Glossary

Effectuation is a way of acting under uncertainty. Instead of setting a goal first and then looking for the means to reach it, actors start from the means they already have and decide what they can create with them. It contrasts with causation, which works backwards from a predetermined goal. The concept was developed by Saras D. Sarasvathy (2001) on the basis of studies of expert entrepreneurs.

The means consist of who the actor is, what they know and whom they know. Four principles follow this starting point:

• Affordable loss: The actor does not ask what return is possible, but how much they can afford to lose. Risk is limited by what is staked, not by forecasting outcomes.

• Control instead of prediction: Where the future cannot be forecast, the actor focuses on what they can influence. To the extent that the future can be controlled, it does not need to be predicted.

• Strategic partnerships: Goals are not fixed in advance but emerge and change over the course of action, often because partners commit to the project and bring their own interests and resources.

• Contingencies as opportunity: Unexpected events are treated as opportunities to use rather than disruptions to avoid.

Example: A cook is asked to look through cupboards for available ingredients and utensils. Starting from these means, the cook imagines possible dishes, selects one, and prepares it.Under causation, the cook would first choose a menu and then buy the ingredients it requires.

Sarasvathy links the approach to Lindblom's (1959) model of "successive limited comparisons" in decision research on policy formulation, where the acting person chooses directly among policy options instead of establishing a hierarchy of values beforehand. Prediction is not abolished but becomes secondary.

Effectuation is considered particularly useful in dynamic, nonlinear environments.

Lobbying refers to the attempt by interest groups and other organized actors to influence political decisions and legislation. Interest groups are formal associations of individuals or organizations that seek to influence governmental decision-making and public policy on the basis of shared concerns. Lobbying is also carried out by individual companies, NGOs, trade unions, think tanks and professional advisers acting on behalf of clients. Its aim is to shape, prevent or initiate political decisions, and it typically involves supplying decision-makers with expertise and information.

Lobbying is directed primarily at the executive and the legislative process, including the administration at working level. It takes place through means such as letters, telephone calls, meetings, participation in hearings, submissions, reports and studies. In addition to this direct influence on political decision-makers, lobbying also encompasses indirect influence on public opinion. The persons carrying out this activity are termed lobbyists. The term derives from the English word “lobby” and refers to the antechamber of parliamentary buildings, where representatives of interest groups waited for members of parliament.

Lobbying and policy entrepreneurship overlap but are not identical. One difference lies in the relationship between actor and idea: lobbyists typically represent interests on the basis of a mandate, whereas policy entrepreneurs stand for their own ideas and derive their legitimacy not primarily from an external mandate but from the credible representation of those ideas. In practice the line is blurred, as lobbyists also advance their own ideas and policy entrepreneurs also represent interests. Policy entrepreneurs work close to political decision-making centres and often perform lobbying functions as well, whereas the reverse is not necessarily the case. Where a policy entrepreneur’s team lacks proximity to decision-makers or an understanding of political decision-making processes, lobbyists can fill this gap.

In political science, policy entrepreneurs are actors who invest their own resources, such as time, energy, expertise, and reputation, to promote a particular policy idea in the hope of future returns. These returns may be material, political, or ideological. Policy entrepreneurs can be individuals or organisations, and they can work both inside and outside government institutions. Their activities include building teams, coalitions, and networks, and framing problems in favour of their policy ideas.

In John W. Kingdon’s multiple-streams framework (1984), policy entrepreneurs are the actors who prepare the ground for political change over time and connect problems to available solutions and political circumstances when a policy window opens. Kingdon identifies three qualities that make them more likely to succeed: a claim to be heard (based on expertise or authority), strong connections, and persistence.

Empirical research supports the view that they have influence. A study of school-choice reforms across U.S. states (Mintrom 1997) found that the issue was more likely to reach the legislative agenda and be enacted in states where policy entrepreneurs were active. Later studies (e.g. Mintrom and Norman 2009) point to further skills that contribute to their success, such as social acuity, problem definition, team building, and leading by example. Actors seeking to advance their own policy ideas can adapt these to their circumstances and goals.