IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v3y2015i2p65-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Public Policy-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Ishani Mukherjee

    (Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore)

  • Michael Howlett

    (Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore, and Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada)

Abstract

John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) was articulated in order to better understand how issues entered onto policy agendas, using the concept of policy actors interacting over the course of sequences of events in what he referred to as the “problem”, “policy” and “politics” “streams”. However, it is not a priori certain who the agents are in this process and how they interact with each other. As was common at the time, in his study Kingdon used an undifferentiated concept of a “policy subsystem” to group together and capture the activities of various policy actors involved in this process. However, this article argues that the policy world Kingdon envisioned can be better visualized as one composed of distinct subsets of actors who engage in one specific type of interaction involved in the definition of policy problems: either the articulation of problems, the development of solutions, or their enactment. Rather than involve all subsystem actors, this article argues that three separate sets of actors are involved in these tasks: epistemic communities are engaged in discourses about policy problems; instrument constituencies define policy alternatives and instruments; and advocacy coalitions compete to have their choice of policy alternatives adopted. Using this lens, the article focuses on actor interactions involved both in the agenda-setting activities Kingdon examined as well as in the policy formulation activities following the agenda setting stage upon which Kingdon originally worked. This activity involves the definition of policy goals (both broad and specific), the creation of the means and mechanisms to realize these goals, and the set of bureaucratic, partisan, electoral and other political struggles involved in their acceptance and transformation into action. Like agenda-setting, these activities can best be modeled using a differentiated subsystem approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Ishani Mukherjee & Michael Howlett, 2015. "Who Is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Public Policy-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 65-75.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:3:y:2015:i:2:p:65-75
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/290
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bas Arts & Pieter Leroy & Jan Tatenhove, 2006. "Political Modernisation and Policy Arrangements: A Framework for Understanding Environmental Policy Change," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 93-106, June.
    2. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    3. Craft, Jonathan & Howlett, Michael, 2012. "Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 79-98, August.
    4. Adler, Emanuel & Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 367-390, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nihit Goyal & Michael Howlett & Namrata Chindarkar, 2020. "Who coupled which stream(s)? Policy entrepreneurship and innovation in the energy–water nexus in Gujarat, India," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1), pages 49-64, February.
    2. Sebastian Sewerin & Daniel Béland & Benjamin Cashore, 2020. "Designing policy for the long term: agency, policy feedback and policy change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 243-252, June.
    3. Joshua B. Horton & Kerryn Brent & Zhen Dai & Tyler Felgenhauer & Oliver Geden & Jan McDonald & Jeffrey McGee & Felix Schenuit & Jianhua Xu, 2023. "Solar geoengineering research programs on national agendas: a comparative analysis of Germany, China, Australia, and the United States," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Feitelson, Eran, 2018. "Shifting sands of planning in Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 695-706.
    5. Lily Hsueh, 2020. "Expanding the multiple streams framework to explain the formation of diverse voluntary programs: evidence from US toxic chemical use policy," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(2), pages 111-123, June.
    6. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    7. Nihit Goyal & Michael Howlett & Araz Taeihagh, 2021. "Why and how does the regulation of emerging technologies occur? Explaining the adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation using the multiple streams framework," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1020-1034, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark Thatcher, 1998. "The Development of Policy Network Analyses," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(4), pages 389-416, October.
    2. Luc Brès & Sébastien Mena & Marie‐Laure Salles‐Djelic, 2019. "Exploring the formal and informal roles of regulatory intermediaries in transnational multistakeholder regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 127-140, June.
    3. Erik Baekkeskov, 2016. "Explaining science-led policy-making: pandemic deaths, epistemic deliberation and ideational trajectories," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 395-419, December.
    4. Tanja Börzel & Thomas Risse, 2000. "International Relations Theory and European Integration," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 56, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    5. Olaf Corry & David Reiner, 2016. "It’s the Society, Stupid! Communicating Emergent Climate Technologies in the Internet Age," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1610, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    6. Nina Boeger & Joseph Corkin, 2017. "Institutional Path-Dependencies in Europe's Networked Modes of Governance," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(5), pages 974-992, September.
    7. Kaidonis, Mary A., 2009. "Critical accounting as an epistemic community: Hegemony, resistance and identity," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 290-297.
    8. Creplet, F. & Dupouet, O. & Kern, F. & Mehmanpazir, B. & Munier, F., 2001. "Consultants and experts in management consulting firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1517-1535, December.
    9. Caspar F. Berg, 2017. "Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: externalization, politicization and the legacy of pillarization," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 63-84, March.
    10. Fikresus Amahazion, 2016. "Epistemic Communities, Human Rights, and the Global Diffusion of Legislation against the Organ Trade," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-31, October.
    11. repec:ilo:ilowps:389534 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Anthony Evans, 2009. "Constitutional moments in Eastern Europe and subjectivist political economy," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 118-138, June.
    13. Elliott, Chris & Schlaepfer, Rodolphe, 2001. "Understanding forest certification using the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3-4), pages 257-266, July.
    14. Sharif, Naubahar, 2006. "Emergence and development of the National Innovation Systems concept," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 745-766, June.
    15. Katharina Rietig, 2011. "The influence of academics as insidernongovernmental actors in the Post-Kyoto Protocol Climate Change Negotiations: a matter of timing, network and policyentrepreneurial capabilities," GRI Working Papers 58, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    16. Straßheim, Holger, 2001. "Der Ruf der Sirenen - Zur Dynamik politischen Benchmarkings: Eine Analyse anhand der US-Sozialreformen," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Regulation of Work FS II 01-201, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    17. Gabriella Carolini & Daniel Gallagher & Isadora Cruxên, 2018. "The promise of proximity: The politics of knowledge and learning in South–South cooperation between water operators," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(7), pages 1157-1175, November.
    18. Sauve, Raphael & Watts, Jamie, 2003. "An analysis of IPGRI's influence on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 307-327, November.
    19. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    20. Christensen, Mark & Newberry, Susan & Potter, Bradley N., 2019. "Enabling global accounting change: Epistemic communities and the creation of a ‘more business-like’ public sector," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 53-76.
    21. Claude Paraponaris, 2017. "Plateformes numériques, conception ouverte et emploi," Post-Print halshs-01614430, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:3:y:2015:i:2:p:65-75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.