Theoretical Approach to the Policy Process: The Multiple Streams Framework

Herweg, Nicole

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49400-5_2

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Meanwhile, relatively loose networks of often less visible actors work to develop policy alternatives or solutions in the policy (or solution) stream. Preliminary ideas, part of a "primeval soup" (Kingdon, 1984), are then refined through a "softening" process by policy communities with relevant expertise (Herweg, 2016) according to criteria such as technical and financial feasibility and value acceptability. Finally, in the political stream, national mood or public opinion, interest group activity, and the composition of the current government (Herweg et al, 2015) shape receptivity to the proposed policy problems and solutions.…”

Section: Agenda-setting and The Multiple Streams Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking through a policy window with tinted glasses: Setting the agenda for U.S. AI policy

Schiff

2023

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The policy agenda is currently being established for artificial intelligence (AI), a domain marked by complex and sweeping implications for economic transformation tempered by concerns about social and ethical risks. This article reviews the United States national AI policy strategy through extensive qualitative and quantitative content analysis of 63 strategic AI policy documents curated by the federal government between 2016 and 2020. Drawing on a prominent theory of agenda setting, the Multiple Streams Framework, and in light of competing paradigms of technology policy, this article reviews how the U.S. government understands the key policy problems, solutions, and issue frames associated with AI. Findings indicate minimal attention to focusing events or problem indicators emphasizing social and ethical concerns, as opposed to economic and geopolitical ones. Further, broad statements noting ethical dimensions of AI often fail to translate into specific policy solutions, which may be explained by a lack of technical feasibility or value acceptability of ethics‐related policy solutions, along with institutional constraints for agencies in specific policy sectors. Finally, despite widespread calls for increased public participation, proposed solutions remain expert dominated. Overall, while the emerging U.S. AI policy agenda reflects a striking level of attention to ethics—a promising development for policy stakeholders invested in AI ethics and more socially oriented approaches to technology governance—this success is only partial and is ultimately layered into a traditional strategic approach to innovation policy.

show abstract

Section: Agenda-setting and The Multiple Streams Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking through a policy window with tinted glasses: Setting the agenda for U.S. AI policy

Schiff

2023

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their call was immediately criticized by Terry, who claimed that the public sector policy entrepreneur "seems to be a wolf in sheep's clothing"-that they do not exist [59] (p. 395). However, contemporary research shows plenty of evidence of public sector policy entrepreneurs, such as the European Commission, the Council of the EU, the European Central Bank, national, regional, or local governments and authorities, e.g., [38,[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]. Since the debate in the 1990s, only three studies of public sector policy entrepreneurs have addressed aspects of democracy, focusing on accountability of individual agency employees in the US state government [69], the legitimacy of Swedish local authorities [70], and the accountability of the European Central Bank [65] as policy entrepreneurs.…”

Section: A Call For Critical Research On Policy Entrepreneursmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Initially, and still in the US, only individuals were considered as policy entrepreneurs, but research on policy processes in the EU has added organizations as policy entrepreneurs. Thus, policy entrepreneurs include not only individuals-such as elected politicians, public officials, academics, and experts-but also companies, business associations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks, other IGs, political parties, and public institutions, e.g., the EC, the Council of the EU (Council), the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank, and national, regional, and local governments and authorities [38,[61][62][63]65,66,68,81,82]. Zito even refers to "collective entrepreneurship", in which advocacy coalitions act as policy entrepreneurs to formulate individual policies in a certain policy area [83,84].…”

Section: Defining Policy Entrepreneursmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies and Impacts of Policy Entrepreneurs: Ideology, Democracy, and the Quest for a Just Transition to Climate Neutrality

von Malmborg

2024

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of policy entrepreneurs has gained increasing attention in studies of policy change, including climate policy and governance. It foregrounds the role of agency in understanding policy change. However, agency of policy entrepreneurs in the policy process is political and conceals the power that shapes how public problems and policies are framed and defined. Thus, policy entrepreneurs should be confronted with the challenge of generating legitimacy, accountability, and justice in their actions and the implementation of their targeted policy change. Drawing on political–philosophical theories of liberal and deliberative democracy as well as environmental and ecological democracy this paper outlines a conceptual framework for critical analytical as well as normative research on strategies and impacts of policy entrepreneurs on democratic governance, primarily in climate policy but also more generally. Empirical research on the strategies and impacts of policy entrepreneurs in recent policymaking on climate change mitigation in the EU and Sweden identifies several deficits related to the democratic principles of legitimacy, accountability, and justice. It is found that policy entrepreneurs from different social spheres use cultural–institutional entrepreneurship to influence beliefs and perceptions on problems and policies. In addition, it is found that public sector policy entrepreneurs use structural entrepreneurship on ideological grounds to change existing power relations in climate governance. In all, the paper brings ideology and politics into research on policy entrepreneurs. It is suggested that not only the strategies used, but also the ideologies of the actors that use them, are decisive for the impacts of policy entrepreneurs, and thus, whether their advocacy will adhere to democratic norms and facilitate or hamper a just transition to climate neutrality and sustainability. The paper ends with proposals on how policy entrepreneurs can act more democratically, how to deal with populist policy entrepreneurs wanting to erode democracy, and conditions for climate justice movements to take responsibility and act in a more entrepreneurial way.

show abstract

“…It hereby informs further understanding around actor involvement in decision-making processes regarding direction setting. The frameworks PET and MSF emphasize that important decisions in policy subsystems or policy communities are predominantly made by a limited group of actors, consisting, for example, of policy experts, political party advisors, academics, consultants, bureaucrats and lobbyists (Green-Pedersen & Princen, 2016;Herweg, 2016). In contrast, the ACF and NPF suggest a broader range of actors to be relevant in policy subsystems, from policymakers at any level of government, to private sector actors, representatives from non-governmental organizations, media, and research organizations.…”

Section: Who Gives Direction?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The politics of directionality in innovation policy through the lens of policy process frameworks

de Graaff,

Wanzenböck,

Frenken

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Directionality’ in innovation policy is assumed to contribute to transformative change needed for urgent societal challenges. While directionality arguably lacks explicit conceptualization, the political and temporal nature of directionality suggests it can be viewed as a political process, in which diverse actors negotiate different directions. Through an integrative literature review of policy process literature, this paper discusses the politics of directionality by analyzing: ‘who gives which direction, where, when, how, and why’, using concepts from five policy process frameworks: Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET), Policy Feedback Theory (PFT), Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF). We find that policy process frameworks provide relevant concepts to understand the political nature of policies and policymaking processes that are integral to directionality in innovation policy, such as policy subsystems, belief systems and policy conflict. Moreover, the study points to a relevant distinction between giving direction and directionality.

show abstract

Theoretical Approach to the Policy Process: The Multiple Streams Framework

Cited by 7 publications

References 68 publications

Looking through a policy window with tinted glasses: Setting the agenda for U.S. AI policy

Looking through a policy window with tinted glasses: Setting the agenda for U.S. AI policy

Strategies and Impacts of Policy Entrepreneurs: Ideology, Democracy, and the Quest for a Just Transition to Climate Neutrality

The politics of directionality in innovation policy through the lens of policy process frameworks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About