Straightening the three streams: Theorising extensions of the multiple streams framework
Abstract
This article suggests theoretical refinements to the multiple streams framework (MSF) that make it applicable to parliamentary systems and the decision‐making stage of the policy process. Regarding the former, the important role of political parties in parliamentary democracies is highlighted. Party policy experts are expected to be members of the policy communities in the policy stream and to promote viable policy alternatives in their respective parties, while the party leadership is concerned with adopting policies in the political stream. With regard to the latter, the introduction of a second coupling process to analyse decision making more rigorously is suggested. Moreover, the article provides operational definitions of the framework's key concepts when applied to parliamentary systems and derives a systematic set of falsifiable hypotheses for agenda‐setting and decision making in these systems, thus addressing one of the main critiques against the MSF – namely that no hypotheses can be derived from it.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schiff, D. S. (2023) · Review of Policy Research · doi:10.1111/ropr.12535 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Plaček, M., Valentinov, V., del Campo, C., Vaceková, G., Ochrana, F., & Šumpíková, M. (2021) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-021-00534-7 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Pallathadka, H., & Roy, P. D. (2025) · Integrated Journal for Research in Arts and Humanities · doi:10.55544/ijrah.5.3.8 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhöfer, R.
- Venue
- European Journal of Political Research
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 435-449
- ISSN
- 0304-4130
- 1475-6765
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review