Theoretically refining the multiple streams framework: An introduction

Abstract

This introduction to the forum section on the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) developed by John W. Kingdon argues that the conditions under which policy making takes place today increasingly resemble the assumptions upon which Kingdon built his lens. At the same time, while the framework is extremely successful with regard to citations and has been applied in various contexts that often differ remarkably from those for which the framework was originally developed, a systematic theoretical debate about the Multiple Streams Framework is still lacking. It is the intention to spark such a debate with this forum section.

Reorganizing a countywide school district: A critical analysis of politics and policy development toward decentralization

“…Critics argue that the streams are actually interdependent and that more attention needs to be paid to the climate around a policy issue (i.e., how policy actors feel and think about an issue) as it plays a critical role in shaping public policy (Zahariadis, 2007(Zahariadis, , 2015. As critical scholars, we agree with the notion of interdependency, the importance of focusing more attention to the climate around policy and politics, and also recognizing policymakers' inability for rational decision-making, particularly in the current policy making context that has become increasingly complex and politically charged (Zohlnhöfer, Herweg, & Rüb, 2015). Indeed, one would not be able to understand how a policy proposal gets placed at the top of the agenda without examining the confluence off all three streams, the actors involved in each, and the sociopolitical context (Diem, 2012).…”

Infrastructure Policy Between Regional Interests and Societal Goals

“…本期 "欧洲政策分析" (European Policy Analysis, 简称EPA)包含三部分, 第一部分 是Robert Hoppe (2017) (Lindloff, 2016), 这使得政客将赌注压在电力 或其他替代性传动系统技术, 甚至是自主运输系统 (Bracher, Lindloff, & Hertel, 2017 (to be published))。这些都严重依赖物理、技术和数字基础设施。在 "智能城 市" (smart city)倡议背景下, 加之数字化进程的基础, 电力基础设施和运输基础设施 两部门之间的结合已经加速 (Libbe, 2014)。 Bandelow and Hornung (2017) 指出, "欧洲政策分析" 建立的目标是为政策分析 引入新的视角, 这些视角有时被大多数以美国为主导的话语所忽视 Bandelow, Sager, Schubert, & Biegelbauer, 2015Sager, Ingold, & Balthasar, 2017)。直到现在, 新视角的引入包括诸多欧洲观点和现 有方法的不同改编, 例如政策实践 (Hoppe & Colebatch, 2016)、倡议联盟框架 (Nohrstedt & Olofsson, 2016)和多层流框架 (Deruelle, 2016;Leeuw, Hoeijmakers, & Peters, 2016;Zohlnh€ ofer, Herweg, & R€ ub, 2015)。同样也 有关于实质性政策部门的文章, 例如福利(市场) (Ebbinghaus, 2015;Klenk, 2015)、医 疗和公共卫生 (Bandelow & Hartmann, 2014;Hunger & Neumann, 2016;Sager et al, 2015;Vecchione & Parkhurst, 2015) 和气候变化 (Fleig, Schmidt, & Tosun, 2017;Ingold & Pflieger, 2016)。 EPA目前还没有关于基础设施政策的 "交叉讨论" (cross-cutting discussion)。研 究此话题的先驱者之一是埃莉诺Á奥斯特罗姆 (Elinor Ostrom), 她为有关 "治理公共 事务" (governing the Commons) (Ostrom, 1990…”

“…Bandelow and Hornung (2017) have pointed out that European Policy Analysis (EPA) has been established with the goal of introducing new perspectives to policy analysis, which are sometimes neglected by the mostly US-dominated discourse (Bandelow, Sager, Schubert, & Biegelbauer, 2015Sager, Ingold, & Balthasar, 2017). Until now this has happened with respect to a number of European perspectives and adaptations of existing approaches, such as policy practices (Hoppe & Colebatch, 2016), the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Nohrstedt & Olofsson, 2016) and the Multiple Streams Framework (Deruelle, 2016;Leeuw, Hoeijmakers, & Peters, 2016;Zohlnh€ ofer, Herweg, & R€ ub, 2015). There have also been articles on substantive policy sectors, such as welfare (markets) (Ebbinghaus, 2015;Klenk, 2015), healthcare and public health (Bandelow & Hartmann, 2014;Hunger & Neumann, 2016;Sager et al, 2015;Vecchione & Parkhurst, 2015), or climate change (Fleig, Schmidt, & Tosun, 2017;Ingold & Pflieger, 2016).…”

Theories of Policy Change and Variation Reconsidered: A Prospectus for the Political Economy of Public Policy

“…Not all concepts are usable, but there is potential. For example, Zohlnhöfer et al (2015) and Herweg et al (2015) breathe life into the multiple streams work with carefully posed hypotheses that can be applied to decision-making in political systems. Zohlnhöfer (2009) also provides an integrated model of policy change using the veto player model and linking it to the policy advocacy coalition framework.…”