Policy entrepreneurs and post-conflict cross-bordercooperation: a conceptual framework and theIsraeli–Jordanian case

Tamar Arieli • Nissim Cohen

Published online: 19 December 2012� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Abstract What is the role of policy entrepreneurs in shaping the dynamics which nor-

malize relationships between neighboring countries after the formal resolution of conflict?

This article suggests a conceptual framework to understand the influence of policy

entrepreneurs on public policy regarding cross-border interaction in post-conflict border

regions. We analyze the motivations, preferences and strategies of local players which

design given realities in the border region. We propose a typology of the various policy

entrepreneurs active in the post-conflict border region. The theoretical framework is used

in the analysis of the Israeli–Jordanian border region since the peace treaty of 1994.

Keywords Policy entrepreneurship � Borders � Conflict � Israeli–Arab conflict

Introduction

What is the role of policy entrepreneurs in shaping the dynamics, which normalize rela-

tionships between neighboring countries after the formal resolution of conflict? While

cross-border cooperation is widely studied, the analysis of local players who promote

cross-border interactions in post-conflict settings contributes to our understanding of these

border regions. The motivations of these policy entrepreneurs are varied, but each tries to

shape the given political reality of the post-conflict period according to his/her vision or

interest. Alongside national, regional and global forces, policy entrepreneurs are agents of

change in post-conflict border regions. Identifying and analyzing their activities will

Tamar Arieli and Nissim Cohen contributed equally to this article.

T. ArieliConflict Management Program, Tel Hai College, Upper Galilee 12210, Israele-mail: tammyar@gmail.com

N. Cohen (&)Department of Public Administration & Policy, School of Political Sciences, The University of Haifa,Haifa 31905, Israele-mail: NissimCohen@poli.haifa.ac.il

123

Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256DOI 10.1007/s11077-012-9171-9

contribute to our understanding of both policy entrepreneurship and the dynamics of post-

conflict border regions.

Over the last decades, the concept of ‘‘Entrepreneurship’’ has become defused in

scholarly discourse that deals with public policy and management. A variety of studies

have used this concept to explain different case studies and policy results. We define

policy entrepreneurs as individuals who exploit opportunities to influence policy out-

comes to maximize self-interest—without having the necessary resources required for

achieving this goal alone. They are not satisfied by merely increasing their self-interest

within given institutions or constraints that others have established. Rather, they try to

influence a given public policy in order to open up new horizons of opportunities. This

paper expands the analysis of policy entrepreneurship by placing it in the context of post-

conflict borders.

A systematic review of the literature reveals that the concept of policy entrepreneurs has

not yet been connected to the study of post-conflict borders. Border regions are unique

interfaces in post-conflict periods where cross-border relationships range from alienation to

appreciation of the varied shared interests and areas of interdependence. The nature of

these relationships may change over time, led by both bottom-up and top-down initiatives.

Yet, policy entrepreneurs in these regions face a variety of obstacles in promoting their

cross-border initiatives. These obstacles include political and social sensitivities, lack of

trust and legitimization, and national policies regarding border security and cross-border

activity. Identifying activities of entrepreneurship, their motives, preferences, strategies,

and patterns of interaction with other players in the arena contributes to the understanding

of how bottom-up initiatives inform and design policy regarding developing cross-border

relations.

Our field research is based on twenty-eight interviews with Jordanians and Israelis

active in the border region, along with non-participant observations. The interviews were

conducted during the years 2006–2011 in the border regions of both Israel and Jordan.

Conducting these interviews was challenging due to the sensitivities of the post-conflict

period. Several Jordanian interviewees requested anonymity and we honor their request.

The interviewees’ sample was based on the snow-ball sampling method, which was posited

as an effective method of research in conflict environments (Cohen and Arieli 2011). This

method has been used also by Kingdon (1984, 221) in his classical work on policy

entrepreneurs. Hence, snow-ball sampling is a central and highly appropriate method both

for the study of post-conflict cross-border cooperation and for the study of policy

entrepreneurship.

The article is structured in the following manner: section ‘‘Post-conflict borders and

cross-border cooperation’’ briefly reviews an integrated theoretical basis of the concepts of

borders, conflict, and cross-border cooperation. Section ‘‘Policy entrepreneurs in post-

conflict border regions: categorizations, barriers, motivations and strategies’’ denotes the

policy entrepreneur as a unique player in the post-conflict border arena. Here, we describe

characteristics and principal action strategies of policy entrepreneurs and offer a theoretical

basis for analyzing entrepreneurship activities and results. Section ‘‘Israel and Jordan peace

treaty: vision and border realities’’ presents the Israel–Jordan peace treaty and its relevance

to the shared border region. This review serves us in section ‘‘Policy entrepreneurs in the

Israeli–Jordanian border region’’ to analyze entrepreneurs’ activities and interactions

promoting cross-border cooperation in this border region. The final chapter is devoted to a

‘‘Summary and discussion’’.

238 Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256

123

Post-conflict borders and cross-border cooperation

Conflict and borders

A conflict environment is one in which individuals or groups perceive their needs, goals, or

interests to be contradicted by the goals or interests of the other side (Kriesberg 1998).

Group conflict usually concerns contradictory, concrete goals in the areas of territory,

resources, trade, self-determination, religious rights, cultural values, and so on (Bar-Tal

2000). Such conflict is often accompanied by significant levels of misunderstanding,

considerably exaggerating the perceived disagreement and creating a general atmosphere

of distrust and suspicion.

The post-conflict period can be characterized by cold peace with somewhat stabilized

but not yet normalized relations. In defining post-conflict relations, we recall Galtung’s

(1969) differentiation between negative and positive peace. While negative peace is simply

the absence of war, positive peace means that the structures of domination underlying war

are eliminated from the societal condition. This differentiation correlates to some degree to

general concepts of ‘‘cold’’ and ‘‘warm’’ peace. Warm peace points to the existence of

highly developed transnational ties (Press-Barnathan 2006). Under conditions of a cold

peace, despite the initial resolution of the primary disputed issues, there is the actual

possibility of a return to conflict (Miller 2005). The post-conflict period, characterized by

negative or cold peace, has detrimental implications for the prospect of developing cross-

border ties and realizing shared local interests through cross-border initiatives.

Borders, as the interface between countries and societies, reflect the state of inter-

national conflict and accommodation ranging from confrontation and exclusion to

cooperation and integration (Newman 2003). While ongoing globalization forces

emphasize the cross-border mobility of people, ideas, goods and capital, borders of

conflict are generally not perceived to be included in this process of gradual increase in

cross-border movement. Minghi (1991) claims that cross-border transactions are virtually

nonexistent along a border threatened by conflict. In this vein, Martinez’s typology of

borderlands evaluates degrees of cross-border interaction in the border region as a

reflection of the state of relations between neighboring countries, from alienation,

through co-existence and interdependence to integration (Martınez 1994). Post-conflict

borders can gradually advance from alienated to co-existent and interdependent relations

through increasing cross-border interactions. Policy entrepreneurship is central to this re-

classification of border regions through advancing opportunities of cross-border

interaction.

Cross-border cooperation

Cross-border cooperation (hereafter: CBC) is a form of linkage across national borders,

taking advantage of opportunities created by economic and other asymmetries and com-

plementarities of neighboring regions. CBC develops on the physical infrastructure of

border-crossing facilities, transportation, and administrative frameworks allowing inter-

action between people and functions on both sides of a border. Local CBC in areas of

mutual interest can potentially develop momentum and spillover to internal non-border

regions, generating other areas of cooperation. European and North American CBC has

been widely analyzed, but CBC develops even in conflict and post-conflict borders.

Soffer (1994) analyzes CBC in the Security Zone of the Israel–Lebanese border, the

Israel–Jordan border, and the Israel–Syrian border during the years 1985–1993. He claims

Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256 239

123

that even under conditions of hostility, continuous cross-border human movements can be

expected. The main motivation would be family ties and local trade (open or secret) based

on a shared language and mentality, knowledge of the region, need for solving daily

problems, and economic improvement. These connections can lead to some degree of

governmental communication and indirectly break negative stereotypes. Henrikson (2000)

goes further, in recognizing the value of cross-border interaction and cooperation as

‘‘transboundary diplomacy’’ which filters from border regions into the political center of

states, positively affecting the nature of inter-state political relations toward increased

stability. As a bottom-up phenomenon, this process is led by locals of the border com-

munities populations when they do not feel marginalized or threatened.

During early stages of transition from conflict to stable peace and normalized relations,

the border region remains a symbol of national authority and a central focus of security

agencies. This can intimidate civilian initiatives common to periods of normalization. Scott

claims (1999, 179) that CBC is a product of different motivations, opportunities, and

strategic concerns. Thus, parallel to the symbolic essence and national security focus, the

phenomena of CBC illustrates that borders serve a more functional reference for indi-

viduals of local border region communities.

Policy entrepreneurs in these challenging arenas will evaluate opportunities and pro-

mote cross-border interaction to further their interests and needs. These opportunities are a

function of the presence of asymmetries and complementarities, population densities and

growth, and the degree of centralization of the political-governance system (Clement et al.

1999, 252). Realizing opportunities for CBC is a central element of policy entrepreneur-

ship in post-conflict border regions. This integrated analysis contributes to our under-

standing of the challenges of CBC. Moreover, the post-conflict border region, as an

extreme circumstance and environment, serves to enrich our understanding of the potential

and limitations of policy entrepreneurs.

Policy entrepreneurs in post-conflict border regions: categorizations, barriers,motivations, and strategies

Entrepreneurs and policy entrepreneurs

The concept of entrepreneurship has been applied to diverse players who engage in dif-

ferent activities and perform various functions in the political system. Although no single

person receives full credit for the formulation of policy, most policy scholars view

entrepreneurs as central figures in the drama. The literature suggests several types of

entrepreneurship. Kingdon ([1984] 1995) explains that policy entrepreneurs could be in or

out of government, in elected or appointed positions, in interest groups or research orga-

nizations. But their defining characteristic, much as in the case of a business entrepreneur,

is their willingness to invest their resources—time, energy, reputation, and sometimes

money—in the hope of a future return (ibid, 122). According to Kingdon’s (1985) when a

window of opportunity opens, the policy entrepreneur plays a key role in connecting

between problems and solutions and emphasizing the importance of new ideas (Kingdon

1995).

Roberts and King (1991, 152) distinguish between policy entrepreneurs and other

categories of entrepreneurship. Hence, political entrepreneurs hold elected leadership

positions in government, executive entrepreneurs hold appointed leadership positions in

government, bureaucratic entrepreneurs hold formal positions in government, although

240 Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256

123

not leadership positions and policy entrepreneurs work from outside the formal govern-

mental system to introduce, translate, and implement innovative ideas into public sector

practice. Indeed, this important categorization emphasizes the various configurations of

entrepreneurship within and outside of the political arena. Yet, we choose to identify the

shared basic element of entrepreneurship and emphasize the common motivations and

strategies of all policy entrepreneurs in the post-conflict border region, regardless of their

specific affiliation. As already suggested by Cohen (2012), we therefore adopt some ele-

ments from Hart et al.’s (1995, 53) definition of business entrepreneurs and define policy

entrepreneurs as individuals who exploit opportunities to influence policy outcomes in

order to maximize self-interest—without having the necessary resources required to

achieve this goal alone.

Mintrom and Norman (2009, 652–654) suggest four elements that are central to policy

entrepreneurship:

Displaying social acuity

Policy entrepreneurs, well versed in the sociopolitical context, identify ‘‘windows of

opportunity’’ in accordance with the existing social order.

Defining problems

Policy entrepreneurs relate specific problems to their own interests. Defining problems can

involve presenting evidence in ways that suggest a crisis is at hand, finding ways to

highlight failures of current policy settings, drawing support from actors beyond the

immediate scope of the problem.

Building teams

Policy entrepreneurs are team players whose strength comes through their ability to work

effectively with other players in the policy arena. They use personal and professional social

networks as coalitions for policy change.

Leading by example

Policy entrepreneurs take actions intended to reduce the perception of risk among decision-

makers. When policy entrepreneurs take the lead by example, the risk calculations of

legislators can often switch from a focus on the consequences of action to a focus on the

potential of action and the consequences of inaction.

These four elements are evident in the initiatives of policy entrepreneurs in post-

conflict borders. Policy entrepreneurship in the context of border regions is suggested by

Perkmann (2007:866–867) who analyzes cross-border regions in Europe (Euroregions)

as institutional policy entrepreneurs. However, Euroregions clearly differ from post-

conflict borders regarding the mechanisms of entrepreneurship. Moreover, despite the

difficulty to trace policy entrepreneurship to the level of individuals, we choose to

remain loyal to the mainstream definition of entrepreneurs as individuals rather than

institutions. For it is essentially people, rather than organizations, who make social and

political decisions.

Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256 241

123

Policy entrepreneurs in post-conflict borders: categorization

Entrepreneurship in the context of post-conflict societies is a developing area of study.

A central theme which dominates the literature is the question of the contribution of

business entrepreneurship to post-war reconstruction and development. While some see the

macroeconomic conditions of these environments as deterring business entrepreneurship

(Schulpen and Gibbon 2002) causing many of the economic difficulties common to post-

conflict regions (Munshi 2007), others are troubled by the widespread destructive entre-

preneurship in post-conflict environments. Destructive entrepreneurship thrives on conflict

and poverty and may actually undermine government institutions with detrimental results

for post-conflict economic development (Baumol 1990; Cooper 2006; Naude 2007).

Notwithstanding this dilemma, clearly the role of entrepreneurship in promoting cross-

border activities in post-conflict environments, where the border was a recent focal point of

conflict, is a totally different context of entrepreneurship which has not yet been explored.

The analysis of policy entrepreneurs in the context of post-conflict border regions dem-

onstrates three categories of policy entrepreneurs from the public, private, and third

sectors:

Public administration policy entrepreneurs

These are mainly local government bureaucrats of the border region, holding formal

positions at intermediate organizational levels (i.e., department and unit heads). Their

motivations are mainly based on maximizing efficiency of their units, through identifying

opportunities for cross-border interaction. They thus also succeed in increasing their

personal centrality and influence in the organization. In post-conflict border regions, these

intermediate-level bureaucrats are less influenced by national discourses of public opinion

and politics which tend to magnify lingering conflictual issues and impressions. Rather,

they concentrate on increasing their local status through a pragmatic approach of con-

tributing to economic development and improving the quality of life in the border region.

Private sector policy entrepreneurs

Policy entrepreneurs in the private sector are not merely business entrepreneurs, rather they

are business people, usually affiliated with large and medium size businesses, who try to

influence or change policy outcomes to serve their interests. This entrepreneurship is a

factor of perceptions of business opportunities, benefits, and costs. In post-conflict rela-

tions, perceptions of cost can be emphasized, overriding perceptions of opportunities and

potential benefits. These entrepreneurs focus on promoting interests based on cross-border

initiatives and interactions to maximize personal economic benefits (i.e., expanding mar-

kets, decreasing transaction costs etc.). These individuals are active in the border region

although not necessarily centered there.

Third sector policy entrepreneurs

These entrepreneurs are individuals associated with non-government organizations

(NGO’s) and non-affiliated locals. The organization-affiliated players usually have head-

quarters in the national political centers or overseas rather than the peripheral border

region. Individual players are usually locals of the border region who harness their

familiarity with the problems and potential of the border region to promote cross-border

242 Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256

123

initiatives. The motivation of these entrepreneurs is often to facilitate people-to-people

cross-border interaction through cross-border cooperation in small scale, local projects.

Through identifying and realizing opportunities for engaging societies in cross-border

cooperation, they contribute to the local quality of life. Thus, these entrepreneurs realize

their organizational or personal agenda and also succeed in increasing their centrality and

influence in their organization or social environment.

The three categories of policy entrepreneurs demonstrate different characteristics and

affiliations. Yet, as we will show, in analyzing their strategies for promoting cross-border

initiatives, entrepreneurs employ a shared and unique basic strategy in overcoming the

barriers they face.

Policy entrepreneurs in post-conflict borders: barriers

The border region is the arena for multiple players who often have contradicting percep-

tions and goals: international, regional, national and local decision-makers, interest groups

and the general public. The perceptions and strategies of the policy entrepreneur are shaped

by these conflicting multiple players. Therefore, policy entrepreneurs in post-conflict

border regions face unique political and structural-technical barriers from both sides of the

border.

The major political barrier in the post-conflict period which entrepreneurs face in their

interactions on both sides of a border is lack of legitimacy. As already noted by Mintrom

(2000), entrepreneurs in all contexts are generally challenged with mistrust. Their efforts to

introduce new combinations of activities inevitably open the possibility of changing the

status of various players. In building and maintaining good relations, developing trust is

very important to the pursuit of the policy entrepreneur’s goals. Relationships of trust can

be built through efforts of networking and repeated interactions of reciprocal, preferential,

and mutually supportive actions.

In conflict and post-conflict environments, societies tend to become especially internally

united and self-protective (Bar-Tal 2000). The cold peace characteristic of the post-conflict

period is due to continuous perceptions of security needs and the lingering atmosphere of

fear and distrust, limiting initiatives of border-related policy change. As a result, high

levels of societal suspicion and distrust may be directed toward entrepreneurs’ border-

related activities. Entrepreneurs face significant challenges in establishing a trusted pres-

ence and developing reliable contacts on the other side of the border due to the remnants of

the conflict period. Furthermore, even in their home environments, policy entrepreneurs

promoting cross-border initiatives can be considered by the public as opportunists pro-

moting self-interest activities at the price of security.

This suspicion can also stem from politicians and bureaucrats with whom entrepreneurs

interact to promote policy outcomes. Ideological gaps between people and parties, often

enhanced by conflict, contribute to these suspicions, complicating the prospect of societal

dialogue and coalition-building toward change. The political climate is a central factor

affecting the prospects of cross-border policy entrepreneurship. Authoritarian political

conditions on one or both sides of the border can be reflected in political repression, a sense

of continuous presence of internal security forces, and various political sensitivities.

Another contributing factor can be an anti-Western sentiment which is prevalent in many

authoritarian countries and could affect entrepreneurship, particularly regarding initiatives

such as commerce. This political climate can also increase difficulties in locating and

engaging partners for policy entrepreneurship involving cross-border initiatives.

Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256 243

123

Another aspect of trust in analyzing the activities of cross-border policy entrepre-

neurship is the geographic sphere. Entrepreneurs active in a specific geographic area such

as a designated cross-border region maintain a localized focus as a result of the unique

nature of the problem they have identified, their knowledge of the community, or the

limited applicability of the problem to other contexts. In contrast, entrepreneurs seeking to

address problems on a more universal scale will reach out to a more varied and less

individually involved group of stakeholders, in order to create the umbrella of impact they

desire to achieve. In such a context, as social entrepreneurs, their contact with each

stakeholder is likely to be less intense, less lasting, and less based on personal trust (Smith

and Stevens 2010).

We may also apply here Greenblatt’s (1992: 124) idea of ‘‘go-betweens’’. Hence,

entrepreneurs who speak multiple languages and understand the culture of others may play

a crucial role of initiating regional change. It is therefore a great act of policy entrepre-

neurship for an individual to ‘‘adventure out’’ across a recent conflict zone and suggest

mutually-beneficial ways forward. Their actions at building trust and goodwill potentially

serve a positive role in transforming the post-conflict atmosphere from mutual suspicion to

mutual trust, generating shared positive externalities.

The structural-technical barriers stem from the essence of cross-border initiatives as

based on two sides of a border. Entrepreneurs can be initially unfamiliar with societies and

institutional structures on the other side of the border. But even on their side of the border,

to promote cross-border initiatives, entrepreneurs often need to interact within unfamiliar

circles and systems of authorities with which they may be inexperienced.

Structural–technical barriers include a lack of system information, contact information,

cultural differences, and double bureaucratic political and legal systems. Due to a lack of

system information, entrepreneurs are challenged in their interactions with the main

players and institutions involved in regulating cross-border activity on both sides of the

border. The lack of contact information is reflected in the difficulties entrepreneurs face in

identifying and accessing potential contacts and associates for cross-border initiatives.

Cultural barriers may include the need to interact in a foreign language and sociocultural

setting according to local norms. Thus, policy entrepreneurs may face the challenge of

coordination between societies, business communities, cultures, bureaucratic political and

legal systems. This challenge is significant in the post-conflict period, when there is little

contact or dialogue between these systems and few, if any, precedents to civilian cross-

border entrepreneurship.

The above-described barriers are of course translated to increased costs of policy

entrepreneurship in post-conflict border regions in comparison with entrepreneurship under

normalized conditions. These include the political, economic, and social costs an entre-

preneur may bear for initiating cross-border interaction which can be perceived as ille-

gitimate and self-serving. The cost of entrepreneurship during this period can be especially

high in terms of time and money needed to be invested in the learning process of devel-

oping new contacts and networks of support. To this may be added the risks involved in

developing cross-border activity in the post-conflict period. Given these barriers and

increased costs, it is essential to understand the motivations of entrepreneurs.

Policy entrepreneurs in post-conflict borders: motivations and strategies

Due to the above-described barriers, the post-conflict border region is an extreme envi-

ronment for examining the motivations and strategies of policy entrepreneurship. These

motivations are varied and can be difficult to identify, especially since entrepreneurs may

244 Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256

123

have multiple motivations. Although there is growing literature suggesting varied moti-

vations associated with (social) entrepreneurship activity (e.g., Nicholls 2006, 23; Shane

and Venkataraman 2000; Austin et al. 2006), in this article we focus on policy entrepre-

neurs who act in social spheres to realize self-interest by influencing policy. The social

aspect of their activities is the creation of shared opportunities and collective benefits.

One of the main characteristics of policy entrepreneurs is that they are not satisfied by

merely increasing their self-interest within given institutions or constraints. Rather, they try

to influence a given public policy in order to open up new horizons of opportunities.

Therefore, policy entrepreneurs motivated by increasing self-interest may generate positive

externalities for society, as the benefits may be collectively shared. Hence, policy entre-

preneurs in the case of the Israeli–Jordanian border region seek to introduce new frames of

thinking about peace and the opportunities it holds for a better, more prosperous life for

everyone in the region. This demonstrates how self-interest actors may generate noble

results on local and even regional, national, and international levels.

Just as the business entrepreneur acts to maximize personal economic benefits, the

policy entrepreneur in post-conflict border regions acts to promote personal interests

through promoting cross-border interaction. Just as we would not expect business entre-

preneurs to act out of pure ideological motivation, why would we expect the policy

entrepreneur to pursue purely collective interests for the public good?

Entrepreneurship motivation is a derivative of the individuals’ position in a given

society or organization. Although all entrepreneurs are basically guided by self-interest,

specific motivations can be varied. Entrepreneurs may seek to increase political and

bureaucratic power to improve their economic and social status or promote their ideas and

ideologies. Sometimes, the self-interest is combined with collective goals. Thus, ideology

and social welfare can be combined with the narrow self-interest perspective.

Despite the above-described challenges, the post-conflict period can offer multiple

opportunities for entrepreneurship in reference to both personal and collective motivations.

Various interests, local and foreign, tend to concentrate in the border region, otherwise a

national periphery, during the post-conflict period. Previously unexplored prospects in the

border region can be exploited for significant benefit, especially for the pioneers of cross-

border economic interaction. Policy entrepreneurs in the post-conflict period can also

establish their positions as leaders of local and national parties, institutions, and interest

groups. They can potentially develop their personal status as individuals of vision and

daring through their pioneering cross-border entrepreneurship during the post-conflict

period when there is little competition.

Policy entrepreneurs in border regions during periods of post-conflict relations are

therefore those few individuals who perceive opportunities in cross-border initiatives

despite prevailing conditions of suspicion and uncertainty. These conditions raise the

perceived costs of policy change regarding the promotion of cross-border initiatives,

making it harder to create interest groups and coalitions despite the potential for collective

benefits. This demonstrates Wilson’s (1980, 367–370) claim that Entrepreneurial Politics

are most evident when the benefits of policy change are distributed and the costs are

concentrated.

The three categories of public, private, and third sector policy entrepreneurs share a

unique basic strategy for developing cross-border initiatives. Schneider and Teske (1992,

742) emphasize political coalition-building as central to successful entrepreneurship which

challenges the status-quo. As will be demonstrated in the next section, these entrepreneurs

operate and build coalitions on two spheres, horizontal, and vertical. Horizontally, they

identify cross-border contacts for cooperation in parallel organizations and functions to

Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256 245

123

serve their personal or organizational interests. Vertically, they seek authorization and

support from higher level politicians and bureaucrats for cross-border aspects of their local

activity. Indeed, Mintrom and Vergari (1998) demonstrate that success in getting issues

onto political agendas strongly correlates with the involvement of policy entrepreneurs in

advocacy networks outside of government. However, success in getting new proposals

adopted by legislatures depends on their engagement with networks inside government. As

we will suggest next, a similar pattern exists in the case of policy entrepreneurs operating

in post-conflict cross-border environments. The quest for authorization and support can

even extend to authorities and policy makers outside the national frame, as will be dem-

onstrated. This authorization and support is critical to their operation in post-conflict border

regions due to the delicate political atmosphere and many obstacles to cross-border ini-

tiatives as reviewed above. Resources for addressing these obstacles are a function of the

above-described categorization of entrepreneurship, as will be demonstrated through our

case study.

Israel and Jordan peace treaty: vision and border realities

The Israel–Jordan peace treaty reflects a great emphasis on local cooperation in developing

the shared border region. Yet, civilian relations between Israelis and Jordanians are few. It

is surprising that cross-border cooperation has not yet developed as a regular, legitimate

practice, almost two decades after the peace treaty and despite the many new opportunities

for policy entrepreneurship. The reality is that Israel–Jordan relations are far from nor-

malized. This post-conflict period, under the shadow of the ongoing Arab–Israel conflict

challenges policy entrepreneurship in promoting cross-border relations in the border

region.

The Israel–Jordan peace treaty emphasizes a vision of partnership with ‘‘good neigh-

borly relations and cooperation’’ through political, economic, social, and cultural inter-

action which are viewed in the treaty as the true source of ‘‘lasting security’’ (Article 11).

Thus, the treaty refers twenty times to ‘‘cooperation,’’ eleven times to ‘‘mutuality’’ and ten

times to ‘‘joint efforts’’, presenting a concept of actual partnership in facing common needs

(Satloff 1995). This vision of neighborly relations follows the concept of the ‘‘New Middle

East’’ in which Shimon Peres envisions Israel and the wider Arab world realizing the

potential of peaceful relations. The new possibilities of the region would be based on

economic rationality, peace, democracy, cooperation, mutual gain, and general prosperity

(Cohen and Ben-Porat 2008), which would serve as frameworks of opportunity for

entrepreneurship and advance.

The border is very much at the center of this vision. Article 11 of the peace treaty is

entitled ‘‘Mutual Understanding and Good Neighborly Relations.’’ The late King Hussein,

at the signing ceremony of the Israel–Jordan peace treaty of October 1994, referred to the

potential of the border as a ‘‘Peace Valley’’, a site for joint infrastructure and economic

projects based on cross-border cooperation:

‘‘This great valley in which we stand will become the valley of peace. And when we

come together to build it and to make it bloom, as never before, when we come to

live next to each other, as never before, we will be doing so, Israelis and Jordanians,

together, without the need for any to observe our actions or supervise our endeavors.

This is peace with dignity, this is peace with commitment.’’

246 Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256

123

In light of this vision, Israel developed a plan for a 520-km-long ‘‘economic boulevard’’

of projects such as water desalination, electricity generation, cross-border railway, tourism,

and industry along the border and a shared airport (Interview, Erez). Yet, great discrepancy

exists between the grandiose planning and the actual state of the cross-border region

development and cooperation. Only few of these initiatives were fully carried out, and

cooperation has been sporadic (Shamir 2004).

Planning and executing large-scale projects of joint infrastructure entails cooperation

and coordination on a level that Israel–Jordan relations have not yet reached and are

unlikely to develop in the post-conflict period due to high costs in case of disassociation

(Mishal et al. 2001, 135). At the technical level, these projects encounter multiple

bureaucracies, that of both national and regional governments and of initiating and funding

agencies. Additional factors which inhibit cooperative initiatives are Jordan’s Palestinian

middle class which largely opposes normalization before the conflict is resolved, Jordan’s

fear of Israeli dominance due to the gap between Israeli and Jordanian economic capac-

ities, Israel’s western economic and cultural orientation, and the bureaucratic obstacles of

both countries (Shamir 2004). Additional factors deterring CBC are the actual price, in

terms of time and money, of the border-crossing procedure, and Israel’s very problematic

visa policy regarding Jordanians (Arieli 2012).

The challenge of developing cooperation is central to the Israel–Jordan Valley which as

a border region faces significant problems involving not only the needs of the local pop-

ulation, but also are inherently connected to issues of water and security of national interest

to both Israel and Jordan (interview, Ouais).

Policy entrepreneurs in the Israeli–Jordanian border region

Israel–Jordan cross-border interactions are initiated almost entirely by local policy entre-

preneurs. These initiatives are based on the will to maximize self-interest dividends by

influencing policy outcomes related to the border. However, they do not have the necessary

resources required to achieve their goals alone, especially in light of the many obstacles

facing front players in the post-conflict period.

Policy entrepreneurship in public administration

Israel–Jordan relations include communication and cooperation at various national levels

of security, foreign ministry, industry, commerce, health, and water agencies. Yet, the most

significant expression of local policy entrepreneurship is the municipal cooperative com-

mittees which function in the Aqaba–Eilat region. The scope and depth of cross-border

cooperation between the cities Eilat and Aqaba are unprecedented in comparison with

other post-conflict border regions.

The formal expressions of this cooperation are the eight Aqaba–Eilat cooperative sub-

committees, active since 2005. These committees meet several times each year, alternately

on each side of the border to discuss shared regional problems and suggest operational

solutions to local needs. The Israeli participants in the committees are local municipal

figures, national governmental officials of the relevant ministries, professionals, private

individuals, and volunteers. The Jordanian participants are all officials of ASEZA, pro-

fessionals in their fields. Channels of communication are varied and include e-mail, fax,

telephone, and face-to-face meetings. The committees submit suggestions to the steering

committee (AECC-Aqaba-Eilat Coordination Committee). The governor of Aqaba, who is

Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256 247

123

also the High Commissioner of ASEZA, the Director-General of the Israeli Ministry of

Foreign Affairs and the Mayor of Eilat, among others, attend the steering committee

meetings.

The policy entrepreneurs driving these committees are the head of the Department of

Regional Cooperation of the Eilat municipality, Samo Samorai, and the head of Envi-

ronment Studies, Permitting & Monitoring Division of ASEZA, Salim Al-Mughrabi. Their

personal involvement in initiating and regulating the committees’ work include all aspects

of coordination, from the planning stages through to their execution. Neither of these

figures is exclusively involved in the committees’ activities yet they both have established

themselves as leaders of this framework in their respective organizations. Therefore, they

are credited with the local benefits of the organized framework of cooperation (interviews,

Al-Mughrabi; Samorai).

Policy entrepreneurship carries not only personal benefits but also potential costs. There

are asymmetric costs to the involvement of these entrepreneurs in cross-border coopera-

tion. Jordanian entrepreneurs enjoy relative autonomy in their policy endeavors, but they

are challenged with the growing opposition in Jordan to the normalization of relations with

Israel due to the ongoing regional conflict. Israeli entrepreneurs are not challenged by such

political opposition however as a municipality rather than a governmental unit they are

burdened with the bureaucratic effort which this framework of cooperation demands from

them.

These entrepreneurs identify and promote three targets of policy change. The first target

is the initiation of a framework of cooperation in local public administrations which is a

unique shift in policy. Although peaceful relations between Israel and Jordan were

established in 1994, local cooperation did not automatically develop. Hence, the significant

contribution of local entrepreneurship in translating this vision to a public administrative

structure of committees which develop de facto cooperative practices in the post-conflict

border region. This target of policy entrepreneurship is even institutionalized in the Eilat

municipality which is the only one in Israel to have established a Department of Regional

Cooperation.

The second target is to generate local benefits through the committees’ work. These

include early warning systems of floods, earthquakes and water pollution, expanded

potential of emergency forces due to joint training, increased effectiveness of mosquito, fly

and house-crow control due to coordinated efforts, increased accessibility to international

grants in scientific and cultural activity (interview, Baranes), coordination and cooperation

between the two ports, and significantly increased environmental security of the gulf due to

joint monitoring of water pollution. These cooperative efforts of policy entrepreneurship

have resulted in a radical improvement in regional security and environmental sustain-

ability and in the local quality of life. The benefits of cooperation in these areas are

especially significant to this region due to its remoteness from the national centers of both

countries.

Policy entrepreneurs in this case employ a unique strategy of coalition-building for the

realization of these targeted policy changes. On the horizontal sphere, they identify each

other as cross-border contacts and develop cross-border local networks in various fields of

interest. On the vertical sphere, these entrepreneurs depend on authorization and support

from national level politicians and bureaucrats due to the cross-border aspects of their local

activity. Here, there is a marked difference due to the fact that Aqaba is the heart of

ASEZA, a government authority which enjoys relative independence in local policy, while

Eilat is a municipality, subordinate to government ministries. Therefore, policy entrepre-

neurship in Eilat involves extensive efforts of vertical networking and coordination with

248 Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256

123

various ministers and bureaucrats of the national government. This vertical coalition-

building is also evident in the establishment of a Hebrew e-mail list server, established and

maintained by Samorai, consisting of figures from the national and local government as

well as academics, local business people and other stakeholders in the border region.

Through this list server, stakeholders are constantly updated with developments in an effort

to keep their interest focused on the needs of the border region to maintain support for

initiatives of policy entrepreneurs.

Policy entrepreneurship in the private sector

Cooperative business initiatives between Israelis and Jordanians have been slow in

developing due to problems of lack of legitimization and trust related to post-conflict

relations and the ongoing regional conflict. However, a chronological analysis reveals a

trend of initial successful entrepreneurship which decreases over time.

The first significant successful policy entrepreneurship accomplished by players of the

private sector was demonstrated in the mid 1990s. After the signing of the peace treaty,

Israeli and Jordanian businessmen began joint textile manufacturing in Irbid, Jordan. The

leading figures were Dov Lautman of the Israeli Delta Galil industries and Omar Salah, of

the Jordanian Century Investment Group, two prominent policy entrepreneurs. The

incentives for this cooperation were the proximity of the Irbid site to the Delta factory in

Karmiel, Israel and the significantly lower minimal wage in Jordan (Shamir 2004, 81).

The main problem threatening this cooperation was that while textile manufactured in

Israel enjoyed the status of the United States–Israel Free Trade Agreement, textile coop-

eratively produced in Jordan was not eligible, under rules of origin, for free trade export to

the United States (interview, ‘‘Anonymous 1’’). Salah, Lautman, and other figures of the

business community lobbied in the United States Congress for a solution. The result of this

entrepreneurship was the QIZ (Qualified Industrial Zones) proposal, which was a change in

the United States trade policy (interview, Bar). The QIZ was essentially an extension of

benefits enjoyed by Israeli companies to ‘‘designated border areas’’ between Israel and its

peace partners (Kardoosh and al Khouri 2004, 11). The QIZ agreement was an impressive

result of policy entrepreneurship based on horizontal cross-border networking and vertical

coalition-building in the higher realms of Israeli, Jordanian, and even United States politics

and policy making.

Another significant display of private sector policy entrepreneurship is the Israel–Jordan

Chamber of Commerce, an institutional initiative to facilitate private sector business

cooperation. The Chamber is an Israeli initiative to represent people interested in Israel–

Jordan business cooperation, create opportunities for networking and influence policy to

serve the interests of the business communities (interview, Piorko). The Chamber’s

activities include a Web site, regular conferences in the border region, and supply of data

relevant to Israel–Jordan commercial interaction. Our observations showed that although

this is an Israeli private sector institution, Jordanian business people regularly participated

in its activities. The main area of policy which the Chamber regularly addresses is the

border-crossing procedures and policies regarding authorization of visas for Jordanians.

Central to this policy, entrepreneurship activity is the participation of Israeli and Jordanian

politicians in the Chamber’s events. A parallel Jordanian institution was suggested, despite

opposition groups in Jordan who opposed normalization of relations with Israel.

In recent years, policy entrepreneurship in the private sector has significantly decreased.

The last Israel–Jordan Chamber of Commerce conference was held in October 2008, and a

parallel Jordanian institution has not developed. Despite its promising beginning, the QIZ

Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256 249

123

initiative failed to develop as a framework for facilitating and expanding cooperation

between individuals and companies of Israel’s and Jordan’s private sectors. Therefore, the

analysis of policy entrepreneurship is central to better understanding of the needs and

interests of entrepreneurs and to the facilitation of growth of economic cooperation.

These private sector policy entrepreneurs face two obstacles in establishing and

maintaining regular communication and activity. The first is the above-described problem

of border-crossing procedures manifested in the policies regarding authorization of visas

for Jordanians. Despite the proximity of Israeli and Jordanian entrepreneurs, their ability to

meet is severely limited. Delays and cancellations are common in Jordanians’ scheduled

visits to Israel (interview, Zaid). This demonstrates the difficulty of private sector entre-

preneurs to access decision-makers and interact within unfamiliar bureaucratic procedures.

The second obstacle is the lack of legitimacy for cooperative initiatives in Jordanian

society. The major concern of Jordanian businesspeople is the reaction of the public and

interest groups in Jordan to their cooperation with Israelis. Therefore, most cooperation has

been kept in low profile (Haaretz Daily, October 26, 2004). Islamic fundamentalist groups

have led opposition to peace and normalization by publication of a ‘‘blacklist’’ of politi-

cians, academics, and businesspeople that cooperate with Israelis. The opposition also

targets the Bar Association and the Association of Jordanian Journalists. Many Jordanian

business people and companies continue to do business with Israeli counterparts but keep it

in a low profile for fear of exposure and boycott (interviews, ‘‘Anonymous 2’’; ‘‘Anony-

mous 3’’).

Here lies the essential explanation for the current difference in scope and strategies of

policy entrepreneurship in Israeli and Jordanian private sectors. While the visa problem

became a focal point of Israeli policy entrepreneurship efforts, lack of legitimacy for

cooperation significantly burdens the Jordanian entrepreneurs. Therefore, Israeli entre-

preneurs are dominant in initiating cross-border networking, while Jordanians, react to,

rather than initiate opportunities for cooperation (Cohen and Ben-Porat 2008). As of 2011,

business and industrial ties are mainly limited to supplying the minimal required Israeli

inputs for Jordanian industries according to QIZ regulations. The border region has not

become the focus of significant private sector initiative, despite its potential in terms of

cross-border economic activity in industry, commerce, tourism, and infrastructure.

Policy entrepreneurship in the third sector

A wide variety of third sector entrepreneurs have been active in influencing policy out-

comes in the Israel–Jordan border region, both organization-affiliated and individuals.

Many NGO’s are or have been involved in the Lower Jordan Valley region, such as the

Amman Center for Peace and Development (ACPD), the Center of Education for Rec-

onciliation and Cooperation (CERC), the Economic Cooperation Foundation (ECF),

Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), Friedrich–Ebert–Stiftung, the Jewish Feder-

ation of Cleveland, and the Peres Center for Peace and Development. The initiatives differ

from one another in their planned activities but have similar goals of fostering good

neighborly relations between cross-border Arab–Israeli communities.

The organizers and administrators of these NGO’s can be viewed as policy entrepre-

neurs in their efforts to facilitate their organizational and personal goals through influ-

encing policy outcomes. While some have shown themselves as long-term players in the

border region, others have extremely irregular patterns of involvement. These short-term

entrepreneurships are highly dependent on funding availability and are therefore organized

and oriented as ‘‘grant coalitions’’ (Cochrane et al. 1996).

250 Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256

123

Third sector involvement focuses on promoting activities in social, agricultural, and

environmental realms of life in the border region. Social CBC was first initiated by the

Israeli organizations of ECF and CERC lead by Mary Manouskin with Mansur Abu Rashid

of ACPD as the Jordanian counterpart, choosing the Jordanian participants, coordinating

their participation, and hosting the various activities when held in Jordan (interviews,

Avivi; Manouskin; Shatzberg; Weinberg). The various Israel–Jordan social activities

include a mayor’s forum, women’s forums, children’s sports activities, and a religious

leaders’ forum (interview, Reiner). The central player in initiating environmental CBC is

FoEME directed by Gideon Bromberg, Mehyar Munqath and Nader Khateeb, who initiated

the ongoing project ‘‘Good Water Neighbors’’ (interviews, Bromberg; Khateeb; Munqath).

Its goals are to promote sustainable water management in pilot communities in Israel, the

Palestinian Authority, and Jordan and to advance trans-boundary cooperation in

exchanging information and advancing specific water problem solutions. The main agri-

cultural CBC in this region is the ongoing ‘‘Barn Owl Project’’ (BOP), jointly initiated by

Yossi Leshem of Tel Aviv University and Shaul Aviel, an agricultural expert of Kibbutz

Sde Eliyayu (interview, Aviel). This biological pest control project in the Bet Shean Valley

uses special nesting chests to attract barn owls and reduce the number of field mice. This

project is unique in that a local figure, Shaul Aviel, is central to the planning and execution

of the many cross-border activities as opposed to almost all other CBC programs which are

initiated and coordinated by people and organizations not of the local border region

(interview, Roth).

Not all third sector policy entrepreneurs are affiliated with organizations. The Southern

Arava Valley Project is the product of cooperative initiatives between the Jordanian quasi-

governmental public company Al-Haq Farms and Amnon Greenberg, the head of the

Israeli Arava Agricultural Research and Development Station at kibbutz Yotvata (inter-

view, Greenberg). The aims of the project include the implementation of state-of-the-art

desert agriculture and the development of the Jordanian village of Rachme and neighboring

area (interview, ‘‘Anonymous 4’’). An impressive policy change achieved by these

entrepreneurs is the installation of a local border gate to facilitate cross-border flow of

people, equipment, and supplies to the farms. As a result of policy entrepreneurship, the

gate was installed in 2000 and Israeli and Jordanian security officials cooperatively

designed opening procedure. The gate was used twice until the Israeli division commander

decreed its unexplained permanent closure, probably due to security concerns (interview,

Glickman).

These organizational and individual entrepreneurs employ distinct strategies to over-

come political, bureaucratic, and technical barriers. Whereas public and private policy

entrepreneurs operate on horizontal and vertical spheres in enlisting cooperation and

support from cross-border contacts and higher governmental officials, we found that third

sector entrepreneurs demonstrate a multi-focal strategy to cross-border initiatives.

Third-party organizational entrepreneurs operate from Amman and Tel Aviv rather than

exclusively from the border region. They therefore create a network which creates coali-

tions between the project managements in Amman and Tel Aviv, border region govern-

ment officials and locals, national governmental officials and funding agencies which are

usually overseas. This pattern of multi-focal networking and coalition-building relies on

significant investments of manpower, time, and money in communication and coordination

to plan, organize fund, and execute cross-border initiatives. Therefore, only the most

established organizations are able to conduct regular cross-border activity. In this vein,

FoEME is the only NGO to employ local project administrators in the border regions of

Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256 251

123

Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority to ensure ongoing organizational presence and

project activity (interview, Barakat).

Coalition-building in third-party policy entrepreneurship is demonstrated in the FoEME

initiative of to facilitate communication between mayors of neighboring cross-border

communities and the local public. The mayors participate in seminars and outings, where

local needs are identified and discussed. Agreements are signed by the paired mayors,

indicating a commitment to work together in problem solving and regional development

(interview, Litvinoff). Thus, the Jordanian mayor of Muaz Bin Jabal and the Israeli mayors

of the Jordan Valley and Beit Shean Regional councils have signed a Memorandum of

Understanding on Jan. 10, 2007 to act cooperatively in rehabilitating the Jordan River and

in developing a trans-boundary ‘‘Peace Park’’ (Jordan Times, June 12, 2008). To facilitate

local public participation and support, FoEME employs project administrators in the border

communities (interview, Sagive). This has proved to be an important dimension in the local

image of FoEME as a regional environmental player rather than a foreign coordinator.

Summary and discussion

We opened with the question of the role of policy entrepreneurs in shaping the dynamics of

normalization after the formal resolution of conflict. Despite extensive research on cross-

border cooperation, the literature has not yet related policy entrepreneurship to post-conflict

borders. Our interdisciplinary analysis of the Israel–Jordan border poses a theoretical and

empirical contribution to both concepts. Theoretically, identifying and analyzing the

motives and strategies of policy entrepreneurs contributes to our understanding of post-

conflict borders and processes of normalization. These borders are unique environments of

extreme political and social conditions. Therefore, this analysis contributes to under-

standing both the potential and limitations of policy entrepreneurship in affecting policy

outcomes and given realities. Empirically, this article is a first attempt to identify and

categorize policy entrepreneurship in the Israel–Jordan border region.

The analysis of policy entrepreneurship should simultaneously address contextual

factors and how they shape individual actions within those contexts (Mintrom 2006;

Mintrom and Vergari 1998). Our conceptual framework identifies and analyzes the three

categories of policy entrepreneurship in the context of post-conflict border regions: public,

private, and third sectors. We point at self-interest as the main motivation in advancing

policy change to promote cross-border interaction.

Policy entrepreneurs identify opportunities to be realized through cross-border inter-

action. However, the nature of the post-conflict border region exposes the entrepreneur to

various barriers. The main political barrier is lack of legitimacy for cross-border initiatives.

This obstacle exists alongside structural-technical barriers which increase the costs and

risks in comparison with entrepreneurship under normal conditions. Despite these chal-

lenges, the post-conflict period offers multiple opportunities for entrepreneurship regarding

both personal motivations and prospects for normalization.

Israel–Jordan cross-border interactions are initiated almost entirely by local policy

entrepreneurs. Although the peace treaty reflects a great emphasis on local cooperation in

developing the shared border region, civilian relations between Israelis and Jordanians are

few. The post-conflict period, under the shadow of the ongoing Arab–Israel conflict,

challenges the development of policy entrepreneurship. These challenges are especially

significant for Jordanians, explaining why policy entrepreneurship in this case study is

imbalanced, with Jordanians reacting, rather than leading, most cross-border initiatives. As

252 Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256

123

expected of policy entrepreneurs, cross-border entrepreneurship aims to maximize self-

interest by influencing policy outcomes regarding the border. However, these entrepreneurs

do not have the resources required to achieve their goals alone, especially given the

challenges of the post-conflict period.

The main focus of analysis of policy entrepreneurship is the individual entrepreneur

rather than the organization as a whole. Support for the crucial importance of individual

entrepreneurs is manifested in the case of CERC. Here, a central organization ceased to

exist after the policy entrepreneur left the organization. Another example is General

Mansur Abu Rashid of ACPD, whose involvement in most third sector cross-border pro-

jects demonstrates the centrality of the individual entrepreneur in promoting self-interests.

We found that due to the delicate political atmosphere, policy entrepreneurs in post-

conflict border regions demonstrate a unique strategy for developing cross-border initia-

tives. They operate and build coalitions on two spheres, horizontal and vertical.

Horizontally, they identify cross-border contacts and areas for cooperation in parallel

organizations to serve their personal or organizational interests. Vertically, they seek

authorization and support from higher level politicians and bureaucrats for the cross-border

aspects of their activity. This quest for authorization and support can even extend to

authorities and policy makers outside the national arena.

We follow Mintrom and Norman’s (2009, 660–662) recommendation to analyze

entrepreneurship over time. We found that while the peace treaty promised many oppor-

tunities for cross-border cooperation, its realization through policy entrepreneurship has

faced many challenges as outlined. Indeed, the analysis of this case study over time

illuminates the challenge of ‘‘trans-boundary diplomacy.’’ Entrepreneurship promoting

cross-border cooperation can be viewed as the main ‘‘bottom up’’ force in this form of

diplomacy, voicing the interests and needs of border regions to the center of state policy.

Yet, Henrikson (2000) reviews three conditions for the potentially stabilizing effect of this

diplomacy, the second of which is relevant to our discussion of vertical strategies of

entrepreneurship in the post-conflict period. This condition demands that domestic political

systems must be internally organized—constitutionally ordered and socially connected—to

efficiently transmit peripheral border-community perspectives to national decision-makers.

Our case study reveals a significant problem in this context of Israel–Jordan relations,

limiting cross-border entrepreneurship due to dominating perceptions and agendas of

national authorities in both countries. This is illustrated both in the problematic process of

granting visas to Jordanians, reflecting perceptions of Israel’s national security authorities,

and in the opposition to normalization of relations with Israel based in widespread political

circles in Jordan. A balance is needed between national and local perspectives regarding

the border to allow the development of social, economic, and environmental cross-border

initiatives (Clement et al. 1999, 266), that is, policy entrepreneurship.

The analysis demonstrates that cross-border initiatives of policy entrepreneurs which

serve a real self-interest in the border region are most likely to overcome the various

challenges of the post-conflict period. Thus, the municipal cooperation between Aqaba and

Eilat addresses local needs and has developed into a high level of institutionalized cross-

border municipal cooperation. The development of entrepreneurship in this region is

explained by the heightened perceptions of interdependence in this distant section of the

border. Another example of developed policy entrepreneurship serving self-interests is the

Barn Owl Project. This promotion of cross-border practices of organic farming demon-

strates effective policy entrepreneurship. The relative success in surmounting the above-

described visa problem has allowed entrepreneurs to expand this project to local educational

programs and to other areas of cross-border pest control.

Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256 253

123

The need for the attention and support of national decision-makers regarding activities of

policy entrepreneurs is central to realizing the potential of post-conflict CBC. The border is

the focus of many efforts and investments directed toward stabilizing relations. Yet, ideology

and good will are not sufficient to promote the development of improved cross-border per-

ceptions and long-term interactions. Rather, it is often the local people who serve as agents of

normalization due to their ability to identify real self-interests which can be addressed

through cross-border entrepreneurship. Therefore, a practical contribution of this analysis is

the identification of the needs of policy entrepreneurs and the obstacles they face in changing

the realities, in terms of both policy and practice, in the post-conflict border region.

References

Arieli, T. (2012). Borders of peace in policy and practice: National and local perspectives of Israel–Jordanborder management. Geopolitics, 17(3), 658–680.

Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive and destructive. The Journal of PoliticalEconomy, 98(5), 893–921.

Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychologicalanalysis. Political Psychology, 21(2), 351–365.

Clement, N., Ganster, P., & Sweedler, A. (1999). Development, environment and security in asymmetricalborder regions: European and North American perspectives. In H. Eskelinen, I. Liikanen, & J. Oksa(Eds.), Curtains of iron and gold: Reconstructing borders and scales of interaction (pp. 243–281).Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate.

Cochrane, A., Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (1996). Manchester plays games: Exploring the local politics ofglobalization. Urban Studies, 33, 1319–1336.

Cohen, N. (2012). Policy entrepreneurs and the design of public policy: Conceptual framework and the caseof the National Health Insurance Law in Israel. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 3(1), 5–26.

Cohen, N., & Arieli, T. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges andsnowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48(4), 423–436.

Cohen, N., & Ben-Porat, G. (2008). Business communities and peace: The cost-benefit calculations ofpolitical involvement. Peace and Change, 33(3), 426–446.

Cooper, N. (2006). Peaceful warriors and warring peacemakers. The Economics of Peace and Security, 1(1),20–23.

Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.Greenblatt, S. (1992). Marvellous possessions: The wonder of the new land. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Hart, M. M., Stevenson, H. H., & Dial, J. (1995). Entrepreneurship: A definition revisited. In W. D. Bygrave,

B. Bird, S. Birley, N. Churchill, M., R. Keeley, & W. Wetzel (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurshipresearch (pp. 75–89). Babson Park, Ms: Babson College.

Henrikson, A. K. (2000). Facing across borders: The diplomacy of bon voisinage. International PoliticalScience Review, 21(2), 121–147.

Kardoosh, M. A., & al Khouri, R. (2004). Qualifying industrial zones and sustainable development inJordan. In Post conflict reconstruction: Selected papers from the eleventh annual conference, Eco-nomic Research Forum (ERF), Cairo, Egypt, pp. 153–233.

Kingdon, J. W. [1984] (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brownand Company.

Kriesberg, L. (1998). Constructive conflict: From escalation to resolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman andLittlefield.

Martınez, O. J. (1994). Border people: Life and society in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Tucson: Universityof Arizona Press.

Miller, B. (2005). When and how regions become peaceful: Potential theoretical pathways to peace.International Studies Review, 7(2), 229–267.

Minghi, J. V. (1991). From conflict to harmony in border landscapes. In D. Rumley & J. V. Minghi (Eds.),The geography of border landscapes (pp. 43–62). London: Routledge.

Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown UniversityPress.

254 Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256

123

Mintrom, M. (2006). Policy entrepreneurs, think tanks, and trusts. In R. Miller (Ed.), New Zealand gov-ernment and politics (pp. 536–546). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37,649–667.

Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state educationreforms. Journal of Politics, 60, 126–148.

Mishal, S., Kuperman, R. D., & Boas, D. (2001). Investment in peace: Politics of economic cooperationbetween Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. Brighton, England: Sussex Academic Press.

Munshi, K. (2007). From farming to international business: The social auspices of entrepreneurship in agrowing economy. NBER Working Paper 13065. Cambridge MA: National Bureau of EconomicResearch.

Naude, W. (2007). Peace, prosperity, and pro-growth entrepreneurship. Helsinki: United Nation University,discussion paper no. 2007/02.

Newman, D. (2003). The lines that separate: Boundaries and borders in political geography. In J. A. Agnew,K. Mitchell, & G. Toal (Eds.), A companion to political geography (pp. 143–161). Malden, MA:Blackwell companions to geography, Blackwell Publishers.

Perkmann, M. (2007). Policy entrepreneurship and multilevel governance: A comparative study of Europeancross-border regions. Environment and Planning, 25, 861–879.

Press-Barnathan, G. (2006). The neglected dimension of commercial liberalism: Economic cooperation andtransition to peace. Journal of Peace Research, 43(3), 261–278.

Satloff, R. (1995). The Jordan–Israel peace treaty: A remarkable document. Middle East Quarterly, 2(1),47–51.

Schulpen, L., & Gibbon, P. (2002). Private sector development: Policies, practices and problems. WorldDevelopment, 30(1), 1–15.

Scott, J. W. (1999). European and North American contexts for cross-border regionalism. Regional Studies,33(7), 605–617.

Shamir, S. (2004). Israel–Jordan relations: Projects, economics and business. Tel Aviv University, Uni-versity Institute for Diplomacy and Regional Cooperation (Hebrew).

Smith, B. R., & Stevens, C. E. (2010). Different types of social entrepreneurship: The role of geography andembeddedness on the measurement and scaling of social value. Entrepreneurship & RegionalDevelopment, 22(6), 575–598.

Soffer, A. (1994). Forms of coexistance and transborder cooperation in a hostile area: The Israeli case. InW. A. Gallusser (Ed.), Political boundaries and coexistence, IGU symposium-Basle (pp. 182–191).Berne: Peter Lang inc.

Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. October 26, 1994.Wilson, J. Q. (1980). The politics of regulation. In J. Q. Wilson (Ed.), The politics of regulation

(pp. 319–336). New York: Basic Books.

Newspapers

Jordan Times.Haaretz Daily.

List of interviews

Anonymous 1 (A Jordanian Businessman CEO, textile company), 18.01.2006.Anonymous 2 (A Jordanian Businessman CEO, shipping company), 18.01.2006.Anonymous 3 (A Jordanian Businessman, owner of a shoes factory), 18.01.2006.Anonymous 4 (The Jordanian Al Haq Rachme farm manager), 28.01.2007.Abu Rashid, Manzur General (Ret.)—Chairman, Amman Center for Peace and Development, 19.12.2007.Al-Mughrabi, Salim—Head, Planning and EIA Section, ASEZA (Aqaba), 06.11.2008.Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, differ-

ent, or both? Baylor University. http://www.neuroflow.ch/attachments/File/Social%20and%20Commercial%20Entrepreneurship.pdf.

Aviel, Shaul—Barn Owl Project Manager, 22.11.2007.Avivi, Michal—Bet Shean Municipality, Spokeswoman, 06.12.2006.Bar, Gabi—Israel Industry and Commerce Ministry, QIZ coordinater, 02.05.2007.Baranes, Avi—Director, Interuniversity Institute for Marine Sciences of Eilat, 31.01.2007.

Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256 255

123

Baker, Barakat—Field researcher, FoEME, Deir Allah, 29.11.2007.Bromberg, Gideon—General Director of Israeloffice, FoEME, 12.01.2009.Glickman, Yossi—former Director of Eilat District, Department of Construction, Israel Ministry of Security,

14.03.2007.Greenberg, Amnon—Director, Arava Research and Development Station, 28.01.2007.Israeli, Tuvia—Director of Jordan Department, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 01.03.2007.Khateeb, Nader—General Director of Palestine office, FoEME, 29.11.2007.Litvinoff, Dov—Mayer of Tamar regional council, 06.03.2007.Menuskin, Merri—former director of CIRC, 06.11.2006.Munqath, Mehyar—General Director of Jordan office, FoEME, 29.11.2007.Nicholls, A. (Ed.), (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford &

New York: Oxford University Press.Ouais, Qais—Director of North and Middle Ghors Department, Jordan Valley Authority, 06.12.2007.Piorko, Yuval—former head of Israel-Jordan Chamber of Commerce, 19.12.2006.Reiner, Shmuel-Rabbi—Male Gilboa Yeshiva (telephone conversation), 27.11.2008.Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy

process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 147–175.Ron, Erez—former Project Director of ‘‘Economic Peace Corridor’’, Vice Prime Minister’s Office,

10.03.2009.Roth, Lacey—Cleveland federation, (phone conversation and email), 14.03.2008.Sagive, Michal-Project Coordinator-Good Water Neighbors, FoEME, 09.11.2008.Samorai, Samo—Head, Department of Regional Cooperation, Eilat municipality, 05.11.2008.Schneider, M., & Teske, P. (1992). Toward a theory of the political entrepreneur: Evidence from local

government. The American Political Science Review, 86, 737–747.Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of

Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Shatzberg, Ron—ECF project manager, 03.01.2007.Zaid, Ahuva-Skal, Red Sea Bay Club, 30.01.2007.

256 Policy Sci (2013) 46:237–256

123