In a recent article published in Policy & Politics, Georg Wenzelburger explores how a landmark criminal justice reform in Virginia during the 1990s combined apparently contradictory approaches to sentencing—and why that matters today.
The reform in question abolished parole and sharply increased sentences for violent offenders—hallmarks of a “tough on crime” agenda. But, surprisingly, it also introduced data-driven risk assessments to help divert non-violent offenders away from prison. This mix of punitive and preventative measures was unusual for the time and has since played a key role in the rise of more measured, evidence-informed criminal justice reforms in the United States.
The Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) was originally developed to explain agenda setting within national government institutions and the United States Congress in particular. However, the last decade plus has seen an explosion of research applying the theory to new governing contexts (e.g., authoritarian states, transnational institutions, local governments) while extending it to the latter stages of the policy process (e.g. policy formulation and implementation). Yet few studies have applied the framework to subnational governments—and U.S. states in particular—a curious omission given the critical role they play in driving policy change within federal systems.
Our recent article just published in Policy & Politicsfills this gap by applying the MSF to the case of climate change adaptation policymaking in the State of Massachusetts. We specifically rely on a mixed methods research design combining a negative binomial regression analysis with process tracing to assess the effect of all three streams as well as policy entrepreneurship on agenda change.
One of the biggest barriers to conducting agenda setting research at the subnational level is the dearth of granular data documenting changes in issue attention across time. We overcome this by using data from State House News Service, an independent wire service that provides “gavel-to-gavel” coverage of policymaking within the Massachusetts State government. Although our study focuses specifically on Massachusetts, a cursory review of the public record suggests similar news agencies exist in other states as well, although it is unclear whether their coverage is as a comprehensive as State House News Service Massachusetts.
This quarter’s highlights collection showcases 3 recent articles on policy process theories that make important contributions to this area of policy research and theory development.
In our first article, ‘Organisation, information processing, and policy change in US federal bureaucracies , authors Samuel Workman et al examine policy change in the US federal bureaucracy. They build on Punctuated Equilibrium Theory’s premise that institutional friction and limited attention are prime influences on policy change, and they introduce a new approach for measuring and modelling these dynamics. This new approach incorporates the centralisation of information, decision-making, and the complexity of the policy, into the architecture of different organisations. Specifically, it measures how different sized organisations delegate federally regulated agenda items across the US federal bureaucracy from 2008-2016.
Their findings suggest that larger bureaucracies may handle change and problem definitions more easily than smaller organisations. These bureaucracies are not forced to shift attention to each new problem. This is because being part of a department provides more capacity to handle various problems as they emerge onto the agenda. Additionally, the division of attention within these structures allows for a broader range of strengths and expertise to tackle problems better. These findings challenge the typical view that smaller, nimble organisations manage change better.
Our second article, by Johanna Kuenzler and co-authors, considers how the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) helps in understanding how policy narratives impact public policy processes. It offers a systematic analysis of the historical development of NPF research, examining the use of the NPF’s theoretical elements over five time periods. The article provides insight into the foundation of NPF, highlighting the influence of positivist and interpretivist approaches throughout its development.
Figure: Number of published articles according to historical stages of the development of the NPF
As illustrated in the figure above, the article highlights the unique contributions of key NPF publications across each of the time periods of its development. The findings indicate a consistent focus on the core theoretical components and methodological innovations, demonstrating the framework’s robustness.
Finally, the article suggests avenues to further develop the framework, drawing from past lessons such as the introduction of the beneficiary character, and proposes further investigation of character and narrative dynamics. It also encourages additional work to bridge positivist and interpretive approaches and outlines the strengths of each. In summary, the article is a welcome contribution and has much to offer to both those who are fluent and new to the NPF.
For decades, the authors explain, public policy researchers have tried to answer this question by using the policy theory called the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) which was originally developed to understand policymaking in the USA. Taking an overview of 178 studies that use the MSF to analyse policymaking and implementation in China, the authors found that scholars have increasingly used the MSF to examine how policies are made and implemented in China, as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure: China-focused MSF articles (N = 178) published per year.
Since the appearance of the first article that used the MSF to analyse policymaking in China (Zhou & Yan, 2005), almost two hundred journal articles have used the framework to identify the driving forces behind policymaking and policy implementation (or the lack thereof) in China. Based on the authors’ analysis of these studies, they offer important guiding principles for those who would like to use the MSF to analyse policy processes in China.
To conclude, the article identifies a range of under-examined areas for future policy research, 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. The authors hope this article will help to inspire more studies that use the multiple streams framework to deepen our understanding of policymaking and implementation in China.
We hope you’ve enjoyed this quarter’s collection of articles focusing on a range of perspectives on different policy process theories. We wish you a relaxing break and look forward to bringing you more of the latest research from Policy & Politics in 2025!
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at:
Kuenzler, J., Stauffer, B., Schlaufer, C., Song, G., Smith-Walter, A., & Jones, M. D. (2024). A systematic review of the Narrative Policy Framework: a future research agenda. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024) https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000046
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) https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000038
Workman, S., Robinson, S. E., & Bark, T. (2024). Organisation, information processing, and policy change in US federal bureaucracies. Policy & Politics, 52(2), 278-297 https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000013
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.
The idea of innovation has become one of the most persistent and sought-after today. While too conceptually elusive to pin down to a single statement, innovation can be broadly understood as a process whereby new elements and approaches are introduced to existing ones, in an attempt to solve problems, add value, and contribute to knowledge. Being a problem-solving, value-oriented process, it is no surprise that the concept of innovation is increasingly finding footholds in different theoretical spaces within policy and political sciences, from collaborative arrangements, democratic practices, policy design and experimentation, to behavioural and cognitive theories. Within the public sector, innovation can be understood as the creation of new policies, services, advisory, governance and political arrangements, often leading to the development of novel shared views of what is acceptable and expected by the public as beneficiaries.
Intuitively, policy learning has a family resemblance to policy innovation. It seems almost self-evident that they should be considered together in the explanation of policy dynamics. Yet the two literatures have developed independently of each other. Studies which put them in conversation are few.
In our recent article published in Policy & Politics, entitled “Critical Race Theory, Policy Ambiguity, & Implementation: A Multiple Streams Framework Analysis,” we examine how the United States’ first state-level ban on Critical Race Theory in public education (HB 377 passed in April 2020 by the Idaho state legislature) rose to the agenda, was passed into law, and then impacted universities during implementation. This analysis looks at both the negative but often intangible impacts of this type of legislation on institutions of higher education, as well as at the policy process and how problem framing early on impacts implementation later.
We argue that HB 377 was motivated by a perceived and likely fabricated “indoctrination” problem, which is an outcropping of American culture wars that have placed higher education in the center of a debate about how cultural values and beliefs are propagated in society and the responsibilities of institutions in shaping them. Critics of higher education manufactured a moral panic around liberal “indoctrination” that relied on spurious evidence, such as unverified anecdotes and a hoax event. This was enough to push a ban on Critical Race Theory on to the legislation agenda in Idaho with enough momentum for it to become law. However, that problem framing began to unravel by the time university faculty were set to implement it, especially as it became clear that the alleged evidence of indoctrination did not actually exist. This, coupled with the fact that faculty never really accepted that indoctrination was occurring on campuses to begin with, ultimately left them without a clear understanding of what the purpose of the new law was or how to respond to it. Unsurprisingly, divergent interpretations and divergent behaviors emerged as individuals were left to “figure it out” on their own. The fallout from the law’s passing also led to the sowing of distrust among faculty and administrators as many faculty felt they were left on the front-lines of a frightening culture war without adequate support from leadership.
Updating your course reading lists? Check out our essential reading recommendations on evidence-based policymaking, policy learning in multi-level and crisis contexts and the representation of diverse identities in public policy
It’s that time of year again to update your course syllabi with the latest research. Here at Policy & Politics, we hope to make that job easier for you by providing suggestions for teaching three important and timely themes in your policy courses.
Our first theme, showcasing three articles, is evidence-based policymaking (EBP). Of interest to students and scholars alike, our articles on EBP span a variety of perspectives that challenge mainstream views and showcase new angles on how EBP affects policy process dynamics. They should all lead to interesting classroom discussions and assignments about the meaning and validity of EBP.
The next three articles in our collection tackle different aspects of policy learning – an ever-popular topic with students and scholars alike, according to our readership data! These selected articles advance the dialogue on this important topic by exploring how learning may be fostered or constrained by multi-level governance structures and in crisis contexts.
My recent article published in Policy & Politics explores why politicians would decide to restrict their own counterterrorism operations, despite a persistently high terrorist threat and little pressure from the public? After years of violating human rights in the name of counterterrorism, the UK, for instance, implemented new policies, which, at least on paper, were supposed to protect foreigners abroad from the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, and its American partners’ coercive interrogation practices. Usually, such changes are attributed to a scandal, to the governing politicians’ ideology, to the public mood, or to a particularly strong lobby group – but what if all these explanations simply do not apply, as was the case for the so-called British “Principles” in 2019? Continue reading →
Janina Heaphy
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 