Analytical Framework

Chapter
Part of the Progressive Energy Policy book series (PEP)

Abstract

In this chapter, key concepts and terms are defined and an analytical framework based on the multiple streams approach (MSA) developed by John Kingdon in the 1980s is introduced and described. MSA is argued to be an especially suitable conceptual approach to the analysis of climate and energy policy interest group activity and that it is especially well suited to application in an EU context.

Keywords

Multiple streams approach European Union policymaking Policy process Policy windows Policy entrepreneurship 

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. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. (1991). Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Börzel, T. A. (1998). Organizing Babylon: On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks. Public Administration, 76(2), 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boscarino, J. E. (2009). Surfing for Problems: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 37(3), 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cairney, P., & Jones, M. D. (2016). Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach: What Is the Empirical Impact of this Universal Theory? Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haas, E. B. (1958). The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces, 1950–1957. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press (Reprint, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  10. Herweg, N. (2015). Against All Odds: The Liberalisation of the European Natural Gas Market—A Multiple Streams Perspective. In K. S. Jale Tosun & S. Schmitt (Eds.), Energy Policy Making in the EU: Building the Agenda (pp. 87–105). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Herweg, N. (2016). Explaining European Agenda-Setting Using the Multiple Streams Framework: The Case of European Natural Gas Regulation. Policy Sciences, 49(1), 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2015). Straightening the Three Streams: Theorising Extensions of the Multiple Streams Framework. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herweg, N., & Zahariadis, N. (2018). The Multiple Streams Approach. In N. Zahariadis & L. Buonanno (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of European Public Policy (pp. 32–42). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2018). The Multiple Streams Framework: Foundations, Refinements and Empirical Applications. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  15. Howlett, M., Mcconnell, A., & Perl, A. (2016). Moving Policy Theory Forward: Connecting Multiple Stream and Advocacy Coalition Frameworks to Policy Cycle Models of Analysis. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, M. D., et al. (2016). A River Runs Through It: A Multiple Streams Meta-Review. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kingdon, J. W., (2010). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  18. Klüver, H., Mahoney, C., & Opper, M. (2015). Framing in Context: How Interest Groups Employ Framing to Lobby the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(4), 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lorenzoni, I., & Benson, D. (2014). Radical Institutional Change in Environmental Governance: Explaining the Origins of the UK Climate Change Act 2008 Through Discursive and Streams Perspectives. Global Environmental Change, 29, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCool, D. (1998). The Subsystem Family of Concepts: A Critique and a Proposal. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 551–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mucciaroni, G. (1992). The Garbage Can Model & the Study of Policy Making: A Critique. Polity, 24(3), 459–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Palmer, J. (2010). Stopping the Unstoppable? A Discursive-Institutionalist Analysis of Renewable Transport Fuel Policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(6), 992–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Princen, S. (2018). Agenda-Setting and Framing in Europe. The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe (pp. 535–551). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Richardson, J. (2005). Policy-Making in the EU: Interests, Ideas and Garbage Cans of Primeval Soup. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union: Power and Policy-Making (pp. 3–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  27. Rozbicka, P., & Spohr, F. (2016). Interest Groups in Multiple Streams: Specifying Their Involvement in the Framework. Policy Sciences, 49(1), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sabatier, P. A. (1998, March). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and Relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5, 98–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sabatier, P. A. (2007). Theories of the Policy Process (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The Advocacy Coalition Framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  32. Tosun, J., Biesenbender, S., & Schulze, K. (2015). Energy Policy Making in the EU: Building the Agenda. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2017). Theories of the Policy process (4th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Weible, C. M., & Schlager, E. (2016). The Multiple Streams Approach at the Theoretical and Empirical Crossroads: An Introduction to a Special Issue. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Winkel, G., & Leipold, S. (2016). Demolishing Dikes: Multiple Streams and Policy Discourse Analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 108–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zahariadis, N. (2007). Multiple Streams Framework: Structure, Prospects, Limitations. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 65–92). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  37. Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and Choice in European Public Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 514–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zahariadis, N. (2014). Ambiguity and Multiple Streams. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 25–57). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Energy Policy GroupUniversity of ExeterPenrynUK
  2. 2.Norwich Business SchoolUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations