by Annemieke van den Dool & Tianlei Qiu, Duke Kunshan University
Why do policymakers address some societal issues but not others?
For decades, public policy researchers have tried to answer this question by using the so-called multiple streams framework (MSF). This framework was originally developed to understand policymaking in the USA.
In our recent Policy & Politics article, we provide an overview of 178 studies that use the MSF to analyse policymaking and implementation in China.
We found that scholars increasingly use this framework to examine how policies are made and implemented in China, which is illustrated by the Figure below.
Figure 1: China-focused MSF articles (N = 178) published per year.
The first article that used the MSF to analyse policymaking in China was written by Chao Zhou & Xueyong Yan and published in 2005. They used the framework to identify the driving forces behind China’s State Council’s abolishment of the Custody and Repatriation Measures in 2003, following the domestically well-known case of Sun Zhigang, a migrant worker who was beaten to death after being arrested for failure to show his ID. In their 2005 article, Zhou and Yan show that the Custody and Repatriation Measures had been criticised by academics and some government officials for several years. Yet, it was not until the death of Sun Zhigang that the measures were finally abolished. Important factors that contributed to the abolishment was sustained news attention about Sun Zhigang’s death, which was amplified through online platforms. In addition, law students and legal scholars filed multiple petitions to request an assessment of the extent to which the Custody and Repatriation Measures were consistent with the Constitution.
Since this first 2005 publication by Zhou and Yan, almost two hundred journal articles have used the MSF to identify the driving forces behind policymaking and policy implementation (or the lack thereof) in China.
Based on our analysis of these studies, and consistent with previous publications, for example, Cairney and Jones (2016), Jones et al. (2016), and Zohlnhöfer et al. (2022), we have the following recommendations for students, scholars, and practitioners who would like to use the MSF to analyse policy processes in China.
- Take the latest MSF research as a starting point rather than exclusively relying on Kingdon’s 1984 book. Key sources to consult and cite:
Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2023). The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In Theories of the policy process (pp. 29-64). Routledge.
Zahariadis, N., Herweg, N., Zohlnhöfer, R., & Petridou, E. (Eds.). (2023). A Modern Guide to the Multiple Streams Framework. Edward Elgar Publishing.
DeLeo, R. A., Zohlnhöfer, R., & Zahariadis, N. (2024). Multiple Streams and Policy Ambiguity.
- Be clear about the study’s research objective:
What exactly is the research objective and what is the specific dependent variable? See for example Huang and Yu (2012), who clearly state their research objective, namely to explain agenda setting of the School Bus Safety Management Regulations in 2011.
- Be clear about the measurement of independent variables:
Which factors may have shaped the policy process and which of those are included in the study? For example, the MSF’s problem stream refers to policy makers’ perception of a condition as problematic, which is more likely if indicators worsen, a focusing event happens, or a government programme fails. How will the study determine policymakers’ perception of a condition? What indicators (i.e., statistics, metrics, or criteria that capture a condition’s severity) will be included?
See Zohlnhöfer, R., Herweg, N., & Zahariadis, N. (2022). How to conduct a multiple streams study. In Methods of the policy process (pp. 23-50). Routledge.
- Embed the research project in the existing literature:
Discuss how the research findings are different from, or similar to, existing multiple streams framework research on China. For a list of all MSF studies up till 2021, see the appendices of Van den Dool and Qiu (2024).
Especially important areas for future research are under-examined policy topics such as banking, finance, energy, and health. In addition, more comparative studies are needed that help identify how policy processes in China are different from that in other political systems. We look forward to more studies that use the multiple streams framework to deepen our understanding of policymaking and implementation in China.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at:
van den Dool, A., & Qiu, T. (2024). Policy processes in China: a systematic review of the multiple streams framework. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024) from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000038
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Schneider, J., & Fowler, L. (2024). Critical race theory, policy ambiguity and implementation: a multiple streams framework analysis. Policy & Politics, 52(2), 321-340 from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000023
Turaga, R. M. R., & Mittal, H. (2023). The policy process of adopting environmental standards for coal plants in India: accommodating transnational politics in the Multiple Streams Framework. Policy & Politics, 51(2), 334-361 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16744966486085
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 