Advertisement

Multiple Streams Ansatz

Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Das vorliegende Kapitel fasst den Multiple Streams Ansatz (MSA) zusammen, würdigt diesen kritisch und präsentiert anschließend den Forschungsstand. Die Zusammenfassung des Ansatzes orientiert sich an dessen Grundannahmen, die lauten, dass politische Systeme als organisierte Anarchien konzeptualisiert werden können; dass Entscheidungssituationen über das Denken in Strömen erfasst werden können; und dass Agenda-Wandel davon abhängig ist, ob und wie sich die Ströme verbinden. Die daran anschließende kritische Würdigung konzentriert sich auf zwei zentrale Kritikpunkte, die Kritik an der Unabhängigkeit der Ströme und die an der Falsifizierbarkeit des Ansatzes, und fasst kleinere Kritikpunkte in einem weiteren Abschnitt zusammen. Die anschließende Darstellung des Forschungsstandes fokussiert auf Einzelbeiträge, da es kaum theorieimmanente Debatten gibt. Hierzu wird zunächst ein Überblick darüber geliefert, welche Methoden die Beiträge anwenden und welche Politikfelder sie analysieren. Anschließend werden Erweiterungen des Ansatzes vorgestellt, wobei der Fokus auf der Frage liegt, inwieweit, erstens, die Übertragung des MSA möglich ist (beispielsweise bezüglich der analysierten Regierungssysteme); zweitens, über das Agenda-Setting hinausgehende Politikprozesse erfasst werden können; und drittens, zentrale Konzepte modifiziert wurden. Mit der Übertragung des MSA auf parlamentarische Regierungssysteme und auf die Politikentscheidung werden zwei vergleichsweise häufig genutzte Erweiterungen ausführlicher dargestellt. Das Kapitel schließt mit einem kurzen Fazit.

Keywords

Ambiguität, Agenda-Setting, Entscheidungsfindung, Multiple Stream Ansatz, Policy-Entrepreneur, Policy-Fenster 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Ackrill, Robert und Adrian Kay. 2011. Multiple streams in EU policy-making: the case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy 18(1): 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackrill, Robert, Adrian Kay und Nikolaos Zahariadis. 2013. Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy 20(6): 871–887.Google Scholar
  3. Ahearne, Jeremy. 2006. Public Intellectuals Within a „Multiple Streams“ Model of the Cultural Policy Process. Notes From a French Perspective. International Journal of Cultural Policy 12(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
  4. Atkins Salla Simon Lewin Karin C. Ringsberg und Anna Thorson. 2012. Towards an empowerment approach in tuberculosis treatment in Cape Town, South Africa: a qualitative analysis of programmatic change. Global Health Action 5: 14385.Google Scholar
  5. Bache, Ian. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Bakir, Caner. 2009. Policy Entrepreneurship and Institutional Change: Multilevel Governance of Central Banking Reform. Governance 22(4): 571–598.Google Scholar
  7. Bandelow, Nils C., Stefan Kundolf und Kirstin Lindloff. 2014. Agenda Setting für eine nachhaltige EU-Verkehrspolitik. Akteurskonstellationen, Machtverhältnisse und Erfolgsstrategien. Berlin: edition sigma.Google Scholar
  8. Beeson, Mark und Diane Stone. 2013. The Changing Fortunes of a Policy Entrepreneur: The Case of Ross Garnaut. Australian Journal of Political Science 48(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  9. Béland, Daniel. 2005. Ideas and Social Policy: An Institutionalist Perspective. Social Policy & Administration 39(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
  10. Béland, Daniel. 2009. Gender, Ideational Analysis, and Social Policy. Social Politics 16(4): 558–581.Google Scholar
  11. Bendel, Petra. 2006. Migrations- und Integrationspolitik der Europäischen Union. Widersrpüchliche Trends und ihre Hintergründe. In Politische Steuerung von Integrationsprozessen. Intentionen und Wirkungen, Hrsg. Sigrid Baringhorst, 95–120. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  12. Bendor, Jonathan, Terry M. Moe und Kenneth W. Shotts. 2001. Recycling the garbage can. An assessment of the research program. American Political Science Review 95(1): 169–190.Google Scholar
  13. Birkland, Thomas A. 1997. After disaster. Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Blankenau, Joe. 2001. The Fate of National Health Insurance in Canada and the United States. A Multiple Streams Explanation. Policy Studies Journal 29(1): 38–55.Google Scholar
  15. Blow Adrian Maryhelen D. MacInnes Jessica Hamel Barbara Ames Esther Onaga Kendal Holtrop, Lisa Gorman und Sheila Smith. 2012. National Guard Service Members Returning Home After Deployment: The Case for Increased Community Support. Administration and Poli cy in Mental Health 39(5): 383–393.Google Scholar
  16. Boscarino, Jessica E. 2009. Surfing for Problems:. Advocacy Group Strategy in U. S. Forestry Poli cy. Policy Studies Journal 37(3): 415–434.Google Scholar
  17. Brownson, Ross C., Rachel Seiler und Amy A. Eyler. 2010. Measuring the Impact of Public Health Policy. Preventing Chronic Disease 7(4): 1–7.Google Scholar
  18. Brunner, Steffen. 2008. Understanding Policy Change: Multiple Streams and Emission Trading in Germany. Global Environmental Change 18: 501–507.Google Scholar
  19. Bundgaard, Ulrik und Karsten Vrangbæk. 2007. Reform by Coincidence? Explaining the Policy Process of Structural Reform in Denmark. Scandinavian Political Studies 30(4): 491–520.Google Scholar
  20. Bürgin, Alexander. Salience, path dependency and the coalition between the European Commission and the Danish Council Presidency. Why the EU opened a visa liberalisation process with Turkey. European Integration online Papers 17: 1–19.Google Scholar
  21. Cairney, Paul. 2009. The Role of Ideas in Policy Transfer:. The Case of UK Smoking Bans Since Devolution. Journal of European Public Policy 16(3): 471–488.Google Scholar
  22. Clark, Brad T. 2004. Agenda Setting and Issue Dynamics: Dam Breaching on the Lower Snake River. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 17(7): 599–609.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, Michael D., James G. March und Johan P. Olsen. 1972. A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
  24. Cook, Jeffrey J. und Sara R. Rinfret. 2013. The Environmental Protection Agency Regulates Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Is Anyone Paying Attention?. Review of Political Research 30(3): 263–280.Google Scholar
  25. Copeland, Paul und Scott James. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Craig, Rebekah L., Holly C. Felix, Jada F. Walker und Martha M. Phillips. 2010. Public Health Professionals as Policy Entrepreneurs: Arkansas’s Childhood Obesity Policy Experience. American Journal of Public Health 100(11): 2047–2052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dudley, Geoff. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Elzen, Boelie, Frank W. Geels, Cees Leeuwis und Barbara van Mierlo. 2011. Normative contestation in transitions ‚in the making‘: Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry. Research Policy 40(2): 263–275.Google Scholar
  29. Eshbaugh-Soha, Matthew. 2005. The Politics of Presidential Agendas. Political Research Quarterly 58(2): 257–268.Google Scholar
  30. Exworthy, Mark, Lee Berney und Martin Powell. 2002. ‚How great expectations in Westminister may be dashed locally‘: the local implementation of national policy on health inequalities. Policy & Politics 30(1): 79–96.Google Scholar
  31. Exworthy, Mark und Martin Powell. 2004. Big windows and little windows: Implementation in the ‚congested state‘. Public Administration 102(12): 2294–2302.Google Scholar
  32. Fischer, Thomas B. 2004. Transport policy making and SEA in Liverpool, Amsterdam and Berlin – 1997–2002. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24(3): 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Font, Nuria und Joan Subirats. 2010. Water Management in Spain: the Role of Policy Entrepreneurs in Shaping Change. Ecology and Society 15(2): 25Google Scholar
  34. Gagnon, France, Jean Turgeon und Clémence Dallaire. 2007. Healthy public policy. A conceptual cognitive framework. Health Policy 81(1): 42–55.Google Scholar
  35. Gauvin, Françoise-Pierre, Juli Abelson, Mita Giacomini., John Eyles und John N Lavis. 2011. Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community. Inter national Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 27(1): 43–49.Google Scholar
  36. Gent, Chariti E. 2000. Needle exchange policy adoption in American cities: Why not? Policy Sciences 33(2): 125–153.Google Scholar
  37. Geva-May, Iris. 2004. Riding the Wave of Opportunity: Termination in Public Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14(3): 309–333.Google Scholar
  38. Gimpel, James G., Frances E. Lee und Rebecca U. Thorpe. 2012. Geographic Distribution of the Federal Stimulus of 2009. Political Science Quarterly 127(4): 567–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gladwin, Catherine P., John Church und Ronald C. Plotnikoff. 2008. Public policy processes and getting physical activity into Alberta’s urban schools. Canadian Journal of Public Health 99(4): 332–338.Google Scholar
  40. Godwin, Marcia L. und Jean Reith Schroedel. 2000. Policy Diffusion and Strategies for Promoting Policy Change:. Evidence from California Local Gun Ordinances. Policy Studies Journal 28(4): 760–776.Google Scholar
  41. Goldfinch, Shaun und Paul ’t Hart. 2003. Leadership and Institutional Reform: Engineering Macroeconomic Policy Change in Australia. Governance 16(2): 235–270.Google Scholar
  42. Guiraudon, Virginie. 2000. European Integration and Migration Policy: Vertical Policy-making as Venue Shopping. Journal of Common Market Studies 38(2): 251–271.Google Scholar
  43. Herweg, Nicole. 2015. Against all odds: The Liberalisation of the European Natural Gas Market. A Multiple Streams Perspective. In Energy Policy Making in the EU: Building the Agenda, Hrsg. Jale Tosun, Sophie Biesenbender und Kai Schulze. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Herweg, Nicole. 2013a. Clarifying the Concept of Policy Communities in the Multiple Streams Approach. Paper prepared for the workshop „Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints“ at the 41st ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops. Mainz.Google Scholar
  45. Herweg, Nicole. 2013b. Der Multiple-Streams-Ansatz – ein Ansatz, dessen Zeit gekommen ist? Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 7(4): 321–345.Google Scholar
  46. Herweg, Nicole, Christian Huß und Reimut Zohlnhöfer. 2014. Straightening the Three Streams: Theorizing Extensions of the Multiple Streams Framework. Manuskript. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  47. Howlett, Michael. 1998. Predictable and Unpredictable Policy Windows: Institutional and Exogenous Correlates of Canadian Federal Agenda-Setting. Canadian Journal of Political Science XXXI(3): 495–524.Google Scholar
  48. Howlett, Michael, Allan McConnell und Anthony Perl. 2013. Stages, Cycles, Soups, Streams and Windows: Reconciling Mixed Metaphors of the Policy Process. Paper prepared for the workshop „Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints“ at the 41st ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops. Mainz.Google Scholar
  49. John, Peter. 2003. Is There Life After Policy Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, and Punctuations. Using Evolutionary Theory to Explain Policy Change? Policy Studies Journal 31(4): 481–498.Google Scholar
  50. John, Peter. 2012. Analyzing public policy. 2. Aufl. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Keeler, John T. S. 1993. Opening the Window for Reform – Mandates, Crises, and Extraordinary Policy-Making. Comparative Political Studies 25(4): 433–486.Google Scholar
  52. Kendall, Jeremey. 2000. The mainstreaming of the third sector into public policy in England in the late 1990s: why and wherefores. Policy and Politics 28(4): 541–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kenney, Sally J. 2003. Where Is Gender in Agenda Setting? Women & Politics 25(1/2): 179–207.Google Scholar
  54. King, David C. 1994. John Kingdon as an agenda item. Policy Currents 4(3): 17–20.Google Scholar
  55. Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  56. Kingdon, John W. 1994. Agendas, Ideas, and Policy Change. In New perspectives on American politics, Hrsg. Lawrence C. Dodd und Calvin C. Jillson, 215–230. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  57. Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  58. Kingdon, John W. 2010. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. White Plains: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  59. Knaggǻrd, Ǻsa. 2013. Framing the Problem: Knowledge Brokers in the Multiple Streams Approach. Paper prepared for the workshop „Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints“ at the 41st ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops. Mainz.Google Scholar
  60. Kuhlmann, Johanna. 2013. Clear enough to be proven wrong? The concept of bounded rationality in the multiple streams framework. Paper prepared for the workshop „Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints“ at the 41st ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops. Mainz.Google Scholar
  61. Lieberman, Joyce M. 2002. Three Streams and Four Policy Entrepreneurs Converge: A Policy Window Opens. Education and Urban Society 34(2): 438–450.Google Scholar
  62. Lipson, Michael. 2007. A „Garbage Can Model“ of UN Peacekeeping. Global Governance 13: 79–97.Google Scholar
  63. Liu, Xinsheng, Eric Lindquist, Arnold Vedelitz und Kenneth Vincent. 2010. Understanding Local Policymaking:. Policy Elites’ perceptions of Local Agenda Setting and Alternative Policy Selection. Policy Studies Journal 38(1): 69–91.Google Scholar
  64. Luhmann, Niklas. 1987. Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  65. McLendon, Michael K. 2003. Setting the Governmental Agenda for State Decentralization of Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education 74(5): 479–515.Google Scholar
  66. McLendon, Michael K. und Lora Cohen-Vogel. 2008. Understanding Education Policy Change in the American States. Lessons from Political Science. In Handbook of Education Politics and Policy, Hrsg. Bruce S. Cooper, James G. Cibulka und Lance D. Fussarelli, 35–50. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Miebach, Bernhard. 2012. Organisationstheorie. Problemstellung – Modelle – Entwicklung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  68. Mills, Michael R. 2007. Stories of Politics and Policy: Florida’s Higher Education Governance Reorganization. The Journal of Higher Education 78(2): 162–187. 10.1353/jhe.2007.0011.Google Scholar
  69. Mintrom, Michael. 1997. Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation. American Journal of Political Science 41(3): 738–770.Google Scholar
  70. Mucciaroni, Gary. 1992. The Garbage Can Model & the Study of Policy Making: A Critique. Polity 24(3): 459–482.Google Scholar
  71. Mucciaroni, Gary. 2013. The garbage can model and the study of the policy-making process. In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, Hrsg. Eduardo Araral, Scott Fritzen, Michael Howlett, M. Ramesh und Xun Wu, 320–328. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Münter, Michael. 2005. Verfassungsreform im Einheitsstaat. Die Politik der Dezentralisierung in Großbritannien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  73. Natali, David. 2004. Europeanization, Policy Areas, and Creative Opportunism: The Politics of Welfare State Reforms in Italy. Journal of European Public Policy 11(6): 1077–1095.Google Scholar
  74. Ness, Erik C. 2010. The Politics of Determining Merit Aid Eligibility Criteria. An Analysis of the Policy Process. Journal of Higher Education 81(1): 33–60.Google Scholar
  75. Ness, Erik C. und Molly A. Mistretta. 2009. Policy Adoption in North Carolina and Tennessee: A Comparative Case Study of Lottery Beneficiaries. Review of Higher Education 32(4): 489–514.Google Scholar
  76. Oborn, Eivor, Michael Barrett und Mark Exworthy. 2011. Policy entrepreneurship in the development of public sector strategy: the health of London health reform. Public Administration 89(2): 325–344.Google Scholar
  77. Pralle, Sarah B. 2009. Agenda-setting and climate change. Environmental Politics 18(5): 781–799.Google Scholar
  78. Richardson, Jayson W. 2005. Toward Democracy: A Critique of a World Bank Loan to the United Mexican States. Review of Policy Research 22(4): 473–482.Google Scholar
  79. Ridde, Valéry. 2009. Policy implementation in an African state. An extension of Kingdon’s multiple- streams approach. Public Administration 87(4): 938–954.Google Scholar
  80. Robinson, Scott E. und Warren S. Eller. 2010. Participation in Policy Streams: Testing the Separation of Problems and Solutions in Subnational Policy Systems. Policy Studies Journal 38(2): 199–215.Google Scholar
  81. Rowlands, Ian H. 2007. The Development of Renewable Electricity Policy in the Province of Ontario: The Influence of Ideas and Timing. Review of Policy Research 24(3): 185–207.Google Scholar
  82. Rüb, Friedbert W. 2008. Policy-Analyse unter den Bedingungen von Kontingenz. Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zu einer möglichen Neuorientierung. In Die Zukunft der Policy-Forschung. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen, Hrsg. Frank Janning und Katrin Toens, 88–111. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  83. Rüb, Friedbert W. 2009. Multiple-Streams-Ansatz: Grundlagen, Probleme und Kritik. In Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse 2.0., Hrsg. Klaus Schubert und Nils C. Bandelow, 348–376. 2. Aufl. München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  84. Sabatier, Paul A. 1991. Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process. PS: Political Science & Politics 24: 147–156.Google Scholar
  85. Sabatier, Paul A. 2007. Fostering the Development of Policy Theory. In Theories of the Policy Process, Hrsg. Paul A. Sabatier, 321–336.Google Scholar
  86. Sager, Fritz und Yvan Rielle. 2013. Sorting through the garbage can: under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs? Policy Sciences 46(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
  87. Schlager, Edella. 2007. A Comparison of Frameworks, Theories, and Models of Policy Processes. In Theories of the Policy Process, Hrsg. Paul A. Sabatier, 293–319.Google Scholar
  88. Schwartz, Robert und Allan McConell. 2009. Do crises help remedy regulatory failure? A comparative study of the Walkerton water and Jerusalem banquet hall disasters. Canadian Public Administration 52(1): 91–112.Google Scholar
  89. Sharma, Alankaar. 2008. Decriminalising Queer Sexualities in India. A Multiple Streams Approach. Social Policy and Society 7(4): 419–431.Google Scholar
  90. Simon, Marc V. und Les R. Alm. 1995. Policy Windows and Two-Level Games: Explaining the Passage of Acid-Rain Legislation in the Clean Air Act of 1990. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 13(4): 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Storch, Sabine und Georg Winkel. 2013. Coupling Climate Change and Forest Policy. A Multiple Streams Analysis of Two German Case Studies. Forest Policy and Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013. 01. 009.Google Scholar
  92. Stout, Karen E. und Byron Stevens. 2000. The Case of the Failed Diversity Rule: A Multiple Streams Analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22(4): 341–355.Google Scholar
  93. Tallberg, Jonas. 2003. The Agenda-Shaping Powers of the EU Council Presidency. Journal of European Public Policy 10(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
  94. Travis, Rick und Nikolaos Zahariadis. 2002. A Multiple Streams Model of U. S. Foreign Aid Policy. Policy Studies Journal 30(4): 495–514.Google Scholar
  95. Walker, Jack L. 1974. Performance Gaps, Policy Research, and Political Entrepreneurs: Toward a Theory of Agenda Setting. Policy Studies Journal 3(1): 112–116.Google Scholar
  96. Walker, Jack L. 1977. Setting the Agenda in the U. S. Senate: A Theory of Problem Selection. British Journal of Political Science 7(4): 423–445.Google Scholar
  97. Walker, Jack L. 1981. The Diffusion of Knowledge, Policy Communities and Agenda Setting: The Relationship of Knowledge and Power. In New Strategic Perspectives on Social Policy, Hrsg. John E. Tropman, Milan J. Dluhy und Roger M. Lind, 75–96. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  98. Weir, Margaret. 1992. Politics and Jobs: The Boundaries of Employment Policy in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 1992. To Sell or Not to Sell? Telecommunications Policy in Britain and France. Journal of Public Policy 12(4): 355–376.Google Scholar
  100. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 1995. Markets, States, and Public Policy. Privatization in Britain and France. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  101. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 1996. Selling British Rail. An idea whose time has come? Comparative Political Studies 29(4): 400–422.Google Scholar
  102. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 1999. Ambiguity, Time, and Multiple Streams. In Theories of the policy process, Hrsg. Paul A. Sabatier, 73–93. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  103. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2003. Ambiguity & Choice in Public Policy. Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2007. The multiple streams framework. Structure, limitations, prospects. In Theories of the policy process, Hrsg. Paul A. Sabatier, 65–92. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  105. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2008. Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European Public Policy 15(4): 514–530.Google Scholar
  106. Zahariadis, Nikolaos und Christoper S. Allen. 1995. Ideas, Networks, and Policy Streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany. Policy Studies Review 14(1/2): 71–98.Google Scholar
  107. Zohlnhöfer, Reimut und Nicole Herweg. 2014. Paradigmatischer Wandel in der deutschen Arbeitsmarktpolitik: Die Hartz-Gesetze, In Rapide Politikwechsel in der Bundesrepublik. Gründe, Akteure, Dynamiken und Probleme, Hrsg. Friedbert W. Rüb, 93–125. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  108. Zohlnhöfer, Reimut und Christian Huß. 2014. How Well Does the Multiple Streams Framework Travel? Evidence from German Case Studies. Heidelberg (Ms.).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Politische WissenschaftRuprecht-Karls-Universität HeidelbergHeidelbergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations