This article discusses the conditions for making policy change, and, more precisely, factors explaining why policy change is often hard to achieve even when key policy actors explicitly throw their weight behind it. It draws on a comparative analysis of two specific review processes in Britain and Norway, addressing the future remits of the public service broadcasters BBC and NRK. In both cases, the processes were initiated by governments explicitly stressing the need for radical change, but

more »

... itions were not met although some changes took place. The article combines theories of advocacy coalitions and multiple streams to discuss how key stakeholders within the two processes operated to promote and inhibit change by defining -and re-defining -problems and solutions. ARTICLE HISTORY Introduction This article discusses the conditions for policy change, and, more precisely, factors explaining why change is often hard to achieve even when key policy actors explicitly throw their weight behind it. It draws on a comparative analysis of two specific review processes in Britain and Norway between 2013 and 2017, addressing the future remits of the BBC and the NRK. Both processes were initiated by governments initiating radical change, but the ambitions were not successful, although some change took place. While the cases differ in size, organization, governance and market context, both institutions represent the heartland of public service broadcasting and occupy central political and cultural positions (Van den Bulck and Raats 2018). The article asks: which factors can explain stability within public service policy-making and what are the lessons for policy change more generally? Theoretically, the article combines approaches on stakeholder and advocacy coalitions (Van den Bulck and Donders 2014) with theories of policy formation and 'multiple streams' (Kingdon 1995) . While the first approach explains the persistence of value-based alliances opposing and defending public broadcasters, the latter sheds light on how key actors navigate to promote (and inhibit) change, by defining (and re-defining) policy problems and solutions, and create (and close) policy windows. The combined perspective helps to identify long-term ideological alliances as well as short-term and pragmatic policy adjustments adapted by key stakeholders. In the article, we analyze the review processes through three stages in each country: an initial phase of positioning and controversy, a middle stage of negotiations, and a closing stage where agreements are reached. In addition to comparing stakeholder positions, the article emphasis the CONTACT Vilde Schanke Sundet