Policy Process
2.2.4 The Political Stream
In other words, the problem stream is the problem condition and significance, which affect the policy formulator and the overall society. The indicator of such problem could be in number or statistic which indicate the damage from the problem, such as the number of unemployment, the statistic of decreasing household income after the 1997 economic crisis in Thailand. Problem stream also include the threats from the event and crises. For example, the 1997 economic crisis affected all sector. And there would be the feedback which acquire even more attention to the problem, such as the feedback of 1997 economic crisis which impact the influential scholars within the academic circle and policy formulation’s solution against dependency on the world economy. The perspective at that time was that Thailand must escape the world capitalism system through the socialism approach which aim to empower the grassroots and community. For example, King Rama IX suggested the sufficiency economy and new approach of agriculture, Chattip Natsupa proposed the approach of community culture, and Kitti Limskul proposed the One Tambon One Product (OTOP) approach, etc.
in the same way with the political pressure from both the oppositional party and the support party who could influence the problem significance. And lastly, the political stream occurs due to the situations in the government, such as the transfer of those who were appointed in the major positions which could be either supportive or obstructive factor for the policy issue significance (Chow, 2014; Kingdon, 2003; Young et al., 2010; Larkin, 2012; Zohlnhöfer & Rüb, 2016). For example, the national mood after the 1997 economic crisis in Thailand was seeking the new political choice. Therefore, the Thai Rak Thai party under Pol. Lt. Col. Dr. Thaksin Shinnawatra presented themselves as the new alternative for Thai politics under the slogan “new idea, new action” which was well received by the Thai society in terms of the pressure group campaign, election result, changes of administration. During the year 2001, the government party or the Thai Rak Thai which was led by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinnawatra who was called Thailand’s CEO from the total authority which was backed up by 19 million voters. In other words, the former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinnawatra had the highest authority in selecting any policy from the primeval soup at the time.
Another important element of the Multiple Streams Model is the policy entrepreneur, which refers to the policy entrepreneurs who motivate or support the policy problems. The policy entrepreneurs would act as the mediator or agent who coordinate as well as negotiate with the related persons in the policy process. Kingdon divided the policy entrepreneurs in 2 types, which are; the visible policy entrepreneurs who usually hold the important political position such as the senate, or the interest groups, lobbyists, or even the NGOs, and the hidden policy entrepreneurs such as the bureaucrats, consultants, or scholars who would work in the background. When the problem stream emerges in the society and receive attention from the policy authority, the hidden policy entrepreneurs would propose the alternatives to be selected, by performing the role of supporters and presenters, and would sacrifice various resources in order to appoint the policy within the agenda setting during the suitable time and situation (Kingdon, 2003, pp. 68-70, 122-124).
On the other hand, the policy entrepreneurs would merge the three streams together and act to support the policy. Here, Kingdon described the policy entrepreneurs as those who intend to invest their own resources such as time, energy, reputation, and money, in order to support the better status for the future in terms of material and
objective benefits (Kingdon, 2003, as cited in Zohlnhöfer & Rüb, 2016, p. 5). Thus, the policy entrepreneurs should be counted as the important part of the Multiple Stream Model, as the policy formulator might not clearly understand the problems and lack enough knowledge for solving problems (Zohlnhöfer & Rüb, 2016, p. 5). Hence, the policy entrepreneurs would have the role within the political stream and policy stream, that they must act as soon as the policy window is open, or else the opportunity would be wasted (Chow, 2014, p. 52).
Within the policy windows, any public problems enter the agenda setting and receive attention from the policy formulator depends on the situation or opportunity. If the situational allows, it would mean that the policy window is open and ready for the policy problem to enter the agenda setting. On the contrary, if the situation is not favorable, it would mean that the policy window is closed down. The policy window can be open and closed according to the situation. Therefore, the policy agenda setters who might be the policy entrepreneurs or those within the policy community must prepare their own policy proposal to be ready at all times. So that when the policy window is open, they could hurriedly advocate their problem agenda into the agenda setting. This is the important characteristic of the Multiple Streams Model, that under some situations the policy window would be open, such as during the crisis or political change as when the government is changed. But the policy window could be closed swiftly if it was found that the particular public problem could not be solved or the solution is not accepted politically, or if opening the policy window would obstruct the benefit of any influencer to the policy formulation. In addition, the policy entrepreneurs must also know how to propose the policy so that it could be considered within the political condition and the society’s context (Kingdon, 2003, pp. 165-190).
Nevertheless, when the policy proposal enter the agenda setting or already received attention from the policy formulator, some problem agenda might be rejected or receive no decision according to the general process and step of policy formulation.
Policy rejection could occur due to many reasons such as the case when the policy formulator suspend the particular policy due to the conflict between the proposal and political advantage, or it could be the socially sensitive agenda for the mass, or the senior officials might suspend the policy to avoid any political consequence or conflict
with their own benefits. And in some case, responding to the political need rather than the people could cause some policy proposal to be rejected.
If there is no obstruction in any process, the 3 streams would merge and result in the policy window opening. The policy window means the opportunity to support the proposal in order to advocate the solution policy. The opportunity could originate from the change within the problem stream or the political stream, such as the result of change within the government or parliament (Zohlnhöfer & Rüb, 2016, p. 5).
When the policy opportunity emerges, it would lead to the policy outputs.
Therefore, the policy window opening is the opportunity for the policy entrepreneurs to advocate those related to policy formulation as well as the society to be aware of the problem agenda. The policy proposal could then have support from the political stream enough to influence the decision towards the desired direction. The policy window might be open from the situation at hand, and would be an essential condition for the policy change. The three major streams must also ripened together, which means that the solution must be linked to the problem and receive attention to the policy formulator within the political streams. Meanwhile, the policy formulator must respond to the problem and suggestion for solving problem as well. When all of these conditions occur, it means the policy window has opened and the three major streams are ripened (Kingdon, 2003, as cited in Zohlnhöfer & Rüb, 2016, p. 5). And the policy window usually open and close with fast speed, so the policy entrepreneurs must link the three streams within a limited time, under the support for decision by the person with highest authority. In other words, when the policy window is open, the policy partners must use this opportunity right away to merge the 3 streams and advocate the policy decision towards the policy agenda, that it would become the public policy.
As for the debate on the application of Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model outside the United States’ political environment, Chow (2014) provided the proof in the research “Understanding Policy Change: Multiple Streams and National Education Curriculum Policy in Hong Kong” that Kingdon’s theory can be applied with the context within the Asian nations as well. Furthermore, it could help the policy formulator to better understand and manage the policy process (Chow, 2014, p. 50).
The research, “Understanding Agenda Setting in State Educational Policy: An Application of Kingdon’ s Multiple Streams Model to the Formation of State Reading
Policy (2010)” by Young, Shepley, and Song, is the demonstration that Kingdon’s theory can be applied for the study of national policy process (Young et al., 2010, p. 14). Furthermore, this research also prioritize the study of the governor’s role in the 3 streams of problem stream, policy stream, and political stream, in order to understand the influence of the governor in the agenda setting process (Young et al., 2010, p. 5).
Meanwhile, Charles (2011, pp. 71-72) who studied the higher education policy change of Ontario state and the College of Applied Arts and Technology (CAATs) in Canada by using Kingdon’s theory, explained that the choice of Multiple Stream Model was chosen as it was the most suitable model when comparing to other options such as the Rational Comprehensive Planning model, Incrementalism, Public Choice Theory, Historical Institutionalism, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, Advocacy Coalition Framework, as it could explain the policy development process. Charles also added that the Multiple Stream Model is not the inclusive theory and does not cover all dimension of the policy process, especially the policy implementation and evaluation. But Kingdon’s theory put priority on the process prior to the decision in the policy development process, which Kingdon called the agenda setting.
Eustis (2000, pp. 186-187) who studied the inclusive service policy with the United States’ 1996 Telecommunication Act, by testing and comparing the agenda setting theory of John Kingdon, and Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones pointed out that the strength of Kingdon’s theory is the flexibility of the three streams approach, which could be adjusted to suit the elusiveness of the policy process. Moreover, the theory’s strength is also the explanation of the government officers and the policy community, as well as prioritizing the policy information such as budget prediction and systematic follow-up as the policy change facilitator. However, the weakness of this theory is that it prioritizes the agenda setting as the academic process and over look the political will and the public participation.
Another research, “An Agenda Setting Analysis: the Application of Kingdon's Framework to the Road Accident Fund (RAF)” by Lindokuhle Angel Ndlovu which also utilize Kingdon’s theory in the survey of policy agenda setting of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) in South Africa, emphasis the importance of participants in the policy agenda setting process by referring to Kingdon’s theory. According to Kingdon, the participants in the policy agenda setting can be divided in 2 groups; the actors inside
government and the actors outside the government. From Kingdon’s perspective, the participants / actors refer to everyone who initiate the policy agenda setting, including the President, the political appointee, or even the other drive from outside the government such as the press, the interest group, and general citizen. Here, Kingdon proposed that the most important people in the policy agenda setting process are those within the government, including the President, the political appointee, as well as the bureaucrats. The actors outside the government would include the groups such as professional groups, labor groups, interest groups, and the public who could affect the agenda setting process in two ways; campaigning for the government to execute the measure, or attempting to get the government officer to pay attention to the problem agenda (Ndlovu, 2008, pp. 38-44).
In terms of strength, Chow (2014) pointed out that the Multiple Streams Model is based on the empirical study, which collect the data from interviewing with the public health and logistics policy formulators in the United States for total 247 persons.
Furthermore, it is also the appropriate alternative theory for coping with the ambiguity in the policy formulation process. Baumgartner (2016) proposed that apart from the quality of writing, Kingdon’s research also become the instrument for teaching in various subjects, whether the basic United States politics, the study of legislative process, interest group, and policy formulation. The Multiple Streams Model also focus on the behavioral study, on who play what role within the policy community. And finally, Kingdon’s work was also complimented on the appendix with the correct research methodology which explain the questionnaire and the interview process.
Meanwhile, this theory was also criticized by the scholars and policy formulators in various perspectives. Even if the theory is suitable for the reality of policy formulation, but the Multiple Streams Model is still limited in application, as Kingdon never attempt to test this theory outside the United States territory. In this matter, Chow (2014) further explained with reference from the research findings that the political condition of the eastern nation differs from the western nation due to the cultural, historical, and political ideal differences. Another important limitation is that this model does not correspond to the importance consequences of mass media, especially the social media. The media influence is something which cannot be avoid and also important to the policy process, as the media could raise the problem agenda
towards the policy agenda setting. Kindon’s theory was also questioned on the independency of the three major streams which influence the policy formulation process (Chow, 2014, p. 53). This corresponded to the study by Zohlnhöfer and Rüb (2016) which explained that although this theory was successful, Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model still receive criticism due to the lack of hypothesis which can be tested, as Sabatier (2007, as cited in Zohlnhöfer & Rüb, 2016) stated that “the Multiple Streams Model has no clear hypothesis and highly elusive in structure and the research process, which makes it hard to prove the fact”. Moreoever, Kingdon’s metaphorical language which explain the theory was also another important problem, whether the definition of the word stream, policy opportunity opening, merging, policy entrepreneurs, were all the examples of the concept which lack clarity and precision in analysis. The researches related to the Multiple Streams Model are described below.
Charles (2011)’s study, Policy Windows and Changing Arrangement: An Analysis of the Policy Process Leading to the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, aimed to study the change in the higher education policy of Ontario state and the College of Applied Arts and Technology in Canada during the late 20th century and early 21th century. This research was a qualitative research which collect data from primary and secondary document from 1990-2002, as well as the structured in-depth interview with the policy actors and the important policy entrepreneurs. And in the year 2002, the Ontario State government reviewed the status of academic degree certification of those who graduate with bachelor degree, resulting in the change in the management of CAATs. The new education policy was formulated under the framework of two laws; the Post-Secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000 and the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002. The researcher applied John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Theory to collect the data and result. According to Kingdon’s theory, the policy is the result of the complex process prior to the decision which is connected to the problem stream, policy stream, and the political stream during the time of policy window opening. And in this case, although the society and population growth might change, but the Ontario’s higher education system is still strict, as it monopolized all degree authorization of every university under the Degree Authorization Act, 1983, until the new policy is changed with the Post- Secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, added more choices for Ontario
citizens. And the CAAT proposed the bachelor’s degree project after the policy reviewing by the Post-Secondary Education Quality Assurance Committee and the policy approval by the Ministry. And Anne Caroline Charles’s study also found the evidence which support Kingdon’s Multiple Stream Model. Nevertheless, there are 2 issues in the problem streams; the macro policy structure which designate the condition and limitation of choices appropriate to the policy goal and policy solution, and the micro policy structure which was constructed and connected to the benefit specifically.
Furthermore, this research also found that the former institutional structure and the institute itself have important influence to the policy development, as the policy change was the result of policy window opening and the policy entrepreneurs, together with the policy stream which change the consequence.
Chow’s (2014) study, Understanding Policy Change: Multiple Streams and National Education Curriculum Policy in Hong Kong, aim to study the process Moral and National Education (MNE) policy formulation in Hong Kong by using John Kingdon’s Multiple Stream Model as the foundation of analysis. The research could be divided in 3 parts, starting by stating the background, problems, process, as well as the political conditions within the context of MNE policy, following by the evaluation of Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Theory as the potential explanation of MNE policy changes, and finally using the theory to study the MNE policy formulation process.
Here, Kingdon’s theory was suitable as the policy formulation is dynamic, non-rational, and unpredictable. Furthermore, the theory also focus on the three streams within the context of policy formulation, which includes the problem stream, political stream, and policy stream. The three streams would merge due to the policy window and the operation of policy entrepreneurs. It was found that the process of MNE policy formulation corresponded to Kingdon’s Multiple Stream Model, which was also the good example to explain how the policy problem could emerge in various contexts as well as proposing the suitable solution. The researcher suggested that MNE policy was the merging of three streams according to Kingdon’s theory. In this case, the problem stream which required the government to act instantly was the negative feedback of MNE policy from both the scholars and the authority. Meanwhile, the policy stream covers the solution from the policy expert. In this case, it was mostly agreed that the cancelation of such policy and starting the process of listening to opinion would be
more desirable. One of the policy experts’ suggestion was to suspend the MNE policy and allow the educational institutions to decide whether they want to implement this policy or not. Finally, the political stream involves various factors such as the national mood, the legislative change, and the movement campaign. In this case the political stream reflected the national mood which aim towards the cancelation of MNE policy, as well as the National Legislative Assembly election in September 9th, 2012. The three streams were advocated by the group of policy entrepreneurs, which in this case was the Scholarism who organized a rally to protest the MNE policy 2 days prior to the election of National Legislative Assembly, which involves over 120,000 participants.
This became the policy window which led to the policy change. And finally the Hong Kong government agreed to suspend the MNE policy and allowed the academic institutes to decide by themselves whether to implement the policy or not.
Eustis’s (2000) research, “Agenda-Setting: The Universal Service Case”, aimed to test John Kingdon and Frank Baumgartner/Bryan Jones’s agenda setting theory about its application with the case of inclusive service policy of the United States Telecommunication Act, 1996. The researcher used both the qualitative and quantitative methodology, as well as content analysis of the primary and secondary document about formulation and development of telecommunication policy. According to the study, it was found that the inclusive study was selected as the legislative measure as it was connected to the telecommunication law which must be amended. Even if some policy formulator agreed with the solution according to the market mechanism, which would means the suspension of support for telecommunication service, but the inclusive policy was still a part of telecommunication policy amendment due to the support of the senates from the rural area and the President’s leadership. As for the differences between the theory of Kingdon and Baumgartner / Jones, it was found in this study that Kingdon’s hypothesis about the consequence of event which is the formal cycle and indicator could be used in this case better than Baumgartner and Jones’s Punctuate Equilibrium Model. Furthermore, the influence of interest group was another issue with difference. In case of inclusive service according to Baumgartner and Jones, the interest group would be the major actor in agenda setting. And at the end, the researcher suggested the element of new model which integrate and collecting both the concepts of Kingdon and Baumgartner / Jones for the sake of agenda setting study.