Multiple Streams Approach in the Perspective of Scientific Research Programme: Preliminary Notes

The Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) has been rapidly developing approach to the study of policy process in recent years (e.g. special issues in European Journal of Political Research (2015); Policy Studies Journal (2016); Policy Sciences (2016) etc.). Involved policy scholars has expanded its empirical scope and area as well as proposed its theoretical refinements. However, this rapid development emphasizes a tension between the need for a theoretical and empirical extension, on the one hand, and the need for clarity and coherence of a theory, on the other hand. Therefore, it can bring some serious problems such as a threat of misconception in MSA use because authors may formulate expansions and refinements, which are not compatible with the core of MSA. To avoid these problems, I propose, following Sabatier’s and Weible’s approach (e.g. Jenkins-Smith et al., 2014), to apply the Lakatos’ conception of scientific research programme (e.g. 1968, 1970, 1971) to the study of MSA development. This conception seems to provide not only a clear structure for its analysis, but also criteria for assessing particular proposals and extensions such as “hard core”, “protective belt”, “progressive/degenerative problem-shifts” etc. My paper aims to discuss this perspective and to apply, in the pilot study, these criteria to the existing codified “hard core” of MSA basic assumptions and concepts (Zahariadis 1999, 2003, 2007, 2014) and current special issues on MSA (European Journal of Political Research (2015); Policy Studies Journal (2016); Policy Sciences (2016); Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis (forthcoming)) representing the “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses. It should allow me to assess whether particular proposals extend the explanatory scope of the existing approach or not (“progressive/degenerative problem-shifts”), and thus, to indicate how usefully they contribute to formulating a more robust MSA through greater understanding of the dynamics involved. This conceptualization may also inspire policy scholars to study the development dynamics of other approaches in a similar way, and therefore, to enhance our understanding of the study of policy process in general.