Kingdons "Streams" Model at Thirty

Kingdons “Streams” Model at Thirty: Still
Relevant in the 21st Century?
PRAGATI RAWAT
Old Dominion University
JOHN CHARLES MORRIS

Old Dominion University
John Kingdons multiple-streams model, developed to explain the pol-

icy formulation process, is often cited in the policy literature, and
remains a staple of policy courses. In spite of critiques suggesting
Kingdons work is theoretically shaky and difficult to observe empiri-
cally, the work seems to retain a prominent place in the policy litera-
ture, garnering hundreds of citations since its publication. This
article provides a review of the literature employing Kingdons work,
from 1984 to the present. The results show that the model has been
used across all inhabited continents but suggest a decline in the use
of the model in the U.S. scholarly literature. Other theories are liber-
ally used in conjunction with Kingdons model. The study provides an
update on recent trends in the models use and offers guidelines for
interested researchers about topics that are considered as a produc-
tive endeavor, going forward.
Keywords: Policy Theory, Policy Process, John Kingdon, Streams Model,
Criticisms, Literature Review Article, “Agendas Alternatives and Public
Policy,” Kingdon in the Literature, Multiple Streams, Policy Entrepre-
neurs, Policy Formation, Garbage Can Model.
Related Articles:
Knutsen, Wenjue Lu. 2012. “An Institutional Account of Chinas HIV/
AIDS Policy Process from 1985 to 2010.” Politics & Policy 40 (1): 161-
192. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00339.x/
abstract
Weiner, Terry. 2007. “Touching the Third Rail: Explaining the Failure of
Bushs Social Security Initiative.” Politics & Policy 35 (4): 872-897. http://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00087.x/abstract
David, Charles-Philippe. 2015. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Reorienta-
tion of National Security Policy under the G. W. Bush Administration
(2001-04).” Politics & Policy 43 (1): 163-195. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/10.1111/polp.12106/abstract
Politics & Policy, Volume 44, No. 4 (2016): 608-638. 10.1111/polp.12168

Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
C 2016 Policy Studies Organization
V
Rawat / Morris / KINGDONS “STREAMS” MODEL AT 30 | 609
Related Media:
Kingdon, John W. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_W._Kingdon
Dow, Katheryn. 2013. “Kingdons 3 Streams.” https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v5s-wIyS-hFNI
Urban Policy Lab Konstanz. 2015. “Multiple Streams Approach: An
Introduction.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v5JUlvyBVoJiI
El modelo de multiples vertientes de John Kingdon usado para descri-
bir el proceso de formulacion de una polıtica es frecuentemente citado
en la literatura y esta firmemente establecido en cursos de polıtica. A
pesar de las crıticas que sugieren que el trabajo de Kingdon no es
teoreticamente solido y difıcil de observar, este trabajo parece haber
retenido un lugar prominente en la literatura polıtica, obteniendo cien-
tos de citas y menciones desde su publicacion. Este artıculo brinda
una revision de la literatura que emplea el trabajo de Kingdon, desde
1984 a la fecha. Los resultados muestran que el modelo se ha usado
en todos los continentes pero se observa una disminucion en el uso del
modelo en la literatura academica estadounidense. Otras teorıas son
usadas como complemento al modelo de Kingdon. Este estudio provee
una revision de las tendencias recientes en el uso del modelo y ofrece
lineamientos para academicos e investigadores interesados en temas
que son considerados como un esfuerzo productivo.
The policy literature is rife with models, frameworks, theories, and heuris-
tics that offer insight into different activities in the policy process. A case in
point is John Kingdons (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies,
wherein he modified the original garbage can model (Cohen, March, and Olsen
1972) to develop his version of the multiple-streams model. Kingdons model
has since attracted much attention from scholars worldwide. Several studies
have pointed out shortcomings in the model, yet it remains one of the popular
models used for understanding policy processes. There are models that existed
before Kingdons multiple streams, such as the original garbage can model
(Cohen, March, and Olsen 1972) and Lindbloms (1968) incrementalism; and
there are theories that emanated later like the punctuated equilibrium theory
(Baumgartner and Jones 1993); yet Kingdons model has endured despite
criticisms and attempts at modification. Are there trends apparent in the use or
acceptance of Kingdons work over time? What features make Kingdons
model a suitable framework for understanding policy processes even three dec-
ades after its initial publication? What are the limitations of the model that the
scholars highlight, especially in diverse political system and economies? These
are some of the questions this article seeks to answer.
Kingdon (1984, 1995) suggests two factors that make people in govern-
ment notice an idea and take action on the particular subject. These factors
are classified as participants and processes. The participants range from the
visible and influential in agenda setting, like the president and congressmen,
to the not-so-visible presidents staff and bureaucrats whose role is more
610 | POLITICS & POLICY / August 2016
evident in suggesting alternatives rather than setting the agenda itself (King-
don 1995). Kingdon identifies three kinds of processes (streams) that are
important in policy formulation; namely, problems, policies, and politics
(Kingdon 1995). The coupling of streams at opportune times is key for an
item to rise to the decision agenda and it is the policy entrepreneurs, willing to
invest resources and reputation on their pet projects, who affect this coupling
(Kingdon 1995).
Kingdon (1995) proposed three streams of problems, policy, and politics, in
contrast to the four streams (problems, solutions, participants, and choice
opportunities) of Cohen, March, and Olsens (1972) garbage can model. King-
dons model additionally distinguishes between participants in each stream.
Kingdon argues that the pluralist and elite forces fight for space in each of
these streams of policy making (see Robinson and Eller 2010). The participants
may cut across these streams but there is also specialization of participants; for
example, the politicians are more involved in the politics stream while academ-
ics, researchers, and consultants are more involved with policies (Kingdon
1995). The problem stream is far from mass politics and the solutions stream is
populated almost entirely by elites (see Robinson and Eller 2010). Kingdon
also introduces policy entrepreneurs in his model. These entrepreneurs advo-
cate a position in anticipation of future gains and can be found in formal posi-
tions as well as in informal places in the political system (Kingdon 1995). They
possess qualities such as persuasion, negotiation, connections, authority, exper-
tise, and ability to speak for others and are central in bringing the three process
streams together (Kingdon 1995).
Kingdons multiple-streams model has been used in various studies across
the globe since it was first published in 1984. Thirty years later, a literature
review of this work is thus useful for understanding how the model stands the
test of time. This work is important for several reasons. First, the prevalence
of Kingdons work in the broader policy literature is indicative of its impor-
tance to, and impact in, the arena of policy scholarship. A review of how
Kingdons ideas have been incorporated into later policy work can help us
understand the evolution of the ideas over time. Second, after 30 years, a sig-
nificant body of work employing Kingdons model has accrued, thus permit-
ting a comprehensive examination of nature of that body of work. Third,
while it is possible to argue that Kingdons work fails to meet the standards
of “good theory” (McCool 1995), the work remains quite popular among
both students and scholars of policy. There is inherent value in understanding
the broad appeal of Kingdons ideas. The theoretical contribution of the
review is in describing and exemplifying the aspects of the model that worked
well and that did not in different contexts. Informing the tools and techniques
used in applying Kingdons model makes the practical contribution; tools
and techniques such as the methodology and data sources used, and pre-
scribed directions for future research can be particularly insightful for future
scholarly work.
Recently two other studies have looked into Kingdons multiple-streams

contribution to the policy literature. Jones and others (2015) analyzed peer-
reviewed articles available in English; that tested multiple-streams concepts;
and were published between the years 2000 and 2013 as cited in the Web of Sci-
ence database. Their initial search was based on two source citations: (1) cita-
tions of all editions of Kingdons Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies
(1984)1 and (2) citations of multiple-streams approach (MSA) chapters written
by Zahariadis for either the 1999 or 2007 editions of the Theories of the Policy
Process. The two different citation searches provided Jones and others (2015) a
final list of 311 items for their content analysis. Jones and others (2015)
assessed the degree to which Kingdons concepts have been used in multiple
contexts and the adaptation of its key concepts over time. Their study uses a
coding scheme that supports the quantitative nature of their analysis.2 The sec-
ond study, by Cairney and Jones (2015), uses in-depth analysis of 41 hand-
picked best-case representative studies of the MSA and compares the theoreti-
cal and empirical contributions of the MSA to evolutionary policy theory that
includes punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones 1993) and new insti-
tutionalism (John 1998).
Our review is distinct from the previous two studies with respect to the pur-
pose of the study and the content of analysis, in addition to the search criteria
and time frame used. The current study considers peer-reviewed journal
articles available in English and published since Kingdons (1984) first edition
of Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. The search was conducted using
EBSCO Discovery Services (EDS) for a period of 30 years (1984-2015). EDS
provides a single window search for multiple databases that includes the library
catalog and institutional repositories, any federated search resources, and
EBSCO host databases and its data partners (Calvert 2015), which includes
Web of Science (if the institution subscribes to both Web of Science and
EDS).3 The focus is on journal articles that have applied Kingdons original
conceptualization of the multiple-streams model (and not other derived schol-
arly work like that of Zahariadis considered by Jones and others [2015] in their
study) to a particular policy case. The purpose of this article is to analyze
trends in the use of the Kingdons model and bring forth the features that are
considered its strengths and limitations by the scholars across different polities
and economies. Instead of providing a quantitative assessment—like Jones and
others (2015)—this study engages in a thematic discussion throughout the
1
Includes the following variant (and in some cases errant) publication years: 1983, 1984, 1995,
1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2010, and 2011 (Jones et al. 2015).
2
The quantitative inclination of the study by Jones and others (2015) is also pointed out by Cair-
ney and Jones (2015).
3
See http://support.epnet.com/knowledge_base/detail.php?id55213. Web of Science is a scientific
citation indexing service. EDS pulls almost an institutions entire collection (local and
subscribed).
purpose of the studies, the policy phases, case study locations, and the method-
ologies adopted by the researchers applying Kingdons framework. Using the
select journal articles for literature review, our research traces the change in uti-
lization rate of Kingdons model across different continents through the life
cycle of the model.
Method for Selecting the Articles
To select journal articles for this literature review, a search was conducted
in the EDS for peer-reviewed journal articles. Books, e-books, and book
reviews were excluded. The search key used was “Kingdon, J AND stream”
with Boolean search limiters for full text, peer-reviewed journal articles only. A
Boolean search for these two terms was used to minimize irrelevant items in
search results such as articles by other scholars with the last name “Kingdon,”
while preventing the exclusion of important articles because of variation in the
use of the words “multiple streams” (e.g., multiple-streams, multiple streams,
and multi-stream). Using additional limiters for articles available in the English
language, since 1984, resulted in a list of 560 articles (a non-Boolean search of
terms “Kingdon, J” and “stream” using EDS, without any limiters, results in
5,465 items). This literature review is focused on articles that apply Kingdons
model to some policy case, and therefore, articles of the type that critique pol-
icy theories or mention Kingdon but do not specifically base their study on
Kingdons model, were excluded. The authors then reviewed the papers con-
tents, abstract, introduction, theory, discussion, and conclusion section to iden-
tify the cases relevant for this study. This resulted in about a hundred articles,
covering multiple countries across all continents and spread over the 30 years
of publication, that the authors considered appropriate for the literature
review. Some articles did refer to Kingdon or his model but did not base the
study on the model, and others made only a fleeting reference to policy win-
dows, policy entrepreneurs, or converging streams. Such articles were excluded.
The remaining articles represent the extant research that employs the multiple
streams model as the basis for inquiry. Additional articles were identified dur-
ing the screening of search results, which did not appear in the search but were
cited in multiple articles. These were added to the literature review using EDSs
and JSTOR database searches. A total of about a 120 articles were reviewed for
the purpose of this study.
This research exclusively focuses on those journal articles that use King-
dons work, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, and have utilized King-
dons multiple-streams model as their conceptual or analytical basis for a
policy case. The findings reported here are based on the literature thus selected
and reviewed. Note that the number of studies covered in this literature review
is significant when seen in comparison to other such reviews; for example, a
meta review for advocacy coalition framework application for a period of
nearly 20 years by Weible, Sabatier, and McQueen (2009) is based on 80
studies. Cairney and Jones (2015) have considered 41 articles of multiple

streams empirical applications in their impact analysis. Even though our study
considers articles available only in the English language (due to translation lim-
itations), it includes articles from multiple countries across six continents.
The following sections in this study discuss the findings. The first section
details the general trends in the application of multiple-streams model and the
next two sections illuminate the suitability and limitations of the framework as
illustrated by the scholars. The directions for future research are presented, as
are some concluding thoughts.
Findings
Trends
Study Locations. The various geographic locations and fields of study where
Kingdons multiple-streams model has been used for explaining different
phases of policy, from formulation to implementation, is noteworthy. Since
Kingdons work was published in 1984, scholars in North and South America,
Asia, Europe, Africa, and Australia have applied his multiple-streams model.
Major journal works started appearing around 1989 and the model gained
peak in popularity in the U.S. journals around 1995. The journal articles show
application of the multi-stream model in Europe (especially Great Britain and
Germany) as early as 1995, which is almost the same time that it gained
momentum in the United States. Australia and New Zealand were next to fol-
low; the first article appeared in Canada in 2000. The application of Kingdons
model in Asia (in China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam) gained
momentum in journal articles much later, after 2008, but have picked up since
then with an increasing number of articles based on the model being published
around 2012-13. Of the European countries, the Netherlands ranks topmost in
terms of the number of studies using Kingdons model, all in the latest decade,
applying the model in a multitude of fields such as flooding, housing, rail and
land use, animal welfare, and e-governance (see e.g., Buitelaar and De Kam
2012; Elzen et al. 2011; Koffijberg, De Bruijn, and Priemus 2012; Peek and
Louw 2008; Runhaar and van Nieuwaal 2010; van Herk et al. 2011).
While Sabatier (1991) noted that Kingdons MSA had emerged as a major
theory in public policy making in the United States, Zahariadis (1995) won-
dered why little attention was paid to the model in countries outside the United
States, and was among the first to utilize the model outside the United States
to examine the evolution of privatization ideas in Britain and France. An inter-
esting trend discovered during this literature review was that in the decade
from 1995 to 2005, the major proportion of work using Kingdons model
(greater than 50 percent) was produced in the United States, but in the next
decade, not only did the count of studies in the United States using Kingdons
model plunge, but even its proportion dropped down to less than 25 percent,
with a much larger number of studies conducted in Europe, Australia, and

Asia.4 Although covering a slightly earlier period, the Google N-gram5 in Fig-
ure 1 suggests a peak in studies using “John W. Kingdon” during the years
1992-97 and a downward trend thereafter in the United States, which provides
a rough consensus to the finding of this article that the overall usage of King-
dons model has reduced in the United States.
Policy Fields. Kingdons model has been applied to a multitude of policy fields.
Kingdon used cases from the health and transportation sectors in his work.
Thus it is not surprising that more than a quarter of the total journal studies in
our review were in the field of health policy, including drugs and substance
abuse. However, what is intriguing is that the number of studies that apply or
test Kingdons framework in the transportation sector is small. This study
found one such work in each of the following locations: United States (Lind-
quist 2006), China (Wan et al. 2013), and Brazil (Khayesi and Adjo 2011).
Education policy is the next big field in the United States, Mexico, Europe,
and Australia where insights from Kingdons model have been drawn (see e.g.,
Ahearne 2006; Mills 2007; Portz 1996; Richardson 2005). The model is often
applied in environment and natural resources-related issues such as flooding,
fishery, renewable energy, and water policies. The recurring floods issue in
Jakarta is studied using Kingdons model to show how the attention of the
national policy makers is drawn to the issue and solution considered by the
Indonesian government (Simanjuntak et al. 2012). Flood risks are also studied
in the Netherlands (van Herk et al. 2011) and Scotland (Rouillard et al. 2012).
The model is used to explain climate policy change (see e.g., Crowley 2013;
Owens 2010), European Union (EU)s energy security agenda setting (Maltby
2013), decision making on natural resources of fisheries and gas mining (Run-
haar and Van Nieuwaal 2010), implementing policy instrument for promoting
renewable energy (Stefes 2010), and water policy (Huitema, Lebel, and Meijer-
ink 2011). Another set of studies is concentrated in the area of welfare policies.
The model has been used in policy arenas of animal welfare (Elzen et al. 2011),
and urban issues like inclusionary and social housing (Tiernan and Burke
2002) and housing reforms (Zhu 2013).
Apart from these, the model has been applied, although sparingly, in other
policy areas like law enforcement (Saint-Germain and Calamia 1996), telecom-
munication (Liu and Jayakar 2012), arms control policy (Diehl 1990), and E-
Government (Mele 2008). Some scholars have found application of the model
4
The observation regarding fewer references to Kingdons name with the passage of time may be
the result of the approach used to select the articles.
5
The Google N-gram result is based on a sample of books written in English and published in the
United States.
Figure 1.
Google N-Gram of the Term “John W. Kingdon”
in unexpected policy areas like Pallagst (2006) who applied the policy window
concept of Kingdons model in European spatial planning.
Purpose of the Studies Using Kingdons Model. The studies using Kingdons
model describe the emergence and development of the three process streams,
showcase the importance of policy windows and missed policy windows, and
highlight the significance of issue framing and the role of policy entrepreneurs.
Kingdons model is heavily applied to policies at the federal (or national) level,
to a much lesser extent to state, district, or municipal level policies, and least
often in the international policy arena. The policy phases that have been ana-
lyzed using the model range from design to implementation and even for pre-
dicting policy changes. Policy design (Simanjuntak et al. 2012), policy
formation (Owens 2010), policy process (Lindquist 2006), decision making for
policy (Wan et al. 2013), agenda setting and framing (Maltby 2013), policy
adoption (Ness 2010), policy changes (Stefes 2010), and rise of an item on the
agenda (Virtue 2007) are some of the terms used by researchers in defining the
policy stage of their study. Other studies analyze current policy making, policy
implementation, and predicting policy changes (see e.g., Elzen et al. 2011; Liu
and Jayakar 2012).
The importance of issue framing and the coupling of streams during policy
windows is explored. One notable work is Plants (2004) explanation of how
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 opened a policy window for rail-
roads; another study by Farley and others (2007) discusses the opening of pol-
icy windows for ecological economics with Hurricane Katrina as the focusing
event. Some researchers have used Kingdons model to develop an understand-
ing of turning points in the way issues are framed in agenda setting (see e.g.,
Corbett 2011). Beland (2005) explores framing of alternatives in North Ameri-
can and European welfare policy debates using Kingdons framework.
In the policy implementation phase, Kingdons model is used to identify
factors that promote (see e.g., McDonel, Meyer, and Deliberty 1996) as well as
the factors that hamper implementation (see e.g., Ridde 2009). Ridde (2009)
suggests that to extend Kingdons framework into implementation requires evi-
dence that the coupling of the three streams has occurred in preceding stages.
In the specific context of Burkina Faso, Ridde (2009) claims that by an exten-
sion of Kingdons framework, it is possible to predict the implementation fail-
ure when the problem and policy streams do not couple. Kubiak, Sobek, and
Rose (2005) use the model to identify barriers to evidence-based practices in
mental health. Exworthy and Powell (2004) examine implementation in multi-
level governance transporting the use of the model from national to local level.
Another facet of Kingdons model that is widely used is his definition of
policy entrepreneurs and description of their roles. Phillipp and Biordi (1990)
are among the first to use Kingdons model in this manner. Their work exam-
ines the role of participants in setting the health policy agenda. Several other
researchers have used Kingdons model to identify roles and strategies of indi-
viduals or organizations behind the policy changes (see e.g., Huitema, Lebel,
and Meijerink 2011; Martin and Thomas 2013; Zhu 2008, 2013).
Researchers have not only used the model to explain existing policies (see
e.g., Paton 2014) but also to explore the potential of developing future policies;
for example, Poulos, Donaldson, and Finch (2010) have used the model to iden-
tify motivators and barriers to enable sports safety policy in an Australian state.
Rouillard and others (2012) focused on examining the relationship between insti-
tutions and the policy process in the policy science literature with particular
focus on policy learning processes. van Herk and others (2011) used Kingdons
framework innovatively to develop a social learning framework to enable devel-
opment, exchange, and application of knowledge in urban planning. One note-
worthy study, by Elzen and others (2011), used Kingdons model to study
transitions that developed to challenge the existing regimes on normative
grounds. The researchers called these developments “transitions in making” as
they started to question the existing systems (Elzen et al. 2011, 263).
Methodology Used by Scholars.

Qualitative Studies
Almost all the studies investigated for the purpose of this literature review use
descriptive case studies. Case studies are preferred when the question types are
“how” or “why”; when the researchers have little control over events; and when
the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context (Yin
2003). Most researchers cite Yins (2003) work in their methodology section.
Using Yins replication-logic, scholars have used comparative case study meth-
odology. Some scholars have compared one policy arena in different settings.
Liu and Jayakar (2011) compared a case of two different countries, China and
India, each in telecommunication policy making to analyze the formal struc-
tures, procedures, and interest group involvement in the two countries. Zahar-
iadis and Allen (1995) examined the evolution of privatization ideas in Great
Britain and Germany. Cherlet and Venot (2013) conducted a comparative case
study of water policy reforms in the African nations of Burkina Faso and Mali.
Yeatman (2003) used findings from four case studies, of which two were from
sites where food and nutrition policy was introduced, while the other two were
where they were funded but not implemented. Huitema, Lebel, and Meijerink
(2011) discussed 16 case studies of water policy, one each from 15 different
countries and one more that pertained to EU water policies. They used case
studies from different countries (different institutional factors) in the water pol-
icy arena to determine if any pattern of recurrence evolves across these
countries.
Some scholars, conversely, use different programs in their comparative analy-
sis. Ness (2010) uses three different state programs in New Mexico, Tennessee,
and West Virginia for comparative study and selects these programs based on cer-
tain selection criteria like source of funding and eligibility criteria of the program.
Koffijberg, De Bruijn, and Priemus (2012) discuss three processes of change in the
field of social housing in the Netherlands, with the first policy focusing on change
in quality parameters in building new housing, the second on affordable housing,
and the third on decentralization of subsidies policy in housing.
Mele (2008) uses a slightly different, nevertheless qualitative, approach for
developing a middle range theory. Mele (2008) interprets Kingdons policy-
making process as composed of the three phases of agenda setting, alternative
specification, and decision making. Processual analysis methodology (a meth-
odology focused on processes and embedded causalities) is applied by breaking
down Italys decade long E-Government policy-making process into its compo-
nent phases to create a causal understanding of a multicycle case (Mele 2008).
Processual analysis has events and chronologies as its basic building blocks
and studies processes across a number of levels of analysis, studying processes
in past, present and future, searching for holistic rather than linear explana-
tions of process, with a focus on context and action (Pettigrew 1997). It
assumes that social processes are embedded in the contexts and mutually shape
one another (Pettigrew 1997).
Most studies are exploratory in nature, tracing changes over time and
involving a description and analysis of a policy case (recently introduced policy
or a policy item under consideration) or a discussion of policy debates. Wan
and others (2013) conducted their investigation over a four-year period from
2004 to 2008 monitoring the progress of the Huizhou public transport system.
Nevertheless, their narratives took into account the policy settings even prior
to 2004 and begin from the year 1997. Rouillard and others (2012) evaluated
national institutions influence over flood policy learning in Scotland over a
period of 50 years starting from the 1950s into the 2000s. Maltby (2013)
pointed out the importance of policy tracing in analysis as path dependency
can influence the course of a policy with values and norms getting embedded
within an institution. His explanation of policy stream development starts in
the 1960s and continues until 2006.
Quantitative Studies
There are very few studies that apply or utilize Kingdons multistream model
using quantitative methods and sampling techniques. One study, that for the
first time defied the qualitative nature of studies based on Kingdons model,
was by Travis and Zahariadis (2002). They used a quantitative model to
explain the U.S. foreign aid allocations based on Kingdons model. Interest-
ingly, Travis and Zahariadis (2002) made note of the lack of quantitative work
being produced using multi-streams model and our research found that the sce-
nario has not changed since. Our search found only one another journal study
(by Robinson and Eller 2010), which argued that Kingdons model does pro-
vide falsifiable predictions, and that employed a quantitative model to test
these predictions. Some other studies (see e.g., Kubiak, Sobek, and Rose 2005;
Rios and Meyer 2006) used quantitative data along with qualitative data in
their studies. Some studies employed snowball sampling (Greenfield et al.
2004) for interviewing informants. Nevertheless, for a majority of the research,
the external validity aspect may be critiqued, especially in the instance of single
case studies. Many scholars recognize this and have stated that they are not
aiming to generalize, while others quote Yin (2003) to argue that it is not statis-
tical generalization but analytical generalization they are striving to make
(Kubiak, Sobek, and Rose 2005).
Data Sources
Data sources include technical and economic documents and reports from
research institutes, ministries and sector organizations, systematic content anal-
ysis of Acts, legislative bills, meeting minutes, transcribed legislative hearings
and testimonies, government policy reports, correspondence and opinions
expressed by actors like legislators, officials and scholarly publications, and
news archives. These are generally supplemented with interviews, and in some
cases workshops, with the representatives of the organization or sector under
study and the stakeholders. Some exceptions, like Liu and Jayakar (2012), did
not use interviews.
Ness (2010) and van Herk and others (2011) employ triangulation of
methods by using document content analysis, and semi-structured interviews
with relevant probes. Some scholars additionally conduct workshops with
stakeholders (see e.g., Elzen et al. 2011; van Herk et al. 2011). Maltby (2013)
uses a methodology of triangulation with literature on agenda setting and pol-
icy entrepreneurship, evaluation of empirical data from secondary academic
literature and semi-structured elite interviews. Scholars interview various
actors as well as stakeholders in the policy process. For example, for a pig hus-
bandry case, Elzen and others (2011) interview representatives from the farm-
ers association, slaughtering industry, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal
Protection Society, and relevant researchers. Maltby (2013) includes interviews
of officials in the European Commission in his research on the EUs agenda-
setting process.
Suitability of Kingdons Model
Kingdons model has been considered relevant in policy studies across

geographies and policy fields. Apart from the studies based in the United States
(see e.g., Farley et al. 2007; Gardinier 2008), policy studies in other developed
democracies considered Kingdons model easily extendable and valid in their
case. In studies conducted with the policy location in Canada, Kingdons
framework is considered valid and simple to apply; for example, Dykeman and
Williams (2014) find support for all the three streams in opening a policy win-
dow in their study of a health insurance program. In European countries, there
are studies on public health policies in the United Kingdom (Duke et al. 2013;
Exworthy and Powell 2004), Denmark (Frank, Bjerge, and Houborg 2013),
Sweden (Jansson and Tillgren 2010), Ireland (Butler 2015), and farther afield,
in Australia (DAbbs 2004; DeVoe 2003) where Kingdons policy streams
model is considered helpful in explaining complex policy dynamics. Exworthy
and Powell (2004) find a policy entrepreneur evident in each case study of U.K.
Governments health policy initiatives. Scholars examining housing policy in
countries like the Netherlands (Buitelaar and De Kam 2012; Koffijberg, de
Bruijn, and Priemus 2012), and Canada (Macnaughton, Nelson, and Goering
2013), and environmental policy cases in Australia (Crowley 2013) have
deemed Kingdons model as an advantage.
Outside of developed economies, Ridde (2009) successfully applies King-
dons concepts of multiple streams and policy entrepreneur for a policy imple-
mentation case at a local level of governance in Africa. Khayesi and Adjo
(2011) acknowledge that Kingdons model has provided insights into how
problems, politics, and policies coupled to open and close policy windows for
an urban transport policy in Curitiba, Brazil. Huitema, Lebel, and Meijerink
(2011) are able to corroborate Kingdons theory that policy entrepreneurs exist
everywhere (including bureaucracies, political parties, nongovernmental organ-
izations, expert and local communities) in their study of water policies in the
EU and 15 other countries. The countries in their study include democratic
and developed (Australia, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Sweden,
Spain, and the United States), as well as those that have nondemocratic forms
of government (e.g., China), and less developed economies (e.g., India, Indone-
sia, Mexico, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, and Turkey).
Pertinent Attributes of the Policy Streams

Durant and Diehl (1989), who were among the first to apply Kingdons
domestic policy model in the U.S. foreign policy domain, asserted that Kingdons
model has significantly helped in the understanding of predecision processes.
Neumann (2006) later contended that Kingdons model focuses on the formula-
tion phase of policies, which greatly influenced the overall effectiveness of policy
and, therefore, is very appropriate for analyzing foreign policy. In the case of
health studies Kingdons framework was found to be useful in organizing

descriptive data for policy analysis, to analyze agenda setting and emergence of
windows of opportunity, and to examine stakeholder participation and their
actions (see e.g., McDonel, Meyer, and Deliberty 1996; Philipp and Biordi 1990).
Scholars consider Kingdons framework as a fitting lens for understanding
policy formulation in a complex environment (Kubiak, Sobek, and Rose 2005)
and argue that it helps enhance the ability to identify causation (DAbbs 2004).
Some researchers (see e.g., Crowley 2013; Simanjuntak et al. 2012) explicitly
mention their preference for Kingdons model for their work. Simanjuntak and
others (2012), argue that the streams model takes into consideration politics
along with policy and problems while other models, for example the garbage
can model (Cohen, March, and Olsen 1972), tend to neutralize politics. The
other advantages cited are that Kingdons model captures institutional
arrangements, suits the description of lengthy and complex policy and
decision-making processes and assumes that external events create windows of
opportunity (see e.g., Simanjuntak et al. 2012). Wan and others (2013) talk
about the essence of the model in explaining why some potential agenda items
are accepted while others get rejected. As per Elzen and others (2011), King-
dons model, despite its policy focus, brings about the dynamics of independent
streams that partially interact with each other. Buitelaar and De Kam (2012)
claim that Kingdons model facilitates the ability to distinguish critical
moments (opportunities) from critical junctures (opportunities that are
grasped).
Pertinent Attributes of the Policy Entrepreneur

Kingdons model has been considered useful in identifying the conditions
under which stakeholders challenge and defend policy, sustain their role and
status, build consensus, and initiate change in policy discourse (Duke et al.
2013). Kingdons policy entrepreneurs as creative actors motivated by self ben-
efits are considered not as categorical and economically defined as by other
scholars who have described them as primarily self-interested, manipulative,
and possessing leadership qualities with competitive spirit (Ingold and Varone
2012). Another highlight of Kingdons entrepreneurs is that they can be found
anywhere: the multiple-streams framework is considered to provide the best
conceptual insight in terms of the presence and influence of policy entrepre-
neurs and their role in emergence of policy windows (see e.g., Ness 2010).
Limitations in Kingdons Model
The limitations of Kingdons framework and the need to adapt it to con-

text are also widely reported from different study locations. In several cases the
same scholars who held up the advantages and applicability of Kingdons
framework reported some aspects of the framework that did not work well or
were limiting and, therefore, additional theories were needed. Some researchers
applying the model at various governance levels, polities, and economies have
explained the reasons for the limitations that some concepts have posed in their
particular context.
Limitations in Kingdons Policy Streams

One salient observation in this literature review is that of the two notewor-
thy studies based on quantitative approaches to test Kingdons model, none
find Kingdons model sufficient and supportive of the predictions made by the
model. Travis and Zahariadis (2002) alter Kingdons model by making it more
incremental to test their hypotheses. Robinson and Eller (2010) fail to find any
evidence of independence in terms of participation in the problem and solution
streams or any crowding or elite bias in participation as suggested by Kingdon
(1995). However, neither of these two studies apply the model in federal-level
policies, as did Kingdon (1984, 1995). Travis and Zahariadis (2002) transport
the model into the foreign policy domain, while Robinson and Eller (2010)
apply the model to local school districts.
In their study of U.S. foreign policy, Durant and Diehl (1989) point out
that, although agenda setting is decidedly nonincremental in nature as King-
don suggests, alternative specification is both incremental and non-
incremental. This is unlike Kingdons view of the policy alternative specifica-
tion process (the policy stream), which is strictly incremental and undergoes a
long softening process where alternatives arise out of existing policy options or
their combinations (Durant and Diehl 1989). Bundgaard and Vrangbæk
(2007), in their explanation of structural reform policy process in Denmark,
criticize Kingdons model for not providing tools for a mesoanalysis or micro-
analysis of the three streams or for a closer examination of the coupling pro-
cess. Exworthy and Powell (2004), in studying implementation of U.K. health
services in multilevel governance, argue that Kingdons policy stream needs
greater elucidation (than just proposals) and is itself composed of a number of
smaller streams such as strategies, goals, feasible mechanisms, and resources.
They further argue that successful policy implementation is more likely when
the three policy streams align across the vertical (central-local) and horizontal
(central-central and local-local) dimensions (Exworthy and Powell 2004).
Together, these spatial dimensions and the streams can be seen as a series of
windows and the challenge is in creating and sustaining the confluence of the
three streams at all spatial levels (Exworthy and Powell 2004). Ness (2010) sug-
gests policy is not a separate stream but an environment in which the problem
and politics streams flow. He revises the multiple-streams framework to cap-
ture the influence of policy diffusion from other states and the role of diffusion
in policy innovation.
Scholars also find the model unable to explain the dynamics of policy mak-
ing in developing countries with different political systems (Liu and Jayakar
2012) and enlist adaptations in Kingdons model to make it more appropriate

for non-Western contexts. Liu and Jayakar (2012) claim that a policy stream
with availability of quality expertise is not evident in their studies, and the pol-
icy stream is not as conservative and resistant to external pressures as posited
by the theory (Liu and Jayakar 2012). They argue that the definition of the pol-
itics stream needs to be broadened to make it applicable to nondemocratic soci-
eties. Finally, they contend that the condition that policy formation needs all
streams to come together needs to be relaxed (Liu and Jayakar 2012). In China
it is the politics stream that opens the window, while in India it is the problem
stream (Liu and Jayakar 2012). They find that policy making in India is incre-
mental, while in China it is more nonincremental. They cite Zahariadis (1996)
notion of coupling in their conclusions and argue that in a centralized polity
like China, the politics stream may open a policy window (doctrinal coupling)
while in India, it is the consequential coupling where a policy question on the
public agenda is triggered by the problem stream. They contend that the prob-
lem stream may be given more weight in India and the politics stream in China
(Liu and Jayakar 2012).
Limitations in Kingdons Policy Entrepreneur

There are scholars whose criticism is that the role of the policy entrepre-
neur is vaguely defined (Bundgaard and Vrangbæk 2007; Goldfinch and
t Hart 2003). Goldfinch and t Hart (2003) try to address the haziness in King-
dons notion of policy entrepreneurs by outlining actions that policy propo-
nents need to take. Some scholars differentiate entrepreneurs by levels and
types. Martin and Thomas (2013) distinguish between policy entrepreneurs
and institutional entrepreneurs, differentiating between two tiers of entrepre-
neurship, where when the lower tier fails, entrepreneurial efforts are directed at
the higher tier. They present three levels of political rules—preconstitutional,
constitutional, and postconstitutional—and define the characteristics of the
policy entrepreneurs in these different settings. Mukhtarov and others (2013)
study the role of transnational entrepreneurs in introducing a global environ-
ment conservation policy in Vietnam and conclude that transnational actors
are the most influential as they enter into coalitions with national-level govern-
ment and are excellent in strategizing while local actors (civil society and local
communities) have no opportunity to engage in strategy at national level.
Almost all the authors who focus on entrepreneurs discuss the influence of
institutions, structures, and path dependency in defining the role and strategies
of policy entrepreneurs (see e.g., Bundgaard and Vrangbaek 2007; Cherlet and
Venot 2013; Huitema, Lebel, and Meijerink 2011; Stefes 2010; Zhu 2013). Hui-
tema, Lebel, and Meijerink (2011) contend that entrepreneurship is a neces-
sary, but not a sufficient, condition for local policy change and ownership.
Cherlet and Venot (2013) argue that the structural conditions determine the
strategies that policy entrepreneurs can employ. Through a comparative study
of two nations, Burkina Faso and Mali, their research shows how the structural
conditions and international organizations determine to a large extent the way
in which the aid-receiving countries accept the policy change. Due to the differ-
ence in the institutional character of the two neighboring West-African coun-
tries, they are able to use Kingdons model in one country while not in another
when comparing water policies. Scholars also highlight how such structural
factors can produce failed policies despite the presence of powerful entrepre-
neurs. Mukhtarov and others (2013) emphasize in their Vietnamese case study
that despite the power enjoyed by the transnational actors and the patronizing
attitude of the national government toward these actors, the policy did not
translate into successful policy implementation. The top-down administration
modified the policy to an extent that it had little resemblance to the original
idea, and at the local level there was hardly any awareness and support for the
policy (Mukhtarov et al. 2013).
Researchers notice dissimilarity in policy entrepreneurs, as compared to
Kingdons, in their local context. Ahearne (2006), finds Kingdons framework
conducive to exploring the role of French intellectuals in framing cultural poli-
cies, but still discerns a contrast in the French context where professionals and
specialists are not a “hidden cluster” (Kingdon 1995, 68) and where they do
depend on media for their visibility. With regard to China, the policy entrepre-
neurs are distinguished in terms of ideology (Liu and Jayakar 2012; Zhu 2008)
and in terms of a transitional society (Zhu 2013). Yapeng Zhu (2013) discusses
the role of entrepreneurs as innovators rather than couplers or initiators.
Xufeng Zhu (2008) explores the reasons leading to the strategies of Chinese
policy entrepreneurs in great detail when discussing a case of detention and
repatriation policy for urban vagrants and beggars. Zhu (2008) contends that
the two principles of technical feasibility and value acceptability that King-
dons policy entrepreneur must follow in proposing new ideas are ambiguous.
It is difficult to satisfy the multiple dimensions of technical feasibility (such as
legal, financial, and technological) simultaneously to determine a policy ideas
technical feasibility. Zhus (2008) other contention is that Kingdon does not
elaborate on the views, ideology, and culture that constitute value acceptability.
Zhu (2008) notes that even though the concept of policy window in Kingdons
model is applicable for policy analysis in China, there are fundamental differ-
ences in the Western and Chinese political context that require the model to be
modified for use in China. The politics stream is more stable in China in the
absence of periodical transfer of political power and domination by a single
party over the entire bureaucracy and decision making (Zhu 2008). All candi-
dates in the party and government are selected and appointed by their supervi-
sors and predecessors, which means that they need not be answerable to social
actors or the public but are accountable to their supervisors within the govern-
ment (Zhu 2008). These officials are averse to questioning existing policies or
proposing radical ideas lest their superiors be displeased (Zhu 2008). The
policy actors in the third sector are the main source of policy ideas and they
choose policy alternatives that may be politically acceptable because the atti-
tude of the political party in China constrains free proposal of ideas (Zhu
2008). Zhu contends that policy entrepreneurs in China succeed in bringing
policy change by proposing technically infeasible, but politically acceptable
policy changes. The entrepreneurs must be experts in the policy area and have
rhetorical skills to avoid political risk (Zhu 2008).
Kingdons Model with Conjunction Theories
An important finding of this analysis is that many researchers have used

other theories in conjunction with Kingdons model. While some researchers
exclusively used Kingdons multiple-streams model (Liu and Jayakar 2012;
Wan et al. 2013) as the theoretical foundation, other researchers adopted addi-
tional theories, either independently or by developing a new integrated concep-
tual framework in combination with Kingdons model. Some scholars used
Kingdons model in analysis of specific sections of their work and then deliber-
ately moved away to other theories that help their particular context or
argument.
One argument that stands out across all studies is about the influence of
institutions and discourses on the behavior of actors and organizations and in
bringing policy change. This argument is prevalent in studies with or without
specific reference to institutional rational choice and discourse theories (see
e.g., Blankenau 2001; Cherlet and Venot 2013; Crowley 2013; Maltby 2013;
Martin and Thomas 2013; Rouillard et al. 2012; Simanjuntak et al. 2012; Stefes
2010; Zhu 2013). Institutional theories explain the influence of normative pres-
sures, external or internal, on organizations (Zucker 1987). Theories of socio-
logical institutionalism, path dependency and discourse institutionalization are
used (see e.g., Buitelaar and De Kam 2012). Other major works cited, either in
conjunction or comparison with Kingdons model, are Cohen, March, and
Olsens (1972) original garbage can model and Baumgartner and Jones (1993)
punctuated equilibrium model (Durant and Diehl 1989; John 1999; Lindquist
2006).
Some scholars combine Kingdons model with existing approaches specific
to a particular field of study. For example, Elzen and others (2011) use multile-
vel perspective and social movement theory to identify how outside groups
exert normative pressures on existing programs, and Kingdon multiple streams
to argue that regime change is likely when developments align to create an
acceptable package (Elzen et al. 2011). van Herk and others (2011) draw their
conceptual framework for a social learning alliance model from the theories of
social learning, development planning, and decision making. They organize
their learning alliance model for collaborative planning based on Kingdons
three streams and suggest the learning alliance can “push and pull the streams
of problems, solutions and politics to take advantage of, or even provoke, a

policy window for decision making” (van Herk et al. 2011, 546). Innovation
studies and its terms, like “dominant design” (Elzen et al. 2011) are also fre-
quent in the articles studied. Koffijberg, de Bruijn, and Priemus (2012) talk
about two types of literature in decision making and change processes; one
based on hierarchy and the other on network approach (as per the authors,
Kingdons model falls in the network approach category), and then proceed
with a hybrid model suggesting that government structures are never purely
hierarchical or network.
Studies also refer to authors other than Kingdon for policy entrepreneurs
and policy actors. One scholar who has a recurring mention in the theory sec-
tion of most studies is Zahariadis (1995) who extends Kingdons multiple
streams to European policy formation. Simanjuntak and others (2012), even
though their entire study is based on Kingdons model, refer to another author,
Mucciaroni (1992), when talking about policy entrepreneurs and their critical
role in “coupling” problems and solutions during windows of opportunity.
Mucciaroni contends that Kingdons model is indeterminate in fully explaining
why some problems receive serious attention while others do not. For Mucciar-
oni, coupling of the three streams is serendipitous and takes place throughout
the process rather than at the final stage. Researchers focusing on policy entre-
preneurs draw not only from Kingdon, but also from Mintrom and Norman
(2009), and Roberts and King (1991) (see e.g., Zhu 2013). The study by Min-
trom and Norman (2009) facilitates integration of policy entrepreneurship
with mainstream theories of policy change, which includes Kingdons policy
streams, Lindbloms (1968) incrementalism, and Baumgartner and Jones
(1993) punctuated equilibrium. Roberts and King (1991) built on the existing
work of Kingdon (1984) and other contemporary scholars to develop a more
elaborate description of policy entrepreneur.
Many scholars have developed a framework or model for analysis based on
Kingdons model, as is or by tweaking it (see e.g., Aberbach and Christensen
2001; Frank, Bjerge, and Houborg 2013; John 1999; Snare 1996; Teirnan and
Burke 2002). Zhu (2008) developed a “technical infeasibility model” based on
Kingdons multiple streams model to test the applicability of Kingdons model
in China. Some scholars bring a completely fresh perspective like van Herk
and others (2011) who developed a framework of learning alliance, and, follow-
ing Kingdons stream model, organized it to: (1) analyze and address problems;
(2) develop and propose solutions; and (3) influence politics. They asserted
that the learning alliance framework has had a decisive impact on developing
urban master plans and policy proposals adopted in the Netherlands.
Elzen and others (2011) have built on Kingdons model and suggest four
streams to determine opportunity structure; namely, problem, regulatory or
policy, technology, and market. When the four streams align to form what
Kingdon calls a “coherent package” the opportunity for normative pressures
to impact are maximized (Elzen et al. 2011). Ness (2010) is able to highlight the
evidence of core components of multiple-streams framework in all of the three

cases of merit aid eligibility criteria studied (New Mexico, Tennessee, and West
Virginia). Yet he concludes that the punctuated equilibrium framework and the
diffusion of policy innovation framework bring further clarity and explanatory
power (Ness 2010).
Suggestions for Future Studies
The review of trends would be incomplete without gauging the direction of

the future application of Kingdons model. In the initial years of utilization of
Kingdons model, the researchers suggestions highlighted limitations in using
Kingdons model alone without appreciation of other theories like the original
garbage can and incremental theories (see e.g., Durant and Diehl 1989). As is
evident in this literature review, the subsequent studies did not lose sight of
these, and used other theories in conjunction with Kingdons framework. How-
ever, as the spatial spread of application of Kingdons model drifted from the
United States to other continents, the later studies highlighted the importance
of local context. The suggestions for future research by the contemporary
authors are not about further testing of Kingdons model; rather, they insist on
looking beyond Kingdons model. Ingold and Varone (2012) suggest future
empirical studies research designs to either compare two policy sectors (differ-
ent actors configuration) in the same country (same institutional factors), or
the comparison of the same policy domain (similar actors configuration) in dif-
ferent countries (different institutional factors). Ness (2010) suggests research
in the field of sources of information policy makers utilize, which will help
improve the effectiveness of policy practitioners. Zhu (2013) suggests research
on the role of different types of policy entrepreneurs in different institutional
settings such as transitional societies like China. Huitema, Lebel, and Meijer-
ink (2011) express the importance of future research on how entrepreneurs bal-
ance advocacy and brokerage strategies and what makes them select any
particular strategy (Huitema, Lebel, and Meijerink 2011). Maltby (2013) sug-
gests further work is needed in investigating where power is shifting in
multilevel governance policy sphere like the EU, in which supranational institu-
tions, policy champions and private companies all play a role in steering the
development of policy.
Conclusions
At the outset of this article we set out with three objectives; to analyze the
trends in the application of Kingdons model over time, its suitability, and limi-
tations as highlighted by scholars in multiple political and economic settings.
The findings illustrate the utility of the model in various country settings as
well as a variety of fields and policy development phases. The multi-stream
model long ago transcended the boundaries of the United States, and scholars
find utility of the framework in their particular settings. Even though the stud-
ies in the United States indicate a dip in recent years, studies in Europe and
Asia are increasingly using Kingdons model. The fields of study utilizing
Kingdons model is a wide range encompassing health, education, legal, wel-
fare, telecommunication, flooding, and energy polices, among others. Although
Kingdons work describes agenda-setting processes, the model finds great util-
ity in decision making and policy implementation as well.
The methodology and types of data sources used are to a great extent simi-
lar across all policy areas and continents. Most studies are qualitative and only
two are found to be quantitative in this review. The qualitative studies use case
study methodology and have a longitudinal character where the policies under
study are examined for a period of time running over years. Primary as well as
secondary data sources were used.
As for the features that make Kingdons model a suitable framework for
evaluating policy processes even three decades after its initial publication, the
answer, in short, seems to be the rather remarkable flexibility, or perhaps the
lack of specificity, of the conceptual elements. Much like Eastons (1965) sys-
tems model, Kingdons framework is vague enough to be applicable to a broad
range of situations and settings, but valid enough to be useful as an explanator
of policy activity.
There are studies that inform of the relevance and suitability of the con-
cepts in various contexts, yet there are scholars who find the concepts vague
and limiting in a certain case. For example, not all agree that the three streams
need to come together for an issue to rise to the government agenda and the
streams are considered as having different weight depending on the political
system. There is disagreement about the incremental and nonincremental
nature of agenda setting and alternative specification. Some scholars modify
the model by suggesting additional streams. Similarly, on the policy entrepre-
neurship aspect, scholars identify the importance of local context and the influ-
ence that institutions exert on an entrepreneurs roles. Some also criticize
Kingdons description of entrepreneurs as unclear.
Despite all the limitations, Kingdons multiple-streams model thrives in its
application in exploring and describing the policy processes across all conti-
nents. The model finds scholarly concurrence across the different polities, as a
flagship framework for explaining agenda setting, policy making, and policy
implementation. The scholars are united in their view on the model being an
advantageous framework in understanding decision-making processes in a
complex environment. Policy making is considered as a lengthy process and
this is where the researchers consider lies the utility of Kingdons model as it
focuses on predecision processes which influence the decision. The politics
aspect stressed in Kingdons model finds appreciation by many scholars as well
as the interaction of the independent streams in generating a policy window.
The other common agreement among scholars is on the importance of the pol-
icy windows (timing) and the preparedness required when these open. Scholars
find merit in Kingdons description of policy entrepreneurs as well. The studies

provide evidence in support of Kingdons view that policy entrepreneurs can
be found anywhere (meaning any department, community or organization) and
are willing to invest their time and resources for a particular issue. Policy entre-
preneurs emerge as crucial agents of change in the various studies.
Some of the key learning highlighted can be of importance to not only
researchers, but also policy makers and analysts. For example, the importance
of institutions (structure, context, and history) in policy formation, strategies
of entrepreneurs, and policy adoption clearly stands out in this literature
review. The section on future research provides guidelines for interested
researchers on what topics are considered as worthy for future endeavors. King-
dons framework can be viewed as a grand theory from which several mesolevel
and microlevel theories (such as problem framing, policy windows, and policy
entrepreneurs) have been drawn. Exploring these lower level theories and con-
cepts can in itself be a new research topic.
In sum, while Kingdons work has matured and aged over time, it remains
fundamentally consistent with its original formulation. The work may not
meet all the criteria for “good” theory (McCool 1995), and yet its enduring pop-
ularity suggests that there remains a great deal of both theoretical and practical
utility in the work. While Kingdons real contribution may be a way to think
about policy, rather than as a theory of policy, the basic set of relationships
delineated by Kingdon, and the growing body of evidence offered by scholars
around the world, suggest an inherent value in the work. It remains the task of a
future generation of scholars to determine whether this value remains salient.
About the Authors
Pragati Rawat is a second year PhD student in the School of Public Serv-
ice at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia. She holds a degree in
Engineering and Masters in Operations Management. She has about 20 years
of work experience in both industry and government projects. Prior to join-
ing the PhD program, she was engaged as a process manager in the Unique
Identification program of government of India that created worlds largest
biometric database of residents for effective service delivery and inclusion.
Her research interests are policy formulation and implementation in the area
of use of technology in governance.
John Charles Morris is a professor of public policy in the School of Public
Service at Old Dominion University. His research interests include collabora-
tion, public policy, governance, and federalism, and state comparative policy.
He is the author of six books and more than 50 journal articles. His previous
work appears in journals such as Public Administration Review, Publius, Policy
Studies Journal, the Journal of Politics, and Politics & Policy, among others.
His most recent book is Advancing Collaboration Theory: Cases, Typologies,
and Evidence (Routledge, 2015), co-edited with Katrina Miller-Stevens.
References
ABERBACH, JOEL D., and TOM CHRISTENSEN. 2001. “Radical Reform in

New Zealand: Crisis, Windows of Opportunity, and Rational Actors.” Public
Administration 79 (2): 403-422. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available
online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9299.00262/abstract
AHEARNE, JEREMY. 2006. “Notes from a French perspective.” International
Journal of Cultural Policy 12 (1): 1-15. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Avail-
able online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10286630600613135
BAUMGARTNER, FRANK R., and BRYAN D. JONES. 1993. Agendas and Insta-
bility in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
BLAND, DANIEL. 2005. “Ideas and Social Policy: An Institutionalist
Perspective.” Social Policy & Administration 39 (1): 1-18. Accessed on Janu-
ary 28, 2016. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.
1467-9515.2005.00421.x/abstract
BLANKENAU, JOE. 2001. “The Fate of National Health Insurance in Canada
and the United States: A Multiple Streams Explanation.” Policy Studies
Journal 29 (1): 38-55. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2001.tb02073.x/abstract
BUITELAAR, EDWIN, and GEORGE DE KAM. 2012. “The Emergence of
Inclusionary Housing: Continuity and Change in the Provision of Land for
Social Housing in the Netherlands.” Housing, Theory & Society 29 (1): 56-
74. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://www.tandfon-
line.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14036096.2011.592214
BUNDGAARD, ULRIK, and KARSTEN VRANGBÆK. 2007. “Reform by Coinci-
dence? Explaining the Policy Process of Structural Reform in Denmark.”
Scandinavian Political Studies 30 (4): 491-520. Accessed on January 28, 2016.
Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.
2007.00190.x/abstract
BUTLER, SHANE. 2015. “Irelands Public Health (Alcohol) Bill: Policy Win-
dow or Political Sop?” Contemporary Drug Problems 42 (2):106-117.
Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://cdx.sagepub.com/
content/early/2015/04/13/0091450915579873
CAIRNEY, PAUL, and MICHAEL D. JONES. 2015. “Kingdons Multiple
Streams Approach: What Is the Empirical Impact of this Universal Theory?”
Policy Studies Journal 44 (1): 1-22. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available
online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psj.12111/abstract
CALVERT, KRISTIN. 2015. “Maximizing Academic Library Collections: Meas-
uring Changes in Use Patterns Owing to EBSCO Discovery Service.” College
& Research Libraries 76 (1): 81-99. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available
online at http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2014/01/17/crl13-557.short
CHERLET, JAN, and JEAN-PHILIPPE VENOT. 2013. “Structure and Agency:
Understanding Water Policy Changes in West Africa.” Water Policy 15 (3):
479-495. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://onlineli
brary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psj.12111/abstract
COHEN, MICHAEL D., JAMES G. MARCH, and JOHAN P. OLSEN. 1972. “A
Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quar-
terly 17 (1): 1-25. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://
www.jstor.org/stable/2392088
CORBETT, ANNE. 2011. “Ping Pong: Competing Leadership for Reform in
EU Higher Education 1998-2006.” European Journal of Education 46 (1): 36-
53. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01466.x/abstract
CROWLEY, KATE. 2013. “Irresistible Force? Achieving Carbon Pricing in
Australia.” Australian Journal of Politics & History 59 (3): 368-381. Accessed
on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.
1111/ajph.12021/abstract
DABBS, PETER. 2004. “Alignment of the Policy Planets: Behind the Implemen-
tation of the Northern Territory (Australia) Living with Alcohol Programe.”
Drug & Alcohol Review 23 (1): 55-66. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available
online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09595230410001645556
DEVOE, JENNIFER. 2003. “A Policy Transformed by Politics: The Case of
the 1973 Australian Community Health Program.” Journal of Health Politics,
Policy & Law 28 (1): 77-108. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online
at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12705418
DIEHL, PAUL F. 1990. “Ghosts of Arms Control Past.” Political Science
Quarterly 5 (4): 439-452. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12174/abstract
DUKE, KAREN, RACHEL HERRING, ANTHONY THICKETT, and BETSY
THOM. 2013. “Substitution Treatment in the Era of Recovery: An Analysis
of Stakeholder Roles and Policy Windows in Britain.” Substance Use & Mis-
use 48 (11): 966-976. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23952509
DURANT, ROBERT F., and PAUL F. DIEHL. 1989. “Agendas, Alternatives, and
Public Policy: Lessons from the U.S. Foreign Policy Arena.” Journal of Pub-
lic Policy 9 (2): 179-205. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231791469_Agendas_Alternatives_
and_Public_Policy_Lessons_from_the_US_Foreign_Policy_Arena
DYKEMAN, SARAH, and ALLISON M. WILLIAMS. 2014. “Agenda-Setting for

Canadian Caregivers: Using Media Analysis of the Maternity Leave Benefit
to Inform the Compassionate Care Benefit.” BMC Womens Health 14 (1):
1-22. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://bmcwomen
shealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-14-60
EASTON, DAVID. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York, NY:
Wiley.
ELZEN, BOELIE, FRANK W. GEELS, CEES LEEUWIS, and BARBARA VAN
MIERLO. 2011. “Normative Contestation in Transitions in the Making: Ani-
mal Welfare Concerns and System Innovation in Pig Husbandry.” Research
Policy 40 (2): 263-275. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733310002118
EXWORTHY, MARK, and MARTIN POWELL. 2004. “Big Windows and Little
Windows: Implementation in the Congested State.” Public Administration
82 (2): 263-281. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://onli-
nelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00394.x/abstract?userIsAut
henticated5false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage5
FARLEY, JOSHUA, DANIEL BAKER, DAVID BATKER, CHRISTOPHER KOLIBA,
RICHARD MATTESON, RUSSELL MILLS, and JAMES PITTMAN. 2007. “Opening
the Policy Window for Ecological Economics: Katrina as a Focusing Event.”
Ecological Economics 63 (2): 344-354. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available
online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800906003533
FRANK, VIBEKE ASMUSSEN, BAGGA BJERGE, and ESBEN HOUBORG. 2013.
“Shifts in Opioid Substitution Treatment Policy in Denmark from 2000-
2011.” Substance Use & Misuse 48 (11): 997-1009. Accessed on January 28,
2016. Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23952511
GARDINIER, LORI. 2008. “We Thought We Were Going to Get It Done:
Examining the Paid Family Leave Campaign in Massachusetts.” Journal of
Workplace Rights 13 (4): 401-419. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available
online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247872163_We_Thought_
We_Were_Going_to_Get_It_Done_Examining_the_Paid_Family_Leave_Cam-
paign_in_Massachusetts
GOLDFINCH, SHAUN, and PAUL ‘T HART. 2003. “Leadership and Institu-
tional Reform: Engineering Macroeconomic Policy Change in Australia.”
Governance 16 (2): 235-270. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online
at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0491.00215/abstract
GREENFIELD, THOMAS K., NORMAN GIESBRECHT, LEE ANN KASKUTAS,
SUZANNE JOHNSON, LYNN KAVANAGH, and LISE ANGLIN. 2004. “A Study
of the Alcohol Policy Development Process in the United States: Theory,
Goals, and Methods.” Contemporary Drug Problems 31 (4): 591-626.
Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://connection.ebsco

host.com/c/articles/16724298/study-alcohol-policy-development-process-united-
states-theory-goals-methods
HUITEMA, DAVE, LOUIS LEBEL, and SANDER MEIJERINK. 2011. “The Strategies
of Policy Entrepreneurs in Water Transitions around the World.” Water Policy 13
(5): 717-733. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/254903195_The_Strategies_of_Policy_Entrepreneurs_
in_Water_Transitions_around_the_World
INGOLD, KARIN, and FRDRIC VARONE. 2012. “Treating Policy Brokers
Seriously: Evidence from the Climate Policy.” Journal of Public Administra-
tion Research & Theory 22 (2): 319-346. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Avail-
able online at http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/07/19/jopart.
mur035.abstract
JANSSON, ELISABETH V. G., and PER E. TILLGREN. 2010. “Health Promotion at
Local Level: A Case Study of Content, Organization and Development in Four
Swedish Municipalities.” BMC Public Health 10: 455-466. Accessed on January
28, 2016. Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20682052
JOHN, PETER. 1998. Analyzing Public Policy. London: Continuum.
——. 1999. “Ideas and Interests; Agendas and Implementation: An Evolu-
tionary Explanation of Policy Change in British Local Government
Finance.” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 1 (1): 39-
62. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://bpi.sagepub.
com/content/1/1/39.abstract
JONES, MICHAEL D., HOLLY L. PETERSON, JONATHAN J. PIERCE, NICOLE
HERWEG, AMIEL BERNAL, HOLLY LAMBERTA RANEY, and NIKOLAOS
ZAHARIADIS. 2015. “A River Runs Through It: A Multiple Streams Meta-
Review.” Policy Studies Journal 44 (1): 1-23. Accessed on January 28, 2016.
Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psj.12115/abstract
KHAYESI, MELECKIDZEDECK, and ADJO A. AMEKUDZI. 2011. “Kingdons
Multiple Streams Model and Automobile Dependence Reversal Path: The
Case of Curitiba, Brazil.” Journal of Transport Geography 19 (6): 1547-1552.
Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0966692311001311
KINGDON, JOHN W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New
York, NY: Longman.
——. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. London, UK:
Longman.
KOFFIJBERG, JOS, HANS DE BRUIJN, and HUGO PRIEMUS. 2012.
“Combining Hierarchical and Network Strategies: Successful Changes in
Dutch Social Housing.” Public Administration 90 (1): 262-275. Accessed on

January 28, 2016. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.
1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01974.x/abstract
KUBIAK, SHERYL PIMLOTT, JOANNE SOBECK, and ISABEL ROSE. 2005. “Its
Not a Gap, Its a Gulf: An Analysis of Barriers to Integrated Treatment for
Those with Co-Occurring Disorders Using Kingdons Multiple Streams
Framework.” Best Practice in Mental Health 1 (2): 19-33. Accessed on Janu-
ary 28, 2016. Available online at http://research.socialwork.wayne.edu/index.
php?option5com_content&view5article&id5493:qits-not-a-gap-its-a-gulfq-an-
analysis-of-barriers-to-integrated-treatment-for-those-with&catid5364&Itemid
5121
LINDBLOM, CHARLES E. 1968. The Policymaking Process. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
LINDQUIST, ERIC. 2006. “Survival and Institutionalization of an Idea: The
Rapid Rise of Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems.” Review of Policy
Research 23 (4): 887-902. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00238.x/abstract
LIU, CHUN, and KRISHNA JAYAKAR. 2012. “The Evolution of Telecommuni-
cations Policy-Making: Comparative Analysis of China and India.” Telecom-
munications Policy 36 (1): 13-28. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available
online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596111002096
MACNAUGHTON, ERIC, GEOFFREY NELSON, and PAULA GOERING. 2013.
“Bringing Politics and Evidence Together: Policy Entrepreneurship and the
Conception of the At Home/Chez Soi Housing First Initiative for Addressing
Homelessness and Mental Illness in Canada.” Social Science & Medicine 82:
100-107. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://www.science
direct.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613000609
MALTBY, TOMAS. 2013. “European Union Energy Policy Integration: A case of
European Commission Policy Entrepreneurship and Increasing Supra-
nationalism.” Energy Policy 55: 435-444. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Avail-
able online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512010798
MARTIN, ADAM, and DIANA THOMAS. 2013. “Two-Tiered Political Entrepre-
neurship and the Congressional Committee System.” Public Choice 154 (1):
21-37. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://link.springer.
com/article/10.1007%2Fs11127-011-9805-z
MCCOOL, DANIEL C. 1995. Public Policy Theories, Models, and Concepts:
An Anthology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
MCDONEL, ELIZABETH C., LUCINDA MEYER, and RICHARD DELIBERTY.
1996. “Implementing State-Level Mental Health Policy Reforms in Indiana:
Closing a State-Operated Psychiatric Hospital and Passing Major Mental
Health Reform Legislation.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 19

(3): 239-264. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968812
MELE, VALENTINA. 2008. “Explaining Programmes for Change: Electronic
Government Policy in Italy (1993-2003).” Public Management Review 10 (1):
21-49. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://www.tandfon
line.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14719030701763179
MILLS, MICHAEL R. 2007. “Stories of Politics and Policy: Floridas Higher
Education Governance Reorganization.” The Journal of Higher Education 78
jstor.org/stable/4501201
MINTROM, MICHAEL, and PHILLIPA NORMAN. 2009. “Policy Entrepreneur-
ship and Policy Change.” Policy Studies Journal 37 (4): 649-667. Accessed on
1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00329.x/abstract
MUCCIARONI, GARY. 1992. “The Garbage Can Model & the Study of Policy
Making: A Critique.” Polity 24 (3): 459-482. Accessed on January 28, 2016.
Available online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235165
MUKHTAROV, FARHAD, ANDREA BROCK, SANNE JANSSEN, and ARMELLE
GUIGNIER. 2013. “Actors and Strategies in Translating Global Conservation
Narratives to Vietnam: An Agency Perspective.” Policy and Society 32 (2):
113-124. Accessed on July 2, 2016. Available online at http://www.science
direct.com/science/article/pii/S1449403513000234
NESS, ERIK CHRISTIAN. 2010. “The Politics of Determining Merit Aid Eligi-
bility Criteria: An Analysis of the Policy Process.” The Journal of Higher
Education 81 (1): 33-60. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27750765
NEUMANN, VANESSA. 2006. “The Incoherence of U.S. Counternarcotics Pol-
icy in Colombia: Exploring the Breaches in the Policy Cycle.” European Jour-
nal of Development Research 18 (3): 412-434. Accessed on January 28, 2016.
Available online at http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/22483095/inco
herence-us-counternarcotics-policy-colombia-exploring-breaches-policy-cycle
OWENS, SUSAN. 2010. “Learning across Levels of Governance: Expert
Advice and the Adoption of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction Targets
in the UK.” Global Environmental Change 20 (3): 394-401. Accessed on Janu-
ary 28, 2016. Available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0959378009000958
PALLAGST, KARINA. 2006. “European Spatial Planning Reloaded: Consider-
ing EU Enlargement in Theory and Practice.” European Planning Studies 14

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09654310500418259
PATON, CALUM. 2014. “Garbage-Can Policy-Making Meets Neo-Liberal Ide-
ology: Twenty Five Years of Redundant Reform of the English National
Health Service.” Social Policy & Administration 48 (3): 319-342. Accessed on
1111/spol.12044/abstract
PEEK, GERT-JOOST, and ERIK LOUW. 2008. “Integrated Rail and Land Use
Investment as a Multi-Disciplinary Challenge.” Planning Practice & Research
23 (3): 341-361. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697450802423591
PETTIGREW, ANDREW M. 1997. “What Is a Processual Analysis?” Scandina-
vian Journal of Management 13 (4): 337-348. Accessed on January 28, 2016.
Available online at http://www.processresearchmethods.org/Pettigrew%20Pro
cessual%20Analysis.pdf
PHILIPP, TIMOTHY A., and DIANA LUSKIN BIORDI. 1990. “Financial Ruin
or Financing Catastrophic Health Coverage: Who Pays?” Journal of Profes-
sional Nursing 6 (2): 94-102. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online
at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755722305800882
PLANT, JEREMY F. 2004. “Terrorism and the Railroads: Redefining Security
in the Wake of 9/11.” Review of Policy Research 21 (3): 293-305. Accessed on
1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00076.x/abstract
PORTZ, JOHN. 1996. “Problem Definitions and Policy Agendas: Shaping the
Educational Agenda in Boston.” Policy Studies Journal 24 (3): 371-386.
Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1996.tb01635.x/abstract
POULOS, ROSLYN, ALEX DONALDSON, and CAROLINE FINCH. 2010.
“Towards Evidence-Informed Sports Safety Policy for New South Wales,
Australia: Assessing the Readiness of the Sector.” Injury Prevention 16 (2):
127-131. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://injurypre
vention.bmj.com/content/16/2/127.extract
RICHARDSON, JAYSON W. 2005. “Toward Democracy: A Critique of a World
Bank Loan to the United Mexican States.” Review of Policy Research 22 (4):
473-482. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://onlineli
brary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2005.00150.x/abstract
RIDDE, VALERY. 2009. “Policy Implementation in an African State: An
Extension of Kingdons Multiple-Streams Approach.” Public Administration
87 (4): 938-954. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://onli

nelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01792.x/abstract
RIOS, JO MARIE, and PAMELA S. MEYER. 2006. “Community Building and
Public Health in a South Texas Colonia.” National Civic Review 95 (4): 54-
57. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ncr.159/abstract
ROBERTS, NANCY C., and PAULA J. KING. 1991. “Policy Entrepreneurs:
Their Activity Structure and Function in the Policy Process.” Journal of
Public Administration Research & Theory 1 (2): 147-175. Accessed on January
28, 2016. Available online at http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/2/147.
short
ROBINSON, SCOTT E., and WARREN S. ELLER. 2010. “Participation in Policy
Streams: Testing the Separation of Problems and Solutions in Subnational
Policy Systems.” Policy Studies Journal 38 (2): 199-216. Accessed on January
28, 2016. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-
0072.2010.00358.x/abstract
ROUILLARD, JOSSELIN JIM, KATE V. HEAL, ALLISON D. REEVES, and TOM
BALL. 2012. “Impact of Institutions on Flood Policy Learning.” Water Pol-
icy 14 (2): 232-249. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://
wp.iwaponline.com/content/14/2/232
RUNHAAR, HENS, and KIM VAN NIEUWAAL. 2010. “Understanding the Use
of Science in Decision-Making on Cockle Fisheries and Gas Mining in the
Dutch Wadden Sea: Putting the Science–Policy Interface in a Wider
Perspective.” Environmental Science and Policy 13 (3): 239-248. Accessed on
January 28, 2016. Available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S1462901110000195
SABATIER, PAUL A. 1991. “Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process.”
PS: Political Science and Politics 24 (2): 147-156. Accessed on January 28,
2016. Available online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/419923
SAINT-GERMAIN, MICHELLE A., and ROBERT A. CALAMIA. 1996. “Article:
Three Strikes and Youre In: A Streams and Windows Model of Incremental
Policy Change.” Journal of Criminal Justice 24 (1): 57-70. Accessed on Janu-
ary 28, 2016. Available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/0047235295000526
SIMANJUNTAK, IMELDA, NIKI FRANTZESKAKI, BERT ENSERINK, and WIM
RAVESTEIJN. 2012. “Evaluating Jakartas Flood Defence Governance: The
Impact of Political and Institutional Reforms.” Water Policy 14 (4): 561-580.
Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://repub.eur.nl/pub/
75052/
SNARE, CHARLES E. 1996. “Windows of Opportunity: When and How Can

the Policy Analyst Influence the Policymaker during the Policy Process.” Pol-
icy Studies Review 14 (3-4): 407-430. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available
online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1995.tb00719.
x/abstract
STEFES, CHRISTOPH H. 2010. “Bypassing Germanys Reforms Tau: The
Remarkable Rise of Renewable Energy.” German Politics 19 (2): 148-163.
Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://www.tandfonline.
com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644001003793222
TIERNAN, ANNE, and TERRY BURKE. 2002. “A Load of Old Garbage:
Applying Garbage–Can Theory to Contemporary Housing Policy.” Austra-
lian Journal of Public Administration 61 (3): 86-97. Accessed on January 28,
2016. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-
8500.00287/abstract
TRAVIS, RICK, and NIKOLAOS ZAHARIADIS. 2002. “A Multiple Streams
Model of U.S. Foreign Aid Policy.” Policy Studies Journal 30 (4): 495-514.
Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2002.tb02160.x/abstract
VAN HERK, SEBASTIAAN, CHRIS ZEVENBERGEN, RICHARD ASHLEY, and
JEROEN RIJKE. 2011. “Learning and Action Alliances for the Integration of
Flood Risk Management into Urban Planning: A New Framework from
Empirical Evidence from The Netherlands.” Environmental Science and Pol-
icy 14 (5): 543-554. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901111000645
VIRTUE, DAVID C. 2007. “Middle Level Teacher Certification in South Caro-
lina: A Case Study in Educational Policy Development.” RMLE Online:
Research in Middle Level Education 30 (10): 1-14. Accessed on January 28,
2016. Available online at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ801114.pdf
WAN, ZHENG, XUEFENG WANG, and DANIEL SPERLING. 2013. “Policy and
Politics Behind the Public Transportation Systems of Chinas Medium-Sized
Cities: Evidence from the Huizhou Reform.” Utilities Policy 27: 1-8.
Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0957178713000386
WEIBLE, CHRISTOPHER M., PAUL A. SABATIER, and KELLY MCQUEEN.
2009. “Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition
Framework.” Policy Studies Journal 37 (1): 121-140. Accessed on January 28,
2016. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-
0072.2008.00299.x/abstract
YEATMAN, HEATHER R. 2003. “Food and Nutrition Policy at the Local
Level: Key Factors that Influence the Policy Development Process.” Critical
Public Health 13 (2): 125-138. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available

online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0958159031000097625
YIN, ROBERT K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
ZAHARIADIS, NIKOLAOS. 1995. Markets, States, and Public Policy: Privatiza-
tion in Britain and France. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
——. 1996. “Selling British Rail.” Comparative Political Studies 29 (4): 400-
422. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://cps.sagepub.
com/content/29/4/400.abstract
ZAHARIADIS, NIKOLAOS, and CHRISTOPHER S. ALLEN. 1995. “Ideas, Net-
works, and Policy Streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany.” Policy Stud-
ies Review 14 (1): 71-98. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1995.tb00622.x/abstract
ZHU, XUFENG. 2008. “Strategy of Chinese Policy Entrepreneurs in the Third
Sector: Challenges of Technical Infeasibility.” Policy Sciences 41 (4): 315-
334. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://link.springer.
com/article/10.1007%2Fs11077-008-9070-2
——. 2013. “Policy Entrepreneurship, Institutional Constraints, and Local
Policy Innovation in China.” China Review 13 (2): 97-122. Accessed on Janu-
ary 28, 2016. Available online at http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type5
summary&url5/journals/china_review/v013/13.2.zhu.html
ZUCKER, LYNNE G. 1987. “Institutional Theories of Organization.” Annual
Review of Sociology 13: 443-464. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available
online at http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.
002303?journalCode5soc

Kingdons "Streams" Model at Thirty

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Kingdons "Streams" Model at Thirty

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Kingdons “Streams” Model at Thirty: Still

Relevant in the 21st Century?

JOHN CHARLES MORRIS

John Kingdons multiple-streams model, developed to explain the pol-

Politics & Policy, Volume 44, No. 4 (2016): 608-638. 10.1111/polp.12168

Recently two other studies have looked into Kingdons multiple-streams

Method for Selecting the Articles

studies. Cairney and Jones (2015) have considered 41 articles of multiple

with a much larger number of studies conducted in Europe, Australia, and

Methodology Used by Scholars.

Suitability of Kingdons Model

Kingdons model has been considered relevant in policy studies across

Pertinent Attributes of the Policy Streams

health studies Kingdons framework was found to be useful in organizing

Pertinent Attributes of the Policy Entrepreneur

Limitations in Kingdons Model

The limitations of Kingdons framework and the need to adapt it to con-

Limitations in Kingdons Policy Streams

2012) and enlist adaptations in Kingdons model to make it more appropriate

Limitations in Kingdons Policy Entrepreneur

Kingdons Model with Conjunction Theories

An important finding of this analysis is that many researchers have used

of problems, solutions and politics to take advantage of, or even provoke, a

evidence of core components of multiple-streams framework in all of the three

Suggestions for Future Studies

The review of trends would be incomplete without gauging the direction of

find merit in Kingdons description of policy entrepreneurs as well. The studies

About the Authors

ABERBACH, JOEL D., and TOM CHRISTENSEN. 2001. “Radical Reform in

DYKEMAN, SARAH, and ALLISON M. WILLIAMS. 2014. “Agenda-Setting for

Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://connection.ebsco

Dutch Social Housing.” Public Administration 90 (1): 262-275. Accessed on

Health Reform Legislation.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 19

(2): 253-272. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://www.

87 (4): 938-954. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available online at http://onli

SNARE, CHARLES E. 1996. “Windows of Opportunity: When and How Can

Public Health 13 (2): 125-138. Accessed on January 28, 2016. Available

Potrebbero piacerti anche