Abstract
AbstractThis article applies a modified Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to an in-depth case study of the contentious issue of integrating ethics into the Norwegian oil fund strategy. By exploring how ethical investment guidelines evolved from a discredited and allegedly unrealistic idea into policy consensus and, ultimately, a global exemplar, the study contributes to the literature in two ways. First, it contributes to the ongoing theoretical refinement of the MSF perspective by illustrating how the framework proves valuable in examining both agenda-setting and decision-making processes. Specifically, it confirms the relevance of a two-phase model for a more rigorous analysis of the decision-making process. Second, while prior literature defines the output of agenda-setting as a ready proposal, it is demonstrated that this outcome may not necessarily signify a fully developed policy proposal. To account for a broader range of scenarios, this article suggests redefining the output of the agenda-setting process as a policy commitment, rather than a worked-out proposal ready for negotiations in the political stream. Acknowledging the uncertainty and ambiguity in the decision-making process highlights the significance of developments in the problem and policy streams that past literature has not given due attention. Consequently, the article proposes a revised two-phase model to enhance the conceptualisation of decision-making within the MSF.
Funder
Kristiania University College
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Public Administration,General Social Sciences,Sociology and Political Science,Development
Reference51 articles.
1. Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (2002). Conducting and coding elite interviews. PS: Political Science & Politics, 35(4), 673–76.
2. Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (2006). The past and future of political-administrative relations: Research from bureaucrats and politicians to in the web of politics—And beyond. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(12), 977–995.
3. Ackrill, R., & Kay, A. (2011). Multiple streams in EU policy-making: The case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 72–89.
4. Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887.
5. Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. The Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 13.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献