European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 212

Juggling Multiple Networks in Multiple Streams

and frame policy agendas. Those agendas,
we found (de Leeuw 2016a; 2016b),
are shaped in sub-populations, cliques,
and specific actor networks. For policy
entrepreneurs it will help if they can speak
with a certain authority and resonance
on health (equity) issues to those that
are directly affected (i.e., disadvantaged
communities), but also to those that may
not feel directly affected. Equity and the
social gradient of health (Marmot 2005)
by their very nature have two sides: the
lower end and the upper end, the havenots and the haves. Developing a public
policy for all (no matter through which
mechanisms, e.g., Carey, Crammond,
and de Leeuw 2015) must, at least in its
framing and rhetorical tools, embrace all.

work that demonstrates that appropriate
policy network management practices
enhance the outcomes of policy
development (Klijn, Steijn, and Edelenbos
2010) and that the juggling extends
quite beyond the agenda setting “phase”
(Pump 2011) or the role of government
administration (Baumgartner et al.
2009; to add another—punctuated
equilibrium—theoretical
perspective
to the mix). This suggests that effective
policy entrepreneurs should be able to
glean their strategies from our hybrid
theoretical gaze. Such a perspective holds
promise for two future paths: one where a
more specific and guided policy network
management toolbox can be made
available to the aspiring entrepreneur, and
another where our juggling metaphor is
linked with network management ideas in
an exciting new research program. Clearly
Conclusion
the emerging practice of such policy
he dynamics in policies for health entrepreneurship should be intertwined
development processes can be with the research agenda.
better understood by applying
hybrid theoretical lenses. And by the use
of interactive techniques in analyzing References
network development and its efficiency as
first order effects. Furthermore, techniques Allender, S., E. Gleeson, B. Crammond,
such as IMPoIS provide participants in the G. Sacks, M. Lawrence, A. Peeters, and.
network with necessary insights to further B. Swinburn. 2012. “Policy Change to
aim their actions and strengthen their Create Supportive Environments for
position to communicate, collaborate and Physical Activity and Healthy Eating:
make (joint) decisions in making policies which Options are the most Realistic for
for health. This is of utmost importance Local Government?” Health Promotion
for community groups to better integrate International 27 (2): 261–274.
in health policy networks. Network
development then needs the explicit Bastian, M., S. Heymann, and M.
attention of stakeholders in health policy Jacomy.2009. Gephi: An Open Source
making.
Software for Exploring and Manipulating

Policy entrepreneurs should Networks. International AAAI Conference
be active in raising this attention and on Weblogs and Social Media.
awareness. There is an emerging body of

T

212