Policy Sciences

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 13–33 | Cite as

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

Research Article
First Online:

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.

Keywords

Multiple streams Agenda-setting Policy process EU natural gas regulation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Buchan, D. (2009). Energy and climate change: Europe at the crossroads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faletti, T. G., & Lynch, J. F. (2009). Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42(9), 1143–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fligstein, N. (2001). Institutional entrepreneurs and cultural frames: The case of the European Union’s single market program. European Societies, 3(3), 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hancher, L. (1990). A single European energy market: Rhetoric or reality? Energy Law Journal, 11(2), 217–242.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Hix, S., & Høyland, B. (2011). The political system of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iusmen, I. (2013). Policy entrepreneurship and Eastern enlargement: The case of EU children’s rights policy. Comparative European Politics, 11(4), 511–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kingdon, J. W. (2010). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. White Plains: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  31. Klüver, H. (2013). Lobbying in the European Union: Interest groups, lobbying coalitions, and policy change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maltby, T. (2013). European Union energy policy integration: A case of European Commission policy entrepreneurship and increasing supranationalism. Energy Policy, 55(100), 435–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Matláry, J. H. (1997). Energy policy in the European Union. London: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Padgett, S. (1992). The single European energy market: The politics of realization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 30(1), 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pollak, J., Schubert, S., & Slominski, P. (2008). Die Energiepolitik der EU. Wien: UTB.Google Scholar
  44. Poptcheva, E.-M. (2013, October 24). Parliament’s legislative initiative. Library Briefing, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Stern, J. P. (1992). Third party access in European gas industries: Regulation-driven or market-led?. London: Royal institute of international affairs.Google Scholar
  49. Stern, J. P. (1998). Competition and liberalization in European gas markets: A diversity of models. London: Royal institute of international affairs.Google Scholar
  50. Tallberg, J. (2006). Leadership and negotiation in the European Union. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zahariadis, N. (1992). To sell or not to sell? Telecommunications policy in Britain and France. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 514–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhu, X. (2008). Strategy of Chinese policy entrepreneurs in the third sector: Challenges of “technical infeasibility”. Policy Sciences, 41(4), 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations