Multiple Streams Approach and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Compared and Contrasted

Spano, Dominick

doi:10.2478/hjbpa-2023-0020

Abstract

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) and Jones and Baumgartner’s Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) are public policy frameworks that have existed for many years. Given their long-term popularity, it is important for readers to have a strong working knowledge on how said frameworks function, and be able to compare and contrast them. It has also been put forth that PET only serves as an updated version of MSA, but this paper argues that said assertion is inaccurate, as PET is a useful framework in its own right. By inspecting this paper, readers will learn about MSA, PET, how they are similar and different, how they can be operationalized or used in real life circumstances, how they have been tested, and it is ultimately concluded that PET is not just a reworking of MSA.

References

Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Béland, D., & Howlett, M. (2016). The role and impact of the multiple-streams approach in comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Aanalysis: Research and Practice, 18(3), 221-227.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Béland, D., & Marier, P. (2020). COVID-19 and long-term care policy for older people in Canada. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 32(4-5), 358-364.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cairney, P. (2018). Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs. Policy & Politics, 46(2), 199-215.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Honig, J. A. S. (2020). The punctuated-equilibrium theory and US counterterrorism policy. Journal of International Relations, 8(1), 1-6.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government priorities problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 1-20.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kern, F., & Rogge, K. S. (2018). Harnessing theories of the policy process for analyzing the politics of sustainability transitions: A critical survey. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 27, 102-117.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kingdon, J. W. (1999). America the unusual. New York, NY: Worth.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kingdon, J. W. (2014). Agenda, alternatives, and public policy (2nd ed.). London, UK: Pearson.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mintrom, M., & True, J. (2022). COVID-19 as a policy window: Policy entrepreneurs responding to violence against women. 41(1), Policy and Society, 143-154.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Robinson, S. E., Caver, F. S., Meier, K. J., & O’Toole Jr, L. J. (2007). Explaining policy punctuations: Bureaucratization and budget change. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 140-150.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sabatier, P.A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147-156.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Simon, H.A. (1997). Administrative behavior (4th Ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2017). The public policy theory primer (3rd Ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
True, J. L., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2007). Theories of the policy process. In P. A. Sabatier, (Ed.) Theories of the policy process (2nd Ed.) (pp. 155-187). Westview Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Volz, K. G., & Hertwig, R. (2016). Emotions and decisions: Beyond conceptual vagueness and the rationality muddle. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 101-116.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walgrave, S., & Varone, F. (2008). Punctuated equilibrium and agenda‐setting: Bringing parties back in: Policy change after the dutroux crisis in Belgium. Governance, 21(3), 365-395.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Weimer, D. L. (2008). Theories of and in the policy process. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 489-495.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zahariadis, N. (1998). Comparing three lenses of policy choice. Policy Studies Journal, 26(3), 434-448.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P.A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd Ed.) (pp. 65-92). Westview.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Multiple Streams Approach and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Compared and Contrasted

Abstract

Paradigm

My account