The research unveils polarization entrepreneurs influencing policy to achieve ideological and electoral goals.
The policy process literature has long theorized about the role of policy entrepreneurs, whom Paul Cairney calls the “hero… who knows that the pursuit of ambitious aims such as ‘evidence‐based policymaking’ requires framing a problem, having a solution ready, and exploiting the motive and opportunity of policymakers to select it” (2018, 199). The research agenda on policy entrepreneurs also holds great potential for another type of policy actor that we aim to introduce into the policy process lexicon: the polarization entrepreneur. These polarization entrepreneurs aim not to resolve the specific policy conflict at hand, but to advance broader strategic goals, such as solidifying their ideological base, expanding their influence across several policy subsystems, or gaining electoral advantage. We introduce the polarization entrepreneur as a policy actor who strategizes within policy spaces in ways we have not yet fully comprehended or theorized. We thus draw on the Multiple Streams Literature (MSF), the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) literature, as well as the political rise of Donald Trump to theorize about how these polarization entrepreneurs operate. We suggest a research agenda that presents a wealth of opportunity for policy scholars to better understand the policy system of our day.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stefes et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: