nach oben

Policy Sciences

Erschienen in:

22.09.2015 | Research Article

Explaining European agenda-setting using the multiple streams framework: the case of European natural gas regulation

verfasst von: Nicole Herweg

Erschienen in: Policy Sciences | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This article adapts the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to the European Union (EU) agenda-setting process. Therefore, it defines functional equivalents of the framework’s elements in the EU and clarifies which changes in the problem stream and political stream open policy windows. The article probes the usefulness of proposed adaptations by examining the rise of issues contained in the three natural gas directives passed in 1998, 2003, and 2009 on the EU’s decision agenda. The findings support the MSF explanation of the first and third gas directives, but not all necessary conditions were met regarding the second gas directive process. Building on these insights, the article enriches MSF scholarship and charts a course for future research that overcomes limitations with adapting the framework to the EU policy process.

Vorheriger Artikel Delphic oracles: ambiguity, institutions, and multiple streams

Nächster Artikel Do crises lead to policy change? The multiple streams framework and the European Union’s economic governance instruments

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

This article does not distinguish between the EU and the European Community, as the differentiation is insignificant for the purposes of my argument.

The governmental agenda is defined “as a list of subjects that are getting attention,” and the decision agenda as a list of subjects “that are up for an active decision” (Kingdon 2010: 4). According to Kingdon, the governmental agenda is set in either the problem or political stream, while the decision agenda results from the coupling of all three streams by policy-entrepreneurs.

For instance, between January 1992 and April 2008, the decision-making process alone took over 2 years (namely, 746 days) on average for issues dealt with under the ordinary legislative procedure [own calculation based on Kovats (2009)].

A single Commissioner‘s engagement in policy-entrepreneurship can be directed to the College of Commissioners before it decides on an issue as well as to the stakeholders affected from a policy measure the College of Commissioners has previously committed itself to.

A particularity of the EU’s problem stream is the Commission's prominent role in drawing attention to specific issues, due to its duty to collect and compile indicators and feedback, for instance, in the form of benchmarking reports or White Papers. If the Commission is involved in problem recognition and definition, stream ripeness and the opening of a problem window coincide.

Due to the period of investigation, the President of the European Council as introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon is not explicitly considered.

For an in-depth analysis of these policy processes and references regarding the primary sources included, see Herweg (2015).

The European Council only referred once to energy liberalization in 1988. Probably because the release of working programs for the Presidency of the Council was institutionalized in the 1990 s, they are only available for the SGD and TGD processes.

According to Article 90 (today’s Article 86), the Commission can pass a directive without the participation of the Council and the EP if it aims at dismantling exclusive rights that hamper trade.

The Cardiff Process formalized the application of the integration principle, which is codified in EU primary law and into force since May 1999. It stipulates that environmental protection must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other policies.

On the Commission’s usage of impact assessments, see Nilsson et al. (2008).

Furthermore, the pubic consultations reinforced the perception that the state of the IEM was problematic.

Ackrill, R., & Kay, A. (2011). Multiple streams in EU policy-making: The case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 72–89.CrossRef

Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887.CrossRef

Andersen, S. S., & Sitter, N. (2007). Re-politicising regulation: Politics: Regulatory variation and fuzzy liberalisation in the single European energy market. Paper prepared for the 2007 EUSA Conference.

Bache, I. (2013). Measuring quality of life for public policy: An idea whose time has come? Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(1), 21–38.CrossRef

Bendor, J., Moe, T. M., & Shotts, K. W. (2001). Recycling the garbage can. An assessment of the research program. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 169–190.

Biesenbender, S. (2015). The EU’s energy policy agenda: Directions and developments. In J. Tosun, S. Biesenbender & K. Schulze (Eds.), Energy policy making in the EU: Building the agenda (pp. 21–40). London: Springer.

Borrás, S., & Radaelli, C. M. (2011). The politics of governance architectures: Creation, change and effects of the EU Lisbon Strategy. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(4), 463–484.CrossRef

Brutschin, E. (2015). Shaping the EU’s energy policy agenda: The role of eastern European countries. In J. Tosun, S. Biesenbender & K. Schulze (Eds.), Energy policy making in the EU: Building the agenda (pp. 187–204). London: Springer.

Buchan, D. (2009). Energy and climate change: Europe at the crossroads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cairney, P., & Heikkila, T. (2014). A comparison of theories of the policy process. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 363–390). New York: Westview Press.

Copeland, P., & James, S. (2014). Policy windows, ambiguity and Commission entrepreneurship: Explaining the relaunch of the European Union’s economic reform agenda. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(1), 1–19.CrossRef

Decker, F., & Sonnicksen, J. (2011). An alternative approach to European Union democratization: Re-examining the direct election of the Commission President. Government and Opposition, 46(2), 168–191.CrossRef

Dudley, G. (2013). Why do ideas succeed and fail over time? The role of narratives in policy windows and the case of the London congestion charge. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(8), 1139–1156.CrossRef

Dür, A. (2008). Interest groups in the European Union: How powerful are they? In J. Beyers, R. Eising & W. A. Maloney (Eds.), Interest group politics in Europe: Lessons from EU Studies and comparative politics (pp. 110–128). London: Routledge.

Eberlein, B. (2005). Regulation by cooperation: The ‘third way’ in making rules for the internal energy market. In P. D. Cameron (Ed.), Legal aspects of EU energy regulation: Implementing the new directives on electricity and gas across Europe (pp. 59–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eberlein, B. (2012). Inching towards a common energy policy: Entrepreneurship, incrementalism, and windows of opportunity. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Constructing a policy-making state? Policy dynamics in the EU (pp. 147–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Eikeland, P. O. (2011). The third internal energy market package: New power relations among member states, EU institutions and non-state actors? Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(2), 243–263.CrossRef

Faletti, T. G., & Lynch, J. F. (2009). Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42(9), 1143–1166.CrossRef

Fligstein, N. (2001). Institutional entrepreneurs and cultural frames: The case of the European Union’s single market program. European Societies, 3(3), 261–287.CrossRef

Hancher, L. (1990). A single European energy market: Rhetoric or reality? Energy Law Journal, 11(2), 217–242.

Herweg, N. (forthcoming). Clarifying the concept of policy communities in the multiple streams framework. In R. Zohlnhöfer & F. Rüb (Eds.), Decision-making under ambiguity and time constraints: Assessing the multiple streams framework. Colchester: ECPR Press.

Herweg, N. (2015). A multiple streams analysis of European Union policy-making. Explaining the regulatory shift in the natural gas market policy between 1988 and 2009. Manuscript. Heidelberg.

Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2015). Straightening the three streams: Theorizing extensions of the multiple streams framework. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 435–449.CrossRef

Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (forthcoming). Bringing formal political institutions into the multiple streams framework. An analytical proposal for comparative application. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis.

Hix, S., & Høyland, B. (2011). The political system of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Howlett, M., McConnell, A., & Perl, A. (2015). Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 419–434.CrossRef

Iusmen, I. (2013). Policy entrepreneurship and Eastern enlargement: The case of EU children’s rights policy. Comparative European Politics, 11(4), 511–529.CrossRef

Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. P., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Lamberta Raney, H., & Zahariadis, N. (2015). Policy Studies Journal. doi:10.1111/psj.12115.

Kaunert, C., & Giovanna, M. D. (2010). Post-9/11 EU counter-terrorist financing cooperation: Differentiating supranational policy entrepreneurship by the Commission and the Council Secretariat. European Security, 19(2), 275–295.CrossRef

Kingdon, J. W. (2010). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. White Plains: Pearson Longman.

Klüver, H. (2013). Lobbying in the European Union: Interest groups, lobbying coalitions, and policy change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Kovats, L. (2009). Do elections set the pace? A quantitative assessment of the timing of European legislation. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(2), 239–255.CrossRef

Lindberg, B., Rasmussen, A., & Warntjen, A. (2008). Party politics as usual? The role of political parties in EU legislative decision-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(8), 1107–1126.CrossRef

Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 17(2), 139–167.CrossRef

Maltby, T. (2013). European Union energy policy integration: A case of European Commission policy entrepreneurship and increasing supranationalism. Energy Policy, 55(100), 435–444.CrossRef

Matláry, J. H. (1997). Energy policy in the European Union. London: MacMillan.CrossRef

Mazey, S. P., & Richardson, J. J. (1992). British pressure groups in the European Community: The challenge of Brussels. Parliamentary Affairs, 45(1), 92–107.

Mucciaroni, G. (2013). The garbage can model and the study of the policy-making process. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 320–328). London, New York: Routledge.

Natali, D. (2004). Europeanization, policy areas, and creative opportunism: The politics of welfare state reforms in Italy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(6), 1077–1095.CrossRef

Nilsson, M., et al. (2008). The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: An analysis of three European countries and the European Union. Policy Sciences, 41(4), 335–355.CrossRef

Nylander, J. (2001). The construction of a market. A frame analysis of the liberalization of the electricity market in the European Union. European Societies, 3(3), 289–314.CrossRef

Padgett, S. (1992). The single European energy market: The politics of realization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 30(1), 53–76.CrossRef

Pollak, J., Schubert, S., & Slominski, P. (2008). Die Energiepolitik der EU. Wien: UTB.

Poptcheva, E.-M. (2013, October 24). Parliament’s legislative initiative. Library Briefing, pp. 1–8.

Princen, S. (2013). Agenda setting. In A. Jordan & C. Adelle (Eds.), Environmental policy in the EU: Actors, institutions and processes (pp. 191–208). London, New York: Routledge.

Princen, S., & Rhinard, M. (2006). Crashing and creeping: Crashing and creeping: Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(7), 1119–1132.CrossRef

Sandoval, I. S., & Morata, F. (2012). Introduction: The re-evolution of energy policy in Europe. In F. Morata & I. Solorio Sandoval (Eds.), European energy policy: An environmental approach (pp. 1–22). Cheltenham, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Stern, J. P. (1992). Third party access in European gas industries: Regulation-driven or market-led?. London: Royal institute of international affairs.

Stern, J. P. (1998). Competition and liberalization in European gas markets: A diversity of models. London: Royal institute of international affairs.

Tallberg, J. (2006). Leadership and negotiation in the European Union. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Zahariadis, N. (1992). To sell or not to sell? Telecommunications policy in Britain and France. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 355–376.CrossRef

Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 514–530.CrossRef

Zhu, X. (2008). Strategy of Chinese policy entrepreneurs in the third sector: Challenges of “technical infeasibility”. Policy Sciences, 41(4), 315–334.CrossRef

Titel: Explaining European agenda-setting using the multiple streams framework: the case of European natural gas regulation
verfasst von: Nicole Herweg
Publikationsdatum: 22.09.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Policy Sciences / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9231-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

Interest groups in multiple streams: specifying their involvement in the framework

Delphic oracles: ambiguity, institutions, and multiple streams

From controversial policy idea to successful program implementation: the role of the policy entrepreneur, manipulation strategy, program design, institutions and open policy windows in relocating Norwegian central agencies

Multiple streams approach and political parties: modernization of Czech Social Democracy

Note from the Editor: Lasswell Prize Announcement for volume 48 (2015)

Do crises lead to policy change? The multiple streams framework and the European Union’s economic governance instruments

Premium Partner