Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When multiple streams make a river: analyzing collaborative policymaking institutions using the multiple streams framework

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is frequently used to explain agenda setting and decision making across a variety of policy domains, it has been criticized for failing to contribute to theoretically rigorous and empirically falsifiable policy scholarship. This study argues that by explicitly attending to the institutional context in which a policy process occurs—a previously under-articulated aspect of the MSF—scholars can better develop and test theory about the framework’s components under delimited conditions. This approach is demonstrated through the development and analysis of a case study of transnational policymaking in the Colorado River Delta. By attending to how key MSF variables interact with features of the process’s collaborative institutional context, this study identifies case-specific drivers of policy change and develops broader theory about the mechanisms by which these factors may influence policymaking in similar institutional settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Interview data are not publicly available, per Institutional Review Board confidentiality requirements on human subjects data. All secondary data are cited in full in the paper. All interviewees provided informed consent.

Notes

  1. In Mexico, the IBWC is called the Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas, abbreviated as CILA.

  2. While the on-going process does not have a formal name, it is sometimes referred to as the United States-Mexico Binational Forum for the Colorado River Delta (Karambelkar and Gerlak, 2020).

  3. This “dedication of water to the river [for the environmental flow component] was shared among… Mexico, the US, and… the environmental organizations. So it wasn't just [the NGOs] who provided the water. It was important that Mexico and the U.S.…share that kind of responsibility” (M319_02).

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ananda, J., & Proctor, W. (2013). Collaborative approaches to water management and planning: an institutional perspective. Ecological Economics, 86, 97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. NYU press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzelay, M., & Gallego, R. (2006). From “new institutionalism” to “institutional processualism”: advancing knowledge about public management policy change. Governance, 19(4), 531–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D., & Mortensen, P. B. (2018). Punctuated equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 55–102). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, D. (2017). Process-tracing methods in social science. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Béland, D. (2005). Ideas and social policy: An institutionalist perspective. Social Policy & Administration, 39(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (2016). Ideas as coalition magnets: coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 428–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesbroek, R., & Candel, J. J. (2019). Mechanisms for policy (dis) integration: explaining food policy and climate change adaptation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 53, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birdsong, B. C. (2011). Mapping the Human Right to Water on the Colorado River. Willamette Law Review, 48, 117–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A. (1996). Natural disasters as focusing events: Policy communities and political response. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 14(2), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blankenau, J. (2001). The fate of national health insurance in Canada and the United States: a multiple streams explanation. Policy Studies Journal, 29(1), 38–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P., & Jones, M. D. (2016). Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: what is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Challies, E., Newig, J., Kochskämper, E., & Jager, N. W. (2017). Governance change and governance learning in Europe: Stakeholder participation in environmental policy implementation. Policy and Society, 36(2), 288–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Research Service (2019). Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role.

  • Conley, A., & Moote, M. A. (2003). Evaluating collaborative natural resourcemanagement. Society and Natural Resources, 16(5), 371–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLeo, R. A. (2018). Indicators, agendas and streams: analysing the politics of preparedness. Policy and Politics, 46(1), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutterer, A. D., & Margerum, R. D. (2015). The limitations of policy-level collaboration: a meta-analysis of CALFED. Society & Natural Resources, 28(1), 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, R. D., Ioris, A. A., & Watson, N. M. (2010). Integrating water and agricultural management: collaborative governance for a complex policy problem. Science of the Total Environment, 408(23), 5623–5630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flessa, K. W., Kendy, E., & Schlatter, K. (2014). Minute 319 Colorado River Delta Environmental Flows Monitoring: Initial Progress Report. Report prepared for the Internal Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). Retrieved from https://www.ibwc.gov/EMD/Min319Monitoring.pdf

  • Gerlak, A. K. (2015). Resistance and reform: transboundary water governance in the Colorado River Delta. Review of Policy Research, 32(1), 100–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlak, A. K. (2017). Regional water institutions and participation in water governance: the colorado river delta as an exception to the rule? Journal of the Southwest, 59(1), 184–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2011). Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: evidence from the everglades restoration program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 619–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlak, A. K., Heikkila, T., & Lubell, M. (2013a). The promise and performance of collaborative governance. In S. Kamieniecki, & M. E. Kraft (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of U.S. Environmental Policy (pp. 413–434). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Gerlak, A. K., Zamora-Arroyo, F., & Kahler, H. P. (2013). A delta in repair: Restoration, binational cooperation, and the future of the Colorado River Delta. Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 55(3), 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getches, D. H. (2003). Water management in the United States and the fate of the Colorado River delta in Mexico. US-Mexico Law Journal, 11, 107–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, E. P., Lee, C., Felger, R., & Zengel, S. (1996). Effects of water management on the wetlands of the Colorado River Delta. Mexico. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 1175–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2018). Working on learning: how the institutional rules of environmental governance matter. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(1), 106–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henstra, D. (2010). Explaining local policy choices: a multiple streams analysis of municipal emergency management. Canadian Public Administration, 53(2), 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2018). The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In: C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 17–53). Westview Press.

  • Hinojosa-Huerta, O., Nagler, P. L., Carrillo-Guererro, Y. K., & Glenn, E. P. (2013). Reprint of: effects of drought on birds and riparian vegetation in the Colorado River Delta, Mexico. Ecological Engineering, 59, 104–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2019). Moving policy implementation theory forward: a multiple streams/critical juncture approach. Public Policy and Administration, 34(4), 405–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber-Stearns, H. R., Schultz, C., & Cheng, A. S. (2019). A multiple streams analysis of institutional innovation in forest watershed governance. Review of Policy Research, 36(6), 781–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy: lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society, 37(3), 281–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2003). Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogue (pp. 33–59). Understanding governance in the network society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Ingold, K. (2018). The advocacy coalition framework: an overview of the research program. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 135–172). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. J., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Lamberta Raney, H., et al. (2016). A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, J. A. (2019). Multiple streams in hawaii: how the aloha state adopted a 100% renewable portfolio standard. Review of Policy Research, 36(2), 217–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karambelkar, S., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). Collaborative governance and stakeholder participation in the colorado River Basin. Natural Resources Journal, 60(1), 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauneckis, D., & Imperial, M. T. (2007). Collaborative watershed governance in Lake Tahoe: an institutional analysis. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 10(4), 503–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, A., & Baker, P. (2015). What can causal process tracing offer to policy studies? a review of the literature. Policy Studies Journal, 43(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendy, E., Flessa, K. W., Schlatter, K. J., Carlos, A., Huerta, O. M. H., Carrillo-Guerrero, Y. K., et al. (2017). Leveraging environmental flows to reform water management policy: lessons learned from the 2014 Colorado River Delta pulse flow. Ecological Engineering, 106, 683–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, D. S. (2000). Arguing about consensus: Examining the case against Western watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups active in natural resources management. Boulder, Colorado. Retrieved from https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies/32/.

  • King, J. S., Culp, P. W., & de la Parra, C. (2014). Getting to the Right Side of the River: lessons for Binational Cooperation on the Road to Minute 319. University of Denver Water Law Review, 18, 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). . Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koebele, E. A. (2019). Integrating collaborative governance theory with the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Journal of Public Policy, 39(1), 35–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koebele, E. A. (2019). Policy learning in collaborative environmental governance processes. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 21(3), 242–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koebele, E. A. (2020). Cross-coalition coordination in collaborative environmental governance processes. Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), 727–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz, T. M. (2014). Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(10), 1572–1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz, T. M. (2016). Back to the future? collaborative environmental governance theory and practice. In R. D. Margerum & C. J. Robinson (Eds.), The challenges of collaboration in environmental governance: barriers and responses (pp. 54–80). Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz, T. M., & Newig, J. (2014). From planning to implementation: top-down and bottom-up approaches for collaborative watershed management. Policy Studies Journal, 42(3), 416–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W. (2006). What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowalewski, M., Serrano, G. E. A., Flessa, K. W., & Goodfriend, G. A. (2000). Dead delta’s former productivity: two trillion shells at the mouth of the Colorado River. Geology, 28(12), 1059–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, W. D., Weible, C. M., Vince, S. R., Siddiki, S. N., & Calanni, J. C. (2014). Fostering learning through collaboration: knowledge acquisition and belief change in marine aquaculture partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 591–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. (1986). A sand county Almanac, and sketches Here and there. Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, V. R., Calhoun, A. J., Bell, K. P., & Johnson, T. R. (2017). Turning contention into collaboration: engaging power, trust, and learning in collaborative networks. Society and Natural Resources, 30(2), 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M. (2003). Collaborative institutions, belief-systems, and perceived policy effectiveness. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M., Gerlak, A., & Heikkila, T. (2013). CalFed and collaborative watershed management: success despite failure. In J. F. Warner, A. Van Buuren, & J. Edelenbos (Eds.), Making space for the river: governance experiences with multifunctional river flood management in the US and Europe (pp. 63–78). IWA Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundmark, C., Matti, S., & Sandström, A. (2018). The transforming capacity of collaborative institutions: belief change and coalition reformation in conflicted wildlife management. Journal of Environmental Management, 226, 226–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics. The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margerum, R. D., & Robinson, C. J. (2015). Collaborative partnerships and the challenges for sustainable water management. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12, 53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margerum, R. D., & Robinson, C. J. (2016). The challenges of collaboration in environmental governance barriers and responses. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlmann, S. (2009). How do real Indians fish? Neoliberal multiculturalism and contested indigeneities in the Colorado Delta. American Anthropologist, 111(4), 468–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumme, S., & Bustamante, R. (2001). The US–Mexico international boundary and water commission in the sustainable development era. IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, 9(2), 117–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ness, E. C., & Mistretta, M. A. (2009). Policy adoption in North Carolina and Tennessee: a comparative case study of lottery beneficiaries. The Review of Higher Education, 32(4), 489–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novotný, V., & Polášek, M. (2016). Multiple streams approach and political parties: modernization of Czech Social Democracy. Policy Sciences, 49, 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 21–64). Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overpeck, J. T., & Udall, B. (2020). Climate change and the aridification of North America. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences.

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Mostert, E., & Tàbara, D. (2008). The growing importance of social learning in water resources management and sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, J. (2001). Can we restore the Colorado River delta? Journal of Arid Environments, 49(1), 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, J., Kendy, E., Schlatter, K., Hinojosa-Huertaf, O., Flessa, K. W., Shafroth, P. B., et al. (2017). It takes more than water: restoring the Colorado River Delta. Ecological Engineering, 106(11), 629–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera-Torres, M., & Gerlak, A. (2020). Mexico’s Evolving Role in Colorado River Governance. University of Arizona’s Center for Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions.

  • Rozbicka, P., & Spohr, F. (2016). Interest groups in multiple streams: specifying their involvement in the framework. Policy Sciences, 49, 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). . Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., & Matlock, M. (2005). Collaborative approaches to watershed management. In P. A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, & M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 3–21). MIT press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, C. D., Vedlitz, A., Whitten, G. D., Matlock, M., Alston, L. T., Peterson, T. R., et al. (2005). Citizen participation and representation in collaborative engagement processes. In P. A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, & M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 137–170). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, V., & Cortez-Lara, A. A. (2015). Minute 319 of the International boundary and water commission between the US and Mexico: Colorado River binational water management implications. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 31(1), 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saurugger, S., & Terpan, F. (2016). Do crises lead to policy change? The multiple streams framework and the European Union’s economic governance instruments. Policy Sciences, 49, 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, E. (2007). A comparative assessment of policy theories. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 293–319). Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlatter, K. (2013). Dynamic delta: policies, partnerships, and water for the colorado river delta. Water Resources IMPACT, 15(5), 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M., Scholz, J., Lubell, M., Mindruta, D., & Edwardsen, M. (2003). Building consensual institutions: networks and the National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siddiki, S., Heikkila, T., Weible, C. M., Pacheco-Vega, R., Carter, D., Curley, C., et al. (2019). Institutional analysis with the institutional grammar. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spener, S. (2008). Colorado River Joint Cooperative Process U.S.-Mexico. Colorado River Citizen’s Forum.

  • Spohr, F. (2016). Explaining path dependency and deviation by combining multiple streams framework and historical institutionalism: A comparative analysis of German and Swedish labor market policies. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(3), 257–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarlock, A. D. (2014). Mexico and the United States assume a legal duty to provide Colorado River delta restoration flows: An important international environmental and water law precedent. Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, 23(1), 76–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trachtenberg, Z., & Focht, W. (2005). Legitimacy and watershed collaborations: the role of public participation. In P. A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, & M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 53–82). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Heijden, J., Kuhlmann, J., Lindquist, E., & Wellstead, A. (2019). Have policy process scholars embraced causal mechanisms? (p. 0952076718814894). Public Policy and Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennesson, P. (2008). Case studies and process tracing: theories and practices. In: D. Della Porta, & M. Keating (Eds), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press.

  • Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2009). Coalitions, science, and belief change: comparing adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., & Schlager, E. (2016). The multiple streams approach at the theoretical and empirical crossroads: an introduction to a special issue. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilder, M. O., & Ingram, H. (2018). Knowing equity when we see it. In K. Conca & E. Weinthal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of water politics and Policy (pp. 49–75). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilder, M. O., Varady, R. G., Mumme, S. P., Gerlak, A. K., Pablos, N. P., & Scott, C. A. (2019). US Hydrodiplomacy: Foundations, Change, and Future Challenges. Science & Diplomacy, 8(2).

  • Zahariadis, N. (2016). Delphic oracles: Ambiguity, institutions, and multiple streams. Policy Sciences, 49, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N., & Exadaktylos, T. (2016). Policies that succeed and programs that fail: Ambiguity, conflict, and crisis in Greek higher education. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohlnhöfer, R., Herweg, N., & Huß, C. (2016). Bringing formal political institutions into the multiple streams framework: an analytical proposal for comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(3), 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohlnhöfer, R., Herweg, N., & Rüb, F. (2015). Theoretically refining the multiple streams framework: an introduction. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 412–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank anonymous reviewers and participants in the Western Political Science Association annual conference (2019) for their feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript, as well as the scholars and policy process participants who shared their knowledge about the Minute 319 process through interviews and writings.

Funding

Interview research was supported by the Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, USA

    Elizabeth A. Koebele

Authors
  1. Elizabeth A. Koebele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Koebele.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The author declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koebele, E.A. When multiple streams make a river: analyzing collaborative policymaking institutions using the multiple streams framework. Policy Sci 54, 609–628 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09425-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09425-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation