{"title":"谁是流?认知社区,工具选区和倡导联盟在多个流子系统","authors":"I. Mukherjee, Michael Howlett","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2593626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) was articulated in order to better understand how issues entered into policy agendas, using the concept of a policy actors interacting in course of sequences of events occurring in what he referred to as the \"problem\", \"policy\" and \"politics\" \"streams\". In this study Kingdon used an undifferentiated concept of a ‘policy subsystem’ to organize the activities of various policy actors involved in this process. However, it is not a priori certain who the agents are in this process and how they interact. This paper argues the policy world can also be visualized as being composed of different distinct subsets of subsystem actors who engage over specific sets of interactions over the definition of policy problems, the articulation of solutions and their matching or enactment. Using this lens, this article focuses on actor interactions involved in policy formulation activities occurring immediately following the agenda setting stage upon which Kingdon originally worked. This activity involves the definition of policy goals (both broad and specific) and the creation of the means and mechanisms to realise these goals. The article argues this stage is best analyzed form the perspective of three separate sets of actors involved in these tasks: the epistemic community which finds itself engaged in discourses about policy problems; the activities of instrument constituencies which define the policy stream in which policy alternatives and instruments are formulated; and that of advocacy coalitions which make up the politics stream as they compete to have their choice of policy alternatives selected by decision makers. The article argues these different sets of policy actors personify each of Kingdon’s three different streams of policy, problem and politics and that extending Kingdon’s work to the examination of policy formulation using this basic vocabulary yields superior insights into policy formulation than other extant models.","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Multiple Streams Subsystems\",\"authors\":\"I. Mukherjee, Michael Howlett\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2593626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) was articulated in order to better understand how issues entered into policy agendas, using the concept of a policy actors interacting in course of sequences of events occurring in what he referred to as the \\\"problem\\\", \\\"policy\\\" and \\\"politics\\\" \\\"streams\\\". In this study Kingdon used an undifferentiated concept of a ‘policy subsystem’ to organize the activities of various policy actors involved in this process. However, it is not a priori certain who the agents are in this process and how they interact. This paper argues the policy world can also be visualized as being composed of different distinct subsets of subsystem actors who engage over specific sets of interactions over the definition of policy problems, the articulation of solutions and their matching or enactment. Using this lens, this article focuses on actor interactions involved in policy formulation activities occurring immediately following the agenda setting stage upon which Kingdon originally worked. This activity involves the definition of policy goals (both broad and specific) and the creation of the means and mechanisms to realise these goals. The article argues this stage is best analyzed form the perspective of three separate sets of actors involved in these tasks: the epistemic community which finds itself engaged in discourses about policy problems; the activities of instrument constituencies which define the policy stream in which policy alternatives and instruments are formulated; and that of advocacy coalitions which make up the politics stream as they compete to have their choice of policy alternatives selected by decision makers. The article argues these different sets of policy actors personify each of Kingdon’s three different streams of policy, problem and politics and that extending Kingdon’s work to the examination of policy formulation using this basic vocabulary yields superior insights into policy formulation than other extant models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":342163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2593626\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2593626","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
摘要
John Kingdon的多流框架(MSF)是为了更好地理解问题是如何进入政策议程的,使用了政策参与者在一系列事件中相互作用的概念,他将这些事件称为“问题”、“政策”和“政治”“流”。在这项研究中,Kingdon使用了一个“政策子系统”的无差别概念来组织参与这一过程的各种政策参与者的活动。然而,在这个过程中谁是代理人以及他们如何相互作用并不是先验确定的。本文认为,政策世界也可以被可视化为由子系统参与者的不同不同子集组成,这些参与者在政策问题的定义、解决方案的表述及其匹配或制定方面参与特定的互动集。从这个角度来看,本文将重点关注在Kingdon最初工作的议程设定阶段之后立即发生的政策制定活动中涉及的行动者互动。这项活动包括确定政策目标(包括广泛的和具体的)和创造实现这些目标的手段和机制。本文认为,最好从参与这些任务的三组独立行动者的角度来分析这一阶段:发现自己参与有关政策问题的话语的认知社区;工具选区的活动,这些活动确定政策流,在其中制定政策备选方案和工具;倡导联盟构成了政治流,因为他们竞争让决策者选择他们的政策选择。本文认为,这些不同的政策行为者集合体现了金登的三个不同的政策、问题和政治流,并且将金登的工作扩展到使用这些基本词汇来检查政策制定,可以比其他现有模型更深入地了解政策制定。
Who is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Multiple Streams Subsystems
John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) was articulated in order to better understand how issues entered into policy agendas, using the concept of a policy actors interacting in course of sequences of events occurring in what he referred to as the "problem", "policy" and "politics" "streams". In this study Kingdon used an undifferentiated concept of a ‘policy subsystem’ to organize the activities of various policy actors involved in this process. However, it is not a priori certain who the agents are in this process and how they interact. This paper argues the policy world can also be visualized as being composed of different distinct subsets of subsystem actors who engage over specific sets of interactions over the definition of policy problems, the articulation of solutions and their matching or enactment. Using this lens, this article focuses on actor interactions involved in policy formulation activities occurring immediately following the agenda setting stage upon which Kingdon originally worked. This activity involves the definition of policy goals (both broad and specific) and the creation of the means and mechanisms to realise these goals. The article argues this stage is best analyzed form the perspective of three separate sets of actors involved in these tasks: the epistemic community which finds itself engaged in discourses about policy problems; the activities of instrument constituencies which define the policy stream in which policy alternatives and instruments are formulated; and that of advocacy coalitions which make up the politics stream as they compete to have their choice of policy alternatives selected by decision makers. The article argues these different sets of policy actors personify each of Kingdon’s three different streams of policy, problem and politics and that extending Kingdon’s work to the examination of policy formulation using this basic vocabulary yields superior insights into policy formulation than other extant models.