ABSTRACT

Empirical studies that use the multiple streams approach often examine cases of reactive policymaking in response to “focusing events”, rather than proactive policymakers who seek to broker or construct problems that their preferred solution might address. Drawing on publicly-available debates about reforms to fire and rescue services in seven areas of England, we show how individuals within small policy subsystems may construct problems to try and convince others to support their preferred policy solution. By straddling all three streams and acting as endogenous policy entrepreneurs, policymakers and problem brokers simultaneously, we highlight how these actors can exert substantial influence over policymaking processes – although consensus within the political stream about the existence of a genuine problem is still a key factor in facilitating change. These insights allow us to introduce a more obvious power dimension and greater predictive capacity into the multiple streams approach.

摘要

使用多流方法的实证研究通常检查响应“聚焦事件”的反应性决策案例，而不是亲积极的政策制定者，他们寻求调解或构建他们首选解决方案可能解决的问题。利用关于英格兰七个地区消防和救援服务改革的公开辩论，我们展示了小型政策子系统中的个人如何构建问题以试图说服其他人支持他们首选的政策解决方案。通过跨越所有三个流并同时充当内生的政策企业家、政策制定者和问题掮客，我们强调了这些行为者如何对政策制定过程施加重大影响——尽管政治流中关于存在真正问题的共识仍然是解决问题的关键因素。促进变革。这些见解使我们能够在多流方法中引入更明显的功率维度和更大的预测能力。