Tag: Multiple Streams Framework

Why Did a Progressive Tax Reform Succeed in Mexico Under a Pro-Business Party?

by Oswaldo Mena Aguilar

In 2013, Mexico passed a sweeping tax reform that, surprisingly, included measures to increase taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations—despite being led by a party often aligned with elite economic interests. A decade earlier, under similar institutional conditions and with widespread support from the business sector, a far more modest reform effort had collapsed. What explains this contrast?

My article tackles this puzzle by comparing two major reform efforts: President Vicente Fox’s failed 2001 attempt and President Enrique Peña Nieto’s successful 2013 overhaul. Despite similar levels of party fragmentation and legislative constraints, the outcomes were drastically different—not only in terms of success, but also in ideological orientation.

To make sense of these differences, I assess two major policy process theories: the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF). The ACF suggests that lasting policy change results from coalitions of actors united by deep normative commitments. Yet in Mexico, such ideological coherence was absent in 2013. Instead, I argue that policy entrepreneurs took advantage of fleeting political windows—exemplifying the kind of opportunistic “coupling of streams” Kingdon describes.

In 2001, Fox’s proposal to extend the Value Added Tax (VAT) to basic goods failed because the PRI—then the main opposition party—refused to pay the political cost, despite sharing the PAN’s economic preferences. And yet, the Income Tax portion of that bill passed unanimously, after PRD legislators accepted corporate-friendly provisions in exchange for key progressive concessions. This trade-off exemplified a strategic, if ideologically messy, compromise enabled by a temporary alignment of interests.

Fast forward to 2013, when PRI, back in power, launched a tax reform that defied expectations: it dropped controversial VAT expansions and instead raised income and capital taxes on top earners. The reform succeeded not due to ideological conviction, but because it was part of a broader legislative package negotiated under the “Pacto por México.” PRI’s flexibility—along with the PRD’s willingness to strike a deal—made it possible to capitalize on a narrow legislative opportunity.

This case shows that policy change—even in rigid institutional environments—does not always reflect stable coalitions or shared beliefs. Sometimes, it’s about seizing the moment.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Mena Aguilar, Oswaldo A. 2024. “ Advocacy Coalitions or Pragmatic Coupling of Streams? Explaining Policy Change in Mexico: The Tax Reforms of Vicente Fox and Enrique Peña (2001 and 2013).” Policy Studies Journal 00 (0): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12537.

About the Author

Oswaldo A. Mena is a Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. His research focuses on comparative politics, political economy, and the political determinants of inequality, poverty, and redistributive politics and policies in Latin America. He is a Data Research Fellow at the Center for Latin American, Caribbean, and Latino Studies and was a 2024 Junior Scholar of the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality. He previously worked in Mexico’s public sector for nearly a decade.

Bluesky: @omenaguilar.bsky.social
X: @omenaguilar
Google Scholar: Here
Orcid: Here

, , , ,

An Emotional Perspective on the Multiple Streams Framework

by Moshe Maor

Policy process theories can be powerful tools for understanding complex policy processes—when they properly account for the emotional context. My latest conceptual research aims to do precisely this with regard to Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), which emerged in 1984 as an approach for studying how policies are formulated and adopted, particularly by examining how problems, policies, and politics align to produce policy change. This conceptual piece demonstrates how integrating emotions can deepen our understanding of the emotional factors that drive policy decisions. Emotions refer here to “reactions to signals about the significance that circumstances hold for an individual’s goals and well-being” (Gadarian & Brader 2023, 192). 

In its original design, the MSF includes the concept of “public mood,” but this is limited to a fleeting, often generalized state of public sentiment. This perspective overlooks more intense, targeted emotional reactions that can significantly impact each stream within the framework. My study sharpens this view by incorporating specific emotional triggers and conditions, introducing new concepts such as emotional agenda (policy) windows, emotional decision windows, and emotional policy entrepreneurs. These elements shed light on how positive and negative emotions, discrete emotions (e.g., anger, hope), and bundles of emotions can create moments when policy change becomes particularly likely.

The concept of emotional agenda (policy) windows describes moments when heightened public emotions make issues seem urgent, creating prime opportunities for policy advocates. This is often observed during crises, where fear or outrage pushes a problem into the spotlight. Similarly, an emotional decision window refers to the period when public and policymaker emotions align, opening an opportunity for adopting new policies.

Another key player in this framework is the emotional policy entrepreneur. Whereas some policy entrepreneurs ignore emotions, emotional policy entrepreneurs employ emotions in addition to ‘salami tactics’ and other strategies in pursuit of their policy goals. Unlike traditional policy entrepreneurs who advocate solutions based on practical needs, emotional policy entrepreneurs use emotional strategies to increase or decrease the intensity of a particular emotion, or to change the type of emotion (e.g., turning anxiety into anger), thereby shifting public opinion and mobilizing support. By leveraging collective emotions, emotional policy entrepreneurs can create emotional needs, control their intensity, and bring them to an end, thereby significantly influencing agenda-setting. This strategy can sometimes achieve rapid policy change, though it may also face challenges in sustaining intense emotions over time.

Through viewing and interpreting the MSF while sharpening its core concepts, my research aims to clarify how emotions interact with each of the MSF’s assumptions (see Table 1) and structural components (e.g., the streams), enhancing the MSF’s capacity to explain agenda-setting and decision-making in emotionally charged contexts. Ultimately, this approach calls for scholars to view policy settings not just as platforms for debate but as spaces deeply affected by emotional dynamics, where policy decisions reflect public sentiments as much as strategic calculations.

This research can help both policymakers and analysts to predict when emotional dynamics might open policy windows and shape the outcomes of political processes—making it a valuable tool in today’s complex, emotionally-loaded policy landscape.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Maor, Moshe. 2024. “ An Emotional Perspective on the Multiple Streams Framework.” Policy Studies Journal 00(0): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12568.

About the Author

Moshe Maor is a Professor of Political Science at Reichman University and past incumbent of the Wolfson Family Chair in Public Administration at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research interests focus on disproportionate policy response, emotions and public policy, and bureaucratic politics. He has published a few books as well as numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals including Democratization, Disasters, European Journal of Political Research, Governance, International Review of Public Policy, Journal of Environment Policy and planning, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Journal of Public Policy, Journal of Theoretical Politics, Policy Design & Practice, Policy & Politics, Policy &Society, Policy Sciences, Public Administration, and Public Administration Review. His current work revolves around developing the Ladder of Disproportionate Policy (European Policy Analysis, forthcoming)—an objective scale of disproportionate policies based on assessing the gap between the scope of the audience that the policy ostensibly serves and how the policy tools are set and adjusted to serve the actual audience. His book, entitled Policy Over- and Underreactions: Collected Essays, is forthcoming (Feb. 2025) in Edward Elgar.

, , , ,

Does Data Drive Policymaking? A Multiple Streams Perspective on the Relationship Between Indicators and Agenda Setting

by Rob A DeLeo & Alex Duarte

The multiple streams framework (MSF) illustrates how policies are formed not through linear processes, but through the convergence of three independent streams: the problem stream, the policy stream, and the political stream. While the MSF offers numerous insights into the often chaotic nature of policy making, prior studies have not fully explored the relationship between problem indicators and agenda setting. In this study, we explore nuanced ways that changes in indicators either shape or fail to influence policy responses.

Within the MSF, changes in problem indicators have the potential to elevate issues on the policy agenda. In addition, indicators that threaten powerful economic or political interests may lead to reduced policy attention. Recognizing the possibility that policymakers might overlook or downplay information that poses risks to their power or that contradicts prevailing policy directions, we introduce the concept of “indicator politicization.” 

We apply the MSF to examine the US Congress’s response to changes in opioid overdose rates. Empirically, we employ a mixed-methods approach to examine the relationship between opioid-related data and policy responses. Drawing on data from congressional hearings and legislative actions from 1999 to 2019, we explore how the changes in opioid-related indicators influenced legislative actions (or inactions). We use negative binomial regression analysis to estimate the effect of opioid indicators–heroin, fentanyl, and prescription opioids–on the congressional agenda. We then provide a case study that investigates the differential patterns of agenda change identified in our quantitative model. 

On one hand, we confirm the substantial impact of indicator change on policy attention, exemplified by marked upticks in policymaker attention to heroin and fentanyl overdose deaths. Policymaker attention was likely magnified by electoral concerns, as the opioid epidemic was a prominent issue during the 2016 election cycle. On the other hand, public awareness and political responses to prescription opioids developed slowly over several years. Indeed, although increases in opioid overdose indicators occasionally spurred congressional attention and led to policy shifts, such responses were inconsistent. A major obstacle is “data politicization”–when data threatens powerful interests, these entities can minimize or downplay the information to turn aside policy scrutiny. When data politicization occurs, it undermines the urgency and attention the issues receive even in the face of an escalating crisis hence the lack of attention to prescription opioids observed in our study.

This study sheds light on data-driven policymaking, with a focus on the constraints imposed by entrenched political interests. Data alone cannot drive policy changes when it conflicts with the interests of powerful stakeholders. We reevaluate the multiple streams framework’s (MSF) initial assumptions, which may overestimate the direct impact of indicators on policy decisions. Practically, we encourage policymakers, scholars, and practitioners to assess the power dynamics that shape policy responses to social issues. This is particularly relevant in crafting effective strategies for public health crises, where ideally, data should inform and guide policy responses. As the opioid crisis continues to evolve, this study underscores the importance of how data is interpreted and used in policy formulation. Moreover, it paves the way for future investigations into other policy areas where data may be underutilized or overlooked, advocating for a broader and more integrated approach to evidence-based policy making. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

DeLeo, Rob A. and Alex Duarte. 2022. “Does Data Drive Policymaking? A Multiple Streams Perspective on the Relationship Between Indicators and Agenda Setting.” Policy Studies Journal, 50(3): 701-724. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12419

About the Authors

Rob A. DeLeo is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at Bentley University. A policy process scholar by training, Rob’s work examines policy change in anticipation of emerging hazards, including climate change, novel diseases, and other slow onset events. His research has appeared in Policy Studies Journal, Public Administration Review, Policy & Politics, PNAS Nexus, Publius, Review of Policy Research, Natural Hazards Review as well as various other peer-reviewed journals and edited volumes. Rob’s work has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and various academic and private organizations. Rob previously held a visiting fellowship at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and is a founding member of the Risk & Social Policy Working Group, an interdisciplinary team of scholars examining the relationship between risk messaging and individual behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. He was the 2021 co-recipient of the American Political Science Association’s Theodore Lowi Award for the best article written in Policy Studies Journal.

Alex Duarte is a doctoral student at the Heller School for Social Policy. Alex graduated from Bentley University in 2019 and received a dual bachelor degree in public policy and business studies. During his time at Bentley, Alex’s research focused on policy indicators found within the substance abuse policy domain. Alex has also worked at the Peace Corps Headquarters in Washington DC and Project Weber, a Rhode Island-based harm reduction center for male and transgender sex workers.

,

Using the Multiple Streams Framework to Connect Policy Adoption to Implementation

by Luke Fowler

Despite widespread application of the canonical model, a key criticism of the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is the primary focus on agenda-setting and policy adoption, and relatively little consideration of what happens after policy is adopted.  However, recent scholarship applies MSF to policy implementation and assesses agenda-setting, policy adoption, and implementation as components of an integrated process. Furthering this line of research, I use MSF to construct a theoretical model that connects policy-making and implementation.

Although policy adoption and implementation make up two distinct components of policy processes, recent scholarship largely argues that “policy systems and processes are nested, with policymaking and policy implementation existing in organized interdependent layers” (Fowler, 2019, p. 406). Based on this, I contend that there are separate outputs for policy adoption and implementation that are linked together and aggregate to policy process outputs.

Figure 1. MSF Theoretical Model for Policymaking and Policy Implementation Processes

[Note: Solid lines represent a causal relationship between streams, policy windows, and outputs, while dashed lines represent the transition of streams from a policymaking orientation to an implementation orientation.]

Figure 1 illustrates an MSF policy process model that includes both policy adoption and implementation sub-processes. First, policy adoption outputs are new policies that result from decisions made during policy adoption, which address non-ideal social conditions. Second, once new policies are adopted, policy implementers respond.  Individual-level behaviors, then, aggregate to the norms of policies in practice, which constitute implementation outputs. Third, implementation outputs lead to changes in behaviors related to social conditions that new policies aim to affect. In turn, this suggests three hypotheses:

  • Policy adoption hypothesis: Effects of politics on policy adoption outputs are conditional on current problems and policies.
  • Policy Implementation hypothesis: Effects of politics on policy implementation outputs are conditional on current problems and policies.
  • Interdependent Processes hypothesis: Effects of politics, policy, and problems streams on policy adoption outputs are not independent from their effects on policy implementation outputs.

I test this model by using data from U.S. state implementation of federal environmental policy. I treat states as independent cases in which policy, politics, and problem streams are coupled (or not) to understand under which conditions policy adoption (i.e., budgetary changes) or implementation (i.e., changes in pollution) outputs are likely to experience non-marginal changes. Results provide support for all three hypotheses and suggest an interconnected process. Most importantly, they indicate that an interaction between political, problem, and policy streams is necessary in both the policy-making and implementation phases in order to spur non-marginal changes in environmental policy outcomes. Specifically, where any variable measuring one of the streams is held at its mean value, only marginal changes results (i.e., status quo maintained), but where all three reach extreme values, non-marginal changes occur (i.e., policy change).

This extends MSF to capture the entire policy process and unifies scholarship examining two different phases of policy to understand how ideas become actions and lead to changes in social or environmental conditions. It also suggests that MSF can be an important tool for analyzing governance processes and providing practical advice that connects decision-making with implementation. For instance, we can glean that while policy windows can be utilized to increase program resources, those new resources may not affect policy outputs unless the right political and problem circumstances exist.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Fowler, Luke. (2022), Using the Multiple Streams Framework to Connect Policy Adoption to Implementation. Policy Stud J, 50: 615-639. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12381

About the Author

Dr. Luke Fowler is an Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration and serves as the Faculty Director for SPS. His research interests include policy implementation, collaboration and collective action, energy and environmental policy, and state and local government. Dr. Fowler is the author of more than four dozen journal articles appearing in many of the field’s top journals, including Perspectives on Public Management & Governance, Governance, Public Administration, Policy Studies Journal, Review of Policy Research, Administration & Society, American Review of Public Administration, State & Local Government Review, and State Politics & Policy Quarterly. His latest book is Democratic Policy Implementation in an Ambiguous World. He is also the author of Environmental Federalism: Old Legacies and New Challenges. Dr. Fowler is the co-host of The Big Tent, a weekly public affairs radio show on Radio Boise. Dr. Fowler previously served as MPA program lead, and completed his Ph.D. at Mississippi State University in 2013.

, ,

Coupling the Streams by Connecting Claims: Discourse Networks Show How a German Labor Market Policy Hits the Agenda in the Early Phase of the Covid‑19 Pandemic

by Malte Möck, Colette S. Vogeler, Nils C. Bandelow, & Johanna Hornung

The early textbook approach of the policy process pictures policy-makers as capable of crafting policies as solutions for existing societal problems. The multiple streams perspective pioneered by John Kingdon in the 1980s suggests that reality is far more chaotic. Too much happens simultaneously. Policies are developed, adapted and combined. Problems emerge, change and are replaced by more important ones. Policy-makers in governments come and go and are by no means capable of addressing all relevant problems in a timely and orderly manner. There are simply too many issues, while the attention of decision-makers is limited. Against this background, some actors are able to promote a policy in a way that makes it look like the perfect solution to a problem. Such actors are called policy entrepreneurs, and the purposeful sense-making of an ambiguous reality is known as coupling problems, solutions, and politics. The mechanisms of coupling, however, are understudied.

The Multiple Streams Framework distinguishes between the ever-changing but initially unconnected problems, policies and politics. In any policy area, the streams can pose more or less advantageous conditions; for example, the current government could be supporting or opposing the policy. If the streams are generally favorable and an opportunity presents itself, entrepreneurs can seize such a policy window to couple the streams. In our article, we investigate a case that presents such a constellation. In summer 2020, the Work Safety Control Act made it to the German federal government’s agenda. This policy addresses poor working conditions in the meat-processing industry by banning service contracts and temporary work, creating standards regarding the recording of working time and accommodation of workers, and introducing provisions on monitoring compliance.

We argue that the Multiple Streams Framework explains agenda setting in this case rather well. The policy proposals had been around for a while in the policy community and in the context of self-commitments by the industry. Also, the political context was favorable as the Social Democrats calling for such changes were a part of the governing coalition and in charge of the respective ministry. Finally, outbreaks of Covid‑19 in German abattoirs in spring 2020 created a policy window in the problem stream. In this early phase of the pandemic, Covid‑19 dominated every agenda and infection hubs were easily linked to insufficient working conditions in the abattoirs.

But how exactly were streams coupled while the policy window was open? To answer this question, we provide a methodology to zoom in on the coupling by entrepreneurs. We build on previous work conceptualizing coupling as making an argument or claim about elements from the streams as representations of reality and as taking place not only across all three streams, but also partially by for example linking problem and solution (cf. post in PSJ Blog below on 4 Oct 2023). Studying discourses as bipartite networks, in which actors make statements about issues, allows researchers to represent elements from a discourse as linked by actors making similar claims about them. We suggest combining these approaches as relational coupling as illustrated below.

Relational coupling enables us to study the German public debate on Covid‑19 infections and working conditions in abattoirs. In this way, it is possible to investigate how policy entrepreneurs coupled the streams in order to push the Work Safety Control Act to the government’s agenda. Our discourse network analysis shows two phases of agenda setting. In the first phase in May and early June 2020, entrepreneurs mainly engaged in presenting and linking problems. They connected issues like Covid‑19 outbreaks in the meat-processing industry, insufficient health protection and working conditions and the subcontractor system. Coupling across streams is observed rarely, for example in attributing responsibility to the companies and the German states (political stream) or in pointing to the need of improved controls (policy stream).

This is different for the second investigation period in late June and July 2020, in which more discursive elements were addressed and connected more densely also across streams. One cluster of couplings builds on crisis management considerations regarding a specific Covid‑19 outbreak in an abattoir. The respective company was held responsible (political stream) and regional lockdowns were suggested (policy stream). Building on this cluster, however, the previously framed general problems were interlinked along with the policy proposals of the Work Safety Control Act, which was considered by the German cabinet at the end of July 2020. This shows that relational coupling contributes to understanding the mechanisms of coupling the streams and facilitates investigating the crucial process of how policy entrepreneurs can make use of an opportunity to push their policy to the agenda.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Möck, Malte, Vogeler, Colette S., Bandelow, Nils C., and Hornung, Johanna. 2023. “Relational Coupling of Multiple Streams: The Case of COVID-19 Infections in German Abattoirs.” Policy Studies Journal, 51: 351-374. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12459

About the Authors

Malte Möck is a postdoctoral researcher at the Agricultural and Food Policy Group at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany. His research addresses agricultural policy, socio-technical change and urban-rural relations, especially in inter- and transdisciplinary contexts.

Colette S. Vogeler is professor of Comparative Public Administration and Policy Analysis at the University of Speyer, Germany. Her research focuses on public policymaking in the areas of environmental, agricultural and animal welfare policy.

Nils C. Bandelow is a professor of political science and head of the Institute of Comparative Politics and Public Policy (CoPPP), Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany. His research focuses on actor-centered approaches to the policy process, which he applies to health and infrastructure policy in inter- and transdisciplinary cooperations.

Johanna Hornung is a postdoctoral researcher at the KPM Center for Public Management, University of Bern, Switzerland. Her research focuses on the integration of (social) psychological perspectives into public policy theories, which she applies to health and environmental policy and in interdisciplinary cooperations.

, , ,

Linking Issues for Long-Term Governance Success

by Dana A. Dolan

Governments frequently grapple with a perpetual cycle of reacting to immediate crises, leaving little room for proactive, long-term policy development. The concept of long-term governance, characterized by policies promising future benefits but incurring short-term costs, often faces challenges in securing priority amid more pressing issues. 

Nonetheless, the importance of long-term governance cannot be understated, given its historical successes and its relevance in addressing contemporary global challenges. For instance, the establishment of America’s National Park System was a clear investment in preserving nature for future generations. Today, nations worldwide confront a mounting array of long-term challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, immigration reform, and extreme economic inequality.

Lessons from Australian Climate Adaptation Policy

In a 2021 Policy Studies Journal article, I examined the process leading to Australia’s 2007 Water Act, one of the world’s earliest national climate adaptation policies, for insights into achieving long-term governance goals. The case presented several theoretical puzzles: why did Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a known climate science skeptic, champion this policy? Why did the conservative Howard Government support a policy that aimed to redirect water resources from lucrative agriculture to environmental conservation, contrary to its usual priorities? Why did the proposal garner public and political support during a severe decade-long drought, when all water users fiercely protected their allocations?

I applied Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework, analyzing the evolution of problem, policy, and political streams, and the process of coupling these streams to favor policy change over the status quo. After analyzing each of the three streams in depth, this study delved deeper into the coupling process. Its unique insight highlighted the interplay among “partial couplings” (illustrated in Figure 1 below) that connected pairs of streams for multiple policy issues. 

Figure 1. Alternative Approaches to Coupling All Three Streams.

In the Australian case, climate change rose on the policy agenda and became law under the 2007 Water Act, despite not all three streams being ready for coupling. This departure from basic expectations was explained by the policy entrepreneurial strategy known as issue linking. This strategy rhetorically connected the three streams of problems, policies, and politics through partial couplings involving three related issues: climate change (a valid problem with public demand but no viable policy solution), water management (a salient problem with a feasible solution but lacking political will), and adaptive governance (an accepted solution with political backing but no salient problem).

This configuration of multiple partial couplings allowed proponents of policy change to construct a convincing argument for legislative action. For a recent explanation of the MSF theory behind the coupling process, refer to Dolan and Blum’s work (2023/in press)

Issue Linking through Multiple Partial Couplings  

Issue linking emerges as a pivotal strategy for overcoming the challenges of long-term policymaking, where problems are recognized, viable policy solutions exist, but political will is lacking. However, not every combination of issues proves effective. Linked issues only succeed when the combination connects all pairs of streams through multiple partial couplings. In essence, issue linking serves as a guiding principle for policymakers navigating the complexities of long-term governance, where decisions today can shape a better and more sustainable tomorrow.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Dolan, Dana A. 2021. “Multiple Partial Couplings in the Multiple Streams Framework: The Case of Extreme Weather and Climate Change Adaptation.” Policy Studies Journal 49(1): 164–89. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/psj.12341#

Other References

Dolan, Dana A., and Sonja Blum. 2023/in press. “The Beating Heart of the MSF: Coupling as a Process.” In The Modern Guide to the Multiple Streams Framework, eds. Nikolaos Zahariadis, Nicole Herweg, Reimut Zohlnhöfer, and Evangelia Petridou. Edward Elgar.

About the Author

Dana A. Dolan is a policy fellow and adjunct faculty member at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government. She is also a professorial lecturer in international affairs at The George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. Her research focuses on long-term governance issues, the politics of policymaking, and refining Kingdon’s Multiple Streams theory of the policy process. Her theory-driven work has been featured in top journals like Policy Studies Journal and Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment.

, , ,