| Abstract: | How should bureaucrats engage effectively and ethically with stakeholders to achieve legitimate policy change? This essay draws upon findings from a case study of the introduction of an evidence‐based rehabilitation program for injured workers with soft‐tissue injuries in a workers' compensation jurisdiction in Australia. Despite initial enthusiasm for collaborative policy reform, clinical associations soon withdrew their support. In a classic case of venue‐shopping, a coalition of clinical associations formed in opposition to the foundation principles of the proposed policy, overturning the bureaucrats' preferred consultation strategy: a think‐tank comprising of invited clinical experts. The policy game turned from highly cooperative to fiercely competitive. These policy upheavals are interpreted through the lens of two theoretical perspectives: Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition framework, and Scharpf's Actor‐centred Institutionalism framework. The contrasts in perspectives are melded into propositions for bureaucrats seeking to engage with stakeholders in a contested policy drama. |
