Conclusion

  • Nicole Herweg
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)

Abstract

This chapter (1) provides brief answers to the research questions that guided the empirical analysis, (2) summarizes the advantages of the multiple streams framework (MSF) over other theories of the policy process, and (3) assesses how well the MSF fared in explaining the policy processes leading to the three European Union (EU) natural gas directives in 1998, 2003, and 2009. Herweg highlights new research questions, which evolved from her analysis, and concludes that considering that the MSF’s concepts were transferred one to one from the United States to the EU, there are relatively few assumptions calling for theoretical refinements.

Keywords

European Union European Parliament Legislative Proposal Political Entrepreneur Agenda Window 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 2003/55/EC. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 Concerning Common Rules for the Internal Market in Natural Gas and Repealing Directive 98/30/EC.Google Scholar
  2. 2009/73/EC. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July Concerning Common Rules for the Internal Market in Natural Gas and Repealing Directive 2003/55/EC.Google Scholar
  3. 98/30/EC. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 Concerning Common Rules for the Internal Market in Natural Gas.Google Scholar
  4. Adelle, Camilla, Andrew Jordan, and John Turnpenny. 2013. Policy Making. In Environmental Policy in the EU: Actors, Institutions and Processes, 3rd ed., ed. Andrew Jordan and Camilla Adelle, 209–226. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, Jones R., Bryan D. Jones, and Peter B. Mortensen. 2014. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking. In Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd ed., ed. Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible, 59–103. New York: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beyer, Jürgen. 2010. The Same or Not the Same. On the Variety of Mechanisms of Path Dependence. International Journal of Social Sciences 5(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
  7. Brutschin, Elina. 2015. Shaping the EU's Energy Policy Agenda: The Role of Eastern European Countries. In Energy Policy Making in the EU: Building the Agenda, ed. Jale Tosun, Sophie Biesenbender, and Kai Schulze, 187–204. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Buchan, David. 2010. Energy Policy: Sharp Challenges and Rising Ambitions. In Policy-making in the European Union, ed. Helen Wallace, Mark A. Pollack, and Alasdair R. Young, 357–379. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cairney, Paul, and Michael D. Jones. 2016. Kingdon's Multiple Streams Approach: What is the Empirical Impact of this Universal Theory? Policy Studies Journal 44(1): 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Gas Regulatory Forum. 1999. Minutes: 1st European Gas Regulatory Forum. Madrid, 30 September–1 October 1999: Available upon request from the author.Google Scholar
  11. Hall, Peter A. 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25(3): 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herweg, Nicole. 2016. Clarifying the Concept of Policy Communities in the Multiple Streams Framework. In Decision-Making Under Ambiguity and Time Constraints: Assessing the Multiple Streams Framework, ed. Reimut Zohlnhöfer and Friedbert Rüb, 125–145. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hoogeveen, Femke, and Wilbur Perlot. 2005. Tomorrow's More: The International System, Geopolitical Changes and Energy CIEP 02/2005. The Hague: Clingendael International Energy Programme.Google Scholar
  14. Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  15. Kovats, Laszlo. 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
  16. Princen, Sebastiaan. 2013. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 20(6): 854–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Prontera, Andrea. 2009. Energy Policy: Concepts, Actors, Instruments and Recent Developments. World Political Science Review 5(1, Art. 7): 1–30.Google Scholar
  18. Stern, Jonathan P. 1998. Competition and Liberalization in European Gas Markets: A Diversity of Models. London: Royal institute of international affairs.Google Scholar
  19. Tosun, Jale. 2013. Environmental Policy Change in Emerging Market Democracies—Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America Compared. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  20. True, James L., Bryan D. Jones, and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2007. Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking. In Theories of Policy Process, 2nd ed., ed. Paul A. Sabatier, 155–187. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  21. Wilson, James Q. 1979. American Politics, Then and Now. Commentary 67: 39–46.Google Scholar
  22. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2013. Building Better Theoretical Frameworks of the European Union's Policy Process. Journal of European Public Policy 20(6): 807–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Herweg
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations