I suppose that a hegemon, or a lucky and clever policy entrepreneur could create venues for the discussion of/battles over policy images, policy formulation. Then it comes down to what are the terms of reference, what are the time-scales, do the people who are supposed to show up actually show up, and can the sweet ideas generated escape the “circular file” that decision-makers will want to put them in.
[The Advisory Committee on Business and Environment] ACBE’s main interest in the Carbon Trust (CT) was, as they openly stated, to “allow greater business involvement in recycling of revenues” (ACBE, 1999, page 2). ACBE therefore preferred the introduction of a new organisation such as the CT over adding a business stream to the already existing Energy Saving Trust (EST), which already had a board and where the receipts might be less effectively ring fenced. Opposition to the CT came from certain business actors who profited most from the spending of the EST (such as ACE or BEEF). They also argued that energy efficiency should have the priority, which was more in the interest of their constituents. A senior civil servant form the DETR involved in the process of setting up the CT recalled that ACE and BEEF, as well as the EST itself, fiercely opposed the setting up of a new body and instead wanted to develop a business stream within the EST.
(Kern, 2011: 13)
Kern, F. (2011) Ideas, institutions, and interests: explaining policy divergence in fostering “system innovations” towards sustainability Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2011 vol 29.
See the Ecologically Sustainable Development working groups in Australia 1990-1991…