Nicole Herweg

Straightening the three streams: Theorising extensions of the multiple streams framework

This article suggests theoretical refinements to the multiple streams framework (MSF) that make it applicable to parliamentary systems and the decision-making stage of the policy process. Regarding the former, the important role of political parties in parliamentary democracies is highlighted. Party policy experts are expected to be members of the policy communities in the policy stream and to promote viable policy alternatives in their respective parties, while the party leadership is concerned with adopting policies in the political stream. With regard to the latter, the introduction of a second coupling process to analyse decision making more rigorously is suggested. Moreover, the article provides operational definitions of the framework’s key concepts when applied to parliamentary systems and derives a systematic set of falsifiable hypotheses for agenda-setting and decision making in these systems, thus addressing one of the main critiques against the MSF – namely that no hypotheses can be derived from it.

Bringing Formal Political Institutions into the Multiple Streams Framework: An Analytical Proposal for Comparative Policy Analysis

Abstract The paper discusses how institutions can be introduced into the Multiple Streams Framework. While the existing literature does not systematically integrate political institutions that structure the decision-making process into the Multiple Streams Framework, the article suggests distinguishing two coupling processes, one for agenda setting and one for decision making. During the latter coupling, the main issue is the adoption of proposals – and formal institutions play an important role here. Political entrepreneurs can ensure the adoption of their bills under conditions of institutional pluralism by conceding concessions, proposing package deals or manipulating the severity or salience of problems.

Theoretically refining the multiple streams framework: An introduction

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.

Multiple Streams Ansatz

Das vorliegende Kapitel fasst den Multiple Streams Ansatz (MSA) zusammen, wurdigt diesen kritisch und prasentiert anschliesend den Forschungsstand. Die Zusammenfassung des Ansatzes orientiert sich an dessen Grundannahmen, die lauten, dass politische Systeme als organisierte Anarchien konzeptualisiert werden konnen; dass Entscheidungssituationen uber das Denken in Stromen erfasst werden konnen; und dass Agenda-Wandel davon abhangig ist, ob und wie sich die Strome verbinden. Die daran anschliesende kritische Wurdigung konzentriert sich auf zwei zentrale Kritikpunkte, die Kritik an der Unabhangigkeit der Strome und die an der Falsifizierbarkeit des Ansatzes, und fasst kleinere Kritikpunkte in einem weiteren Abschnitt zusammen. Die anschliesende Darstellung des Forschungsstandes fokussiert auf Einzelbeitrage, da es kaum theorieimmanente Debatten gibt. Hierzu wird zunachst ein Uberblick daruber geliefert, welche Methoden die Beitrage anwenden und welche Politikfelder sie analysieren. Anschliesend werden Erweiterungen des Ansatzes vorgestellt, wobei der Fokus auf der Frage liegt, inwieweit, erstens, die Ubertragung des MSA moglich ist (beispielsweise bezuglich der analysierten Regierungssysteme); zweitens, uber das Agenda-Setting hinausgehende Politikprozesse erfasst werden konnen; und drittens, zentrale Konzepte modifiziert wurden. Mit der Ubertragung des MSA auf parlamentarische Regierungssysteme und auf die Politikentscheidung werden zwei vergleichsweise haufig genutzte Erweiterungen ausfuhrlicher dargestellt. Das Kapitel schliest mit einem kurzen Fazit.

Against All Odds: The Liberalisation of the European Natural Gas Market—A Multiple Streams Perspective

This chapter addresses the questions of why it took until the late 1980s for the liberalisation of the energy markets to enter the institutional agenda and a decade more to be finally adopted. Given the head start energy matters and the idea of a common market had in today’s European Union, the long time it took for agenda shaping and policy decision regarding energy liberalisation was surprising. Taking the liberalisation of the natural gas market as an example, the policy process leading to the first out of three gas directives is analysed using a modified multiple streams framework, which covers agenda-setting and decision-making. The analysis reveals that the rise on the institutional agenda resulted from the Commission’s success in framing energy matters as competition issues. By documenting its uncompetitive state, a problem window opened. As a competition issue, the Commission had the power to formulate directives unilaterally based on Article 90 of the EEC Treaty instead of negotiating a Council directive. In order to avoid the resulting loss of influence, the member states became willing to negotiate. The Commission coupled the ripe problem and politics stream with the policy stream by adapting policy solutions from the United Kingdom. The negotiations of the resulting draft proposal were lengthy, mainly because of the member states’ ongoing resistance against the proposal and their attempts to minimize adjustment costs to European legislation. A spillover effect from the simultaneously negotiated electricity draft finally broke down the legitimacy barrier and led to an agreement on the gas directive.

Theoretical Approach to the Policy Process: The Multiple Streams Framework

Building on an extensive literature review, Herweg modifies the multiple streams framework (MSF) in order to explain agenda change and policy change in the European Union (EU). She suggests considering two coupling processes, one capturing agenda-setting (called agenda coupling) and another one capturing decision-making (called decision coupling). Next, Herweg defines functional equivalents of the MSF’s core concepts in the EU, given that the framework was derived from observations of agenda change in the United States. As one of the book’s key objectives is testing how well the MSF fares in explaining EU policy processes, she spells out the framework’s causal mechanisms and derives a set of hypotheses regarding agenda change and policy change in the EU, which guide the book’s empirical analysis.

Die Große Koalition und das Verhältnis von Markt und Staat: Entstaatlichung in der Ruhe und Verstaatlichung während des Sturms?

Bis zum Ausbruch der Finanzkrise Ende 2008 lies sich zu Recht behaupten, dass sich die Gewichte zwischen Staat und Markt in den westlichen Industrielandern seit den 1980er Jahren deutlich zugunsten des Marktes verschoben hatten, die Intervention des Staates in die Wirtschaft in fast allen westlichen Demokratien abgenommen hatte: Der staatliche Besitz an Unternehmen war reduziert, Subventionen abgebaut und Produktmarkte liberalisiert worden. Waren diese Tendenzen aber in den 1980er Jahren politisch – nicht zuletzt parteipoltisch – noch hoch umstritten, so wurde die Entstaatlichungstendenz seit den 1990er Jahren bedingt durch Globalisierung, Europaisierung und Diffusionsprozesse von den meisten Regierungen bereits als anerkannter Politikstandard akzeptiert – mit der Folge, dass es in diesen Bereichen kaum mehr einen Unterschied machte, welche Partei an der Regierung beteiligt war (vgl. Obinger/Zohlnhofer 2007, Siegel 2007, Zohlnhofer et al. 2008). Der deutsche Fall ist hier keine Ausnahme, wie sich insbesondere an der Privatisierungspolitik zeigte: Die Privatisierungserlose, welche die rot-grune Regierung zwischen 1999 und 2005 einstreichen konnte, lagen deutlich uber den einschlagigen Einnahmen, die die Regierung Kohl in den acht Jahren nach der Wiedervereinigung realisierte (Zohlnhofer 2009: 337, 358).

The European Natural Gas Market and Its Regulation

This chapter provides readers unfamiliar with the technical issue of natural gas market regulation the knowledge to follow the analysis of the policy processes leading to the three European Union (EU) natural gas directives in 1998, 2003, and 2009. First, Herweg presents basics of the natural gas market in general (inter alia, its monopolistic market structure, dominance of vertically integrated companies, long-term contracts with take-or-pay clauses, and oil price indexation). Subsequently, she summarizes which regulatory options policy-makers have at their disposal in order to liberalize this sector (focusing on third-party access, approaches to unbundling, and regulatory oversight). Finally, Herweg provides a comparative overview of the key aspects of the three natural gas directives.

The Third Gas Directive Process

Herweg applies the modified multiple streams framework to the third natural gas directive process, which took place between 2003 and 2009. Guided by the hypotheses derived in Chap. 2, she discusses how the draft directive returned on the agenda and how decision coupling resulted in policy change. The agenda window opened with the election of the Barroso Commission, which made achieving the internal energy market a key priority by means of competition law. Changes in the problem stream and political stream held the agenda window open until the Commission considered the revision of the directive necessary. Policy-makers started negotiating package deals and concessions in parallel to the Commission drafting the third directive. This made decision coupling easier for political entrepreneurs.

The Second Gas Directive Process

Herweg applies the modified multiple streams framework to the second natural gas directive process, which took place between 1998 and 2003. Guided by the hypotheses derived in Chap. 2, she analyzes how the draft directive returned on the agenda and how decision coupling resulted in policy change. The agenda window opened with the Commission’s contribution to the Lisbon Council, in which it suggested to fully liberalize the internal energy market by 2004. It remains unclear why the Commission did not include energy liberalization in its working program, which it had published barely two months before. Given that all policy-makers supported the agenda change, no policy-entrepreneur was required to couple the streams and this shortened decision coupling.