LIST OF PANELS

Although there is a flourishing body of literature on policy processes, the main focus is on western democracies (Jones et al., 2016). English-language studies that apply existing theories to non-western non-democracies remain limited in number and scope. As a result, the extent to which existing policy process theories can be used to explain policy change in non-democracies remains unclear. In our globalized world, domestic issues can easily travel to other parts of the world. COVID-19 is just one example of this. Therefore, it is pivotal to better understand policy making across the world, not just in democracies.

The multiple streams framework (Kingdon, 1984; Zahariadis, 1999, 2007b, 2014) is a case in point: despite it being one of the most popular theories of the policy process (Jones et al., 2016), existing literature almost exclusively focuses on democracies, especially on democracies with advanced economies (Herweg et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2016; Zohlnhöfer et al., 2015). Jones et al. (2016) identified only a handful of English language applications in non-democracies, including Iran, Kazakhstan, the United Arab Emirates, and China. Very few attempts have been made to systematically scrutinize its applicability to non-democracies with the aim of contributing to recent theory developments. As a result, it is unclear to what extent the multiple streams framework (MSF) can be used to explain policy change in non-democracies. This research gap has also been noted by Herweg et al. (2017), who explicitly encourage scholars to adapt the framework to and test it in nondemocratic contexts.

In response, the aim of this panel is to explore the applicability of the multiple streams framework to non-democracies. Key questions are the extent to which the framework needs to be adjusted in order to fit non-democratic contexts and how any such adjustments are best made and how an adjusted framework is best tested. Another relevant question is how to execute such studies given the different research environment of non-democracies and potential obstacles in data collection. Answering these questions will not only contribute to a better understanding of policy making in non-democracies, but also has the potential to contribute to MSF theory development.

References

Herweg, Nicole, Nikolaos Zahariadis, and Reimut Zohlnhöfer. 2017. "The Multiple Streams Framework: Foundations, Refinements, and Empirical Applications." In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier. 4th ed., 17-54. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Jones, Michael D., Holly L. Peterson, Jonathan J. Pierce, Nicole Herweg, Amiel Bernal, Holly Lamberta Raney, and Nikolaos

Zahariadis. 2016. "A River Runs through it: A Multiple Streams Meta-Review." Policy Studies Journal 44 (1): 13-36.

Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown.

Zahariadis, N. (1999). Ambiguity, Time, and Multiple Streams. In Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 73–93). Westview.

Zahariadis, N. (2007). The Multiple Streams Framework. Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 65–92). Westview Press.

Zahariadis, N. (2014). Ambiguity and Multiple Streams. In Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 25–58). Westview.

Zohlnhöfer, R., Herweg, N., & Rüb, F. (2015). Theoretically refining the multiple streams framework: An introduction. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 412–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12102

The multiple streams framework (MSF) is one of the most popular theories of the policy process (Jones et al., 2016). Yet, existing MSF literature almost exclusively focuses on democracies, especially on democracies with advanced economies (Herweg et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2016; Zohlnhöfer et al., 2015). Very few attempts have been made to systematically scrutinize its applicability to non-democracies with the aim of contributing to recent theory developments in the areas of policymaking and the MSF. As a result, many questions remain about policymaking in non-democracies, including the role of restricted information flows in policymaking and how limited political pluralism shapes policymaking. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent the MSF can be used to explain policy change in non-democracies. This research gap has also been noted by Herweg et al. (2017), who explicitly encourage scholars to adapt the framework to and test it in nondemocratic contexts.

This panel aims to contribute to (1) a better understanding of policy processes in non-democracies and (2) MSF theory development. It seeks papers that do not just apply the framework to non-democracies, but also reflect on the applicability of the framework to non-democractic contexts and the extent to which it needs to be adjusted to this different environment given that the MSF was originally developed for agenda-setting in the US. The panel welcomes contributions from any policy area and country, so long as it focuses on non-democratic contexts and contributes to MSF theory development.