cultural trends are used as proposed by Bertolini (2007). Feedback, in the form of reports, monitoring or evaluation studies, support decision-makers in determining which solution may work to deal with a

(33)

33 specific situation (ex-ante studies) or inform about the performance of previously implemented policies (ex-post studies). Although these usually belong to the domain of

“technical experts” and hardly influence dramatically political agendas, they may become

one of the main instruments used by opposing parties to criticize the work of the administration. Finally, focusing events refer to all those events that raise immediate attention towards an issue because they have a greater visibility on a broader public. For example, floods or energy crisis may capture a broad attention for their dramatic character and thus exert a powerful impact on the political agenda as they require an immediate intervention. The problem stream can thus be clarified and operationalised as follows (using the contribution from Henstra, 2010; Bertolini, 2007; Bertolini, 2017):

Problem Stream Operationalisation Empirical data (examples) Indicator Measure (both quantitative or

qualitative) of problem severity suggesting that government intervention is necessary or desirable.

Sub-indicators (land-use, transport etc.) as proposed by Bertolini (2007) are used to identify the indicators framed as problems.

Mode share, traffic

accidents, pollution levels, travel time, travel costs, level of noise, public spending etc.

Focusing events Unexpected events that rapidly focuses public and political attention on a problem, often heightened by the media.

Floods, energy / economic crisis, etc.

Feedback Information received through formal program evaluation or public complaints that indicates a problem requiring attention.

Feedback comes from ex-post evaluation studies

(34)

34

3.3.3. Policy stream

The policy stream represents the “soup of ideas” discussed by the policy community. This is assumed to be the niche level in which novelties (in the form of policy ideas) are generated and compete for acceptance.

Concept Description Empirical data

Policy ideas Ideas, solutions, policies (etc.) compete for acceptance to solve a recognised problem.

Ideas discussed to solve a specific problem in the agenda.

Table 5 – Policy Stream

3.3.4. Politics stream

The politics stream is made up by the main actors in governments and all other factors affecting government agendas such as the national mood, pressure-group campaigns and the administrative turnover (elections, change in key personnel etc.). The national mood refers to the public opinion in a country regarding specific issues (Zahariadis, 2007). This can change – “swinging like a pendulum” (ibid.) – from time to time. Government officials must be very receptive of such changes and use them to promote items (higher or lower) on the political agenda. Monitoring system, such as polls, are used to measure the popularity of certain policies. Moreover, the opinion of pressure-groups campaigns is often perceived as indicator of consensus and dissent. Finally, elections and then legislative or

administrative turnover has a powerful effect on agendas as new actors (with different

values and priorities) join the “garbage can” while others (permanently or temporally) leave the arena (Kingdon, 1984; 1995). Although the actors in this streams are, in the end, responsible for the decisions that are taken, they are not necessarily those who generate these ideas (Zahariadis, 2015).

Concept Description Empirical data

National mood A general belief or sentiment among citizens concerning the need for or desirability of public intervention in response to a problem.

Belief and mood of the context during

(35)

35 the period analysed.

Pressure-group campaigns

Opinion of members of the same party or of groups that support the government.

Statements by party members.

Administrative turnover

Periodic replacement of key political or administrative actors due to elections or personnel turnover.

Elections or personnel

turnover.

Table 6 – Politics stream

3.3.5. Window of opportunity opening or closing

From the theoretical framework, several hypotheses can be derived to explain whether a window of opportunity is open or closed. The first hypothesis is:

1) There has to be an alignment between a (recognised) problem and a (politically and

technically) feasible solution.

This means that the problem has to be recognised, the policy technically, financially as well as politically feasible. This translates into several questions (see Table 7 below) that must be answered. If the empirical evidences show that the status of all these questions is true, then it may be possible to assert that a window of opportunity is likely to be open. Limitations of this are discussed in the final chapter.

Stream Conditions Empirical evidence Status

Problem Is the problem recognised?

Politicians and the public interpret the indicators and trends as a problem.

True / false

Policy Is it technically feasible?

The technology and organisational capacity to run and implement the innovation is available or it does not represent an insurmountable challenge.

True / false

Is it financially feasible?

The resources needed to finance the scheme are available.

True / false

Politics Does it fit the political objectives?

Local politicians recognised the BSSs as a solution that contribute to reach their objectives.

(36)

36 Has it a positive

impact on legislative turnover?

The choice had no impact on the electorate or at least a positive effect.

True / false

Does it fit the dominant political value?

Is the party pro-cycling or has some goals in which cycling and BSSs may fit?

True / false

Table 7 - Conditions determining the opening / closing of a policy window

The second hypotheses for that may lead to a window of opportunity are the elections or the administrative turnover:

2) Political / administrative turnover determines a change in political priorities opening /

closing a window of opportunity for policy change.

According to Zahariadis (2007), the combination of national mood and turnover in government “exerts the most powerful effect on agendas” (p.73). Kingdon (1995) also explain in what other situations policy windows may close. In particular, four reasons are advanced:

• Participants feel that the problem has been addressed through their decisions • Participants fail to translate the idea into action and the window closes

• The events that prompted the window to open may pass from the scene • There is no other available alternative.

3.3.6. Policy entrepreneurship resources

As introduced in the theoretical framework, policy entrepreneurs must possess and be mobilise resources. In addition, they have to be able to accurately read the situation to move at the right time and be skilful and willing to use the resources at their disposal. These conditions are summarised in the table below.

(37)

37

Category Condition

Responsiveness • The policy entrepreneur was able to read the situation and move at the right time.

Political and financial resources

• The policy entrepreneur had access to relevant (broad and dense) policy networks with a relatively central position.

• The policy entrepreneur was persistent in his brokerage activity.

• The policy entrepreneur was perceived as trustworthy and credible.

• The policy entrepreneur was able to mobilize financial resources for to support his coupling activities.

Legal resources • The policy entrepreneurs used legal resources at his advantage.

Skill (and will) to use resources

• The policy entrepreneur knew the right target and when and how to use certain resources.

Table 8 - Resources of the policy entrepreneur

Based on the findings, all conditions listed in each category has been scored using qualitative indicators:

Scoring Indicator Explanation

+ Condition verified (and supported by various sources)

+ / - Condition partially verified (not fully clear from data but likely true) - Condition not verified

? Unknown or unavailable sources

(38)

38

3.4. Data collection

The main method to collect data is to conduct qualitative unstructured and semi-structured interviews with policy entrepreneurs, politicians, journalists and local activists (being the main method, this is discussed below in more details) involved in the project. The information provided by the interviewees has been triangulated by analysing additional policy documents, academic research and secondary sources relevant for the study to increase the reliability. See the references sections for more details.

In particular, the data collection for the three cases was collected as follows:

Case Data used

The White Bicycle Plan • Previous academic research • Books / documentaries

• Mail exchange and interview with old Provo’s members

Roma’n’Bike • News articles

• Policy documents

• Interviews with journalists, activists, lawyer, policy makers

VeloCittà Project • Interview with 5 European policy makers • Project reports

• Interview with policy entrepreneurs

Table 10 - Data used in each case (summary)

Further data was collected by using LexisNexis Academic which is a popular database to retrieve newspaper and online articles.

3.4.1. Interviews

The main interviewees were the policy entrepreneurs themselves as well as those actors who work in close contact with local public officials. While for the Witte Fietsenplan, it was clear that the Provo’s were the policy entrepreneurs, for the case of Rome and Velocittà, these had to be identified indirectly by asking people involved in the projects. In the Roman case, however, a direct interview could not be performed but the role was reconstructed by triangulating different sources. The literature provides some hints on how to identify these entrepreneurs (Kingdon, 1995; Mintrom & Norman, 2009; Knaggard, 2015). In particular, policy entrepreneurs are located both inside and outside decision making arenas and have

The role of policy entrepreneurs in mobility transitions : the case of bike sharing schemes in Europe