Skip to main content
Log in

Explaining European agenda-setting using the multiple streams framework: the case of European natural gas regulation

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article adapts the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to the European Union (EU) agenda-setting process. Therefore, it defines functional equivalents of the framework’s elements in the EU and clarifies which changes in the problem stream and political stream open policy windows. The article probes the usefulness of proposed adaptations by examining the rise of issues contained in the three natural gas directives passed in 1998, 2003, and 2009 on the EU’s decision agenda. The findings support the MSF explanation of the first and third gas directives, but not all necessary conditions were met regarding the second gas directive process. Building on these insights, the article enriches MSF scholarship and charts a course for future research that overcomes limitations with adapting the framework to the EU policy process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This article does not distinguish between the EU and the European Community, as the differentiation is insignificant for the purposes of my argument.

  2. The governmental agenda is defined “as a list of subjects that are getting attention,” and the decision agenda as a list of subjects “that are up for an active decision” (Kingdon 2010: 4). According to Kingdon, the governmental agenda is set in either the problem or political stream, while the decision agenda results from the coupling of all three streams by policy-entrepreneurs.

  3. For instance, between January 1992 and April 2008, the decision-making process alone took over 2 years (namely, 746 days) on average for issues dealt with under the ordinary legislative procedure [own calculation based on Kovats (2009)].

  4. A single Commissioner‘s engagement in policy-entrepreneurship can be directed to the College of Commissioners before it decides on an issue as well as to the stakeholders affected from a policy measure the College of Commissioners has previously committed itself to.

  5. A particularity of the EU’s problem stream is the Commission's prominent role in drawing attention to specific issues, due to its duty to collect and compile indicators and feedback, for instance, in the form of benchmarking reports or White Papers. If the Commission is involved in problem recognition and definition, stream ripeness and the opening of a problem window coincide.

  6. Due to the period of investigation, the President of the European Council as introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon is not explicitly considered.

  7. The European Council only referred once to energy liberalization in 1988. Probably because the release of working programs for the Presidency of the Council was institutionalized in the 1990 s, they are only available for the SGD and TGD processes.

  8. According to Article 90 (today’s Article 86), the Commission can pass a directive without the participation of the Council and the EP if it aims at dismantling exclusive rights that hamper trade.

  9. The Cardiff Process formalized the application of the integration principle, which is codified in EU primary law and into force since May 1999. It stipulates that environmental protection must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other policies.

  10. On the Commission’s usage of impact assessments, see Nilsson et al. (2008).

  11. Furthermore, the pubic consultations reinforced the perception that the state of the IEM was problematic.

References

  • Ackrill, R., & Kay, A. (2011). Multiple streams in EU policy-making: The case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 72–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, S. S., & Sitter, N. (2007). Re-politicising regulation: Politics: Regulatory variation and fuzzy liberalisation in the single European energy market. Paper prepared for the 2007 EUSA Conference.

  • Bache, I. (2013). Measuring quality of life for public policy: An idea whose time has come? Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendor, J., Moe, T. M., & Shotts, K. W. (2001). Recycling the garbage can. An assessment of the research program. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 169–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesenbender, S. (2015). The EU’s energy policy agenda: Directions and developments. In J. Tosun, S. Biesenbender & K. Schulze (Eds.), Energy policy making in the EU: Building the agenda (pp. 21–40). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrás, S., & Radaelli, C. M. (2011). The politics of governance architectures: Creation, change and effects of the EU Lisbon Strategy. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(4), 463–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brutschin, E. (2015). Shaping the EU’s energy policy agenda: The role of eastern European countries. In J. Tosun, S. Biesenbender & K. Schulze (Eds.), Energy policy making in the EU: Building the agenda (pp. 187–204). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchan, D. (2009). Energy and climate change: Europe at the crossroads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P., & Heikkila, T. (2014). A comparison of theories of the policy process. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 363–390). New York: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, P., & James, S. (2014). Policy windows, ambiguity and Commission entrepreneurship: Explaining the relaunch of the European Union’s economic reform agenda. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker, F., & Sonnicksen, J. (2011). An alternative approach to European Union democratization: Re-examining the direct election of the Commission President. Government and Opposition, 46(2), 168–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudley, G. (2013). Why do ideas succeed and fail over time? The role of narratives in policy windows and the case of the London congestion charge. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(8), 1139–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dür, A. (2008). Interest groups in the European Union: How powerful are they? In J. Beyers, R. Eising & W. A. Maloney (Eds.), Interest group politics in Europe: Lessons from EU Studies and comparative politics (pp. 110–128). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberlein, B. (2005). Regulation by cooperation: The ‘third way’ in making rules for the internal energy market. In P. D. Cameron (Ed.), Legal aspects of EU energy regulation: Implementing the new directives on electricity and gas across Europe (pp. 59–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberlein, B. (2012). Inching towards a common energy policy: Entrepreneurship, incrementalism, and windows of opportunity. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Constructing a policy-making state? Policy dynamics in the EU (pp. 147–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eikeland, P. O. (2011). The third internal energy market package: New power relations among member states, EU institutions and non-state actors? Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(2), 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faletti, T. G., & Lynch, J. F. (2009). Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42(9), 1143–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N. (2001). Institutional entrepreneurs and cultural frames: The case of the European Union’s single market program. European Societies, 3(3), 261–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancher, L. (1990). A single European energy market: Rhetoric or reality? Energy Law Journal, 11(2), 217–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herweg, N. (forthcoming). Clarifying the concept of policy communities in the multiple streams framework. In R. Zohlnhöfer & F. Rüb (Eds.), Decision-making under ambiguity and time constraints: Assessing the multiple streams framework. Colchester: ECPR Press.

  • Herweg, N. (2015). A multiple streams analysis of European Union policy-making. Explaining the regulatory shift in the natural gas market policy between 1988 and 2009. Manuscript. Heidelberg.

  • Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2015). Straightening the three streams: Theorizing extensions of the multiple streams framework. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (forthcoming). Bringing formal political institutions into the multiple streams framework. An analytical proposal for comparative application. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis.

  • Hix, S., & Høyland, B. (2011). The political system of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., McConnell, A., & Perl, A. (2015). Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 419–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iusmen, I. (2013). Policy entrepreneurship and Eastern enlargement: The case of EU children’s rights policy. Comparative European Politics, 11(4), 511–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. P., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Lamberta Raney, H., & Zahariadis, N. (2015). Policy Studies Journal. doi:10.1111/psj.12115.

  • Kaunert, C., & Giovanna, M. D. (2010). Post-9/11 EU counter-terrorist financing cooperation: Differentiating supranational policy entrepreneurship by the Commission and the Council Secretariat. European Security, 19(2), 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (2010). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. White Plains: Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klüver, H. (2013). Lobbying in the European Union: Interest groups, lobbying coalitions, and policy change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kovats, L. (2009). Do elections set the pace? A quantitative assessment of the timing of European legislation. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(2), 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, B., Rasmussen, A., & Warntjen, A. (2008). Party politics as usual? The role of political parties in EU legislative decision-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(8), 1107–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 17(2), 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltby, T. (2013). European Union energy policy integration: A case of European Commission policy entrepreneurship and increasing supranationalism. Energy Policy, 55(100), 435–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matláry, J. H. (1997). Energy policy in the European Union. London: MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mazey, S. P., & Richardson, J. J. (1992). British pressure groups in the European Community: The challenge of Brussels. Parliamentary Affairs, 45(1), 92–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mucciaroni, G. (2013). The garbage can model and the study of the policy-making process. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 320–328). London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natali, D. (2004). Europeanization, policy areas, and creative opportunism: The politics of welfare state reforms in Italy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(6), 1077–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, M., et al. (2008). The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: An analysis of three European countries and the European Union. Policy Sciences, 41(4), 335–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nylander, J. (2001). The construction of a market. A frame analysis of the liberalization of the electricity market in the European Union. European Societies, 3(3), 289–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, S. (1992). The single European energy market: The politics of realization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 30(1), 53–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollak, J., Schubert, S., & Slominski, P. (2008). Die Energiepolitik der EU. Wien: UTB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poptcheva, E.-M. (2013, October 24). Parliament’s legislative initiative. Library Briefing, pp. 1–8.

  • Princen, S. (2013). Agenda setting. In A. Jordan & C. Adelle (Eds.), Environmental policy in the EU: Actors, institutions and processes (pp. 191–208). London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Princen, S., & Rhinard, M. (2006). Crashing and creeping: Crashing and creeping: Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(7), 1119–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, I. S., & Morata, F. (2012). Introduction: The re-evolution of energy policy in Europe. In F. Morata & I. Solorio Sandoval (Eds.), European energy policy: An environmental approach (pp. 1–22). Cheltenham, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, J. P. (1992). Third party access in European gas industries: Regulation-driven or market-led?. London: Royal institute of international affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, J. P. (1998). Competition and liberalization in European gas markets: A diversity of models. London: Royal institute of international affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallberg, J. (2006). Leadership and negotiation in the European Union. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (1992). To sell or not to sell? Telecommunications policy in Britain and France. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 514–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X. (2008). Strategy of Chinese policy entrepreneurs in the third sector: Challenges of “technical infeasibility”. Policy Sciences, 41(4), 315–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Herweg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herweg, N. Explaining European agenda-setting using the multiple streams framework: the case of European natural gas regulation. Policy Sci 49, 13–33 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9231-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9231-z

Keywords

Navigation