Policy Games and Venue‐Shopping: Working the Stakeholder Interface to Broker Policy Change in Rehabilitation Services

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.