The multiple streams approach (Kingdon, 1995) is similar in structure to punctuated equilibrium, in that it is based on ideas of pre-existing problems that come to policy attention because of a sudden change in circumstance. Kingdon argues that there are essentially two methods of policy prioritisation: agenda-setting, whereby issues worthy of attention are selected from the range of all possible problems, and alternative specification, whereby the set of conceivable alternatives for addressing each problem is selected (Durant and Diehl, 1989, p. 180). The former is characterised by sudden discontinuities and political actors; the latter by incremental change and nonelected members of specialised policy communities. Kingdon suggests that policy formation is best conceptualised as “multiple streams”: a problem stream representing the real-world indicators that a problem exists; a policy stream, in which as range of solutions exists, awaiting a suitable problem, and a political stream comprised of factors that influence the body politic. These three streams flow along independently of one another until a policy window opens and the streams cross each other. (Béland and Howlett, 2016, p. 222).
The creation of these policy windows is subject to another set of influences. Kingdon suggests they can come about through focussing events (for example, a crisis or accident), or through the actions of policy entrepreneurs, advocates for a particular issue who may exist within or outside government. As Kingdon argues:
“windows are opened either by the appearance of compelling problems or by happenings in the political stream. … Policy entrepreneurs, people who are willing to invest their resources in pushing their pet proposals or problems, are responsible not only for prompting important people to pay attention, but also for coupling solutions to problems and for coupling both problems and solutions to politics.” (1995, p. 21).
Once an issue has risen to the top of the policy agenda, it is subject to feedback (akin to information feedback in Baumgartner and Jones’s approach). This feedback may come internally from government officials monitoring the operation of programmes or policies, from scientists researching in policy-relevant areas, from public opinion polls or from interest groups (Liu, Lindquist and Vedlitz, 2011, p. 407).
Kingdon’s model, in which problems and solutions wait in the wings until a policy window opens to allow for their “moment in the sun”, exhibits similarities to the “garbage can” model for policy formation put forward by Cohen et al (1972). Cohen’s model sets itself up in contrast to the comprehensively rational approach, whereby policy makers identify a problem or an aim, bureaucracies carry out a comprehensive analysis to produce various solutions and policy makers then select the best option. According to Cohen, policy makers and policy problems remain ambiguous and bureaucracies therefore have difficulty in researching and proposing solutions. Ultimately, the mix of problems, solutions and choices end up in the garbage can.
Multiple streams theory has been criticised for being too US-centric and insufficiently tested for relevance to other territories (Béland and Howlett, 2016). Furthermore, the vivid language and metaphors of Kingdon’s original text may lead to a situation where the metaphors of streams and windows may become disconnected from the original theory (Ibid, p.224). It has also been criticised for arguing that rapid change can take
place only in the agenda-setting component of policy formation, rather than in both the agenda-setting and alternative specification components. This position means it “cannot fully capture the interaction of these analytically distinct streams.” (Durant and Diehl, 1989, p. 182).
Multiple streams theory draws on organisational theory, while punctuated equilibrium theory draws on evolutionary theory. Both suggest that long-standing social problems can be brought to the top of the policy agenda by means for focussing events (or information shocks) and feedbacks from interested groups, politicians or measurements of the public mood. Media are almost entirely absent from these models. Yet it may be argued that media are the means by which these information shocks are delivered, and feedback amplified. If agenda-setting theory assigns almost complete power to set the public agenda to the media, then these theories of issue dynamics downplays the media’s influence. Liu et al proposed a synthesis of both multiple streams theory and punctuated equilibrium theory – based on “problem indicators”, “focussing events” and “feedback” – which they called an “agenda system perspective” (Liu, Lindquist and Vedlitz, 2011). Again, the role of the media was downplayed in this synthesised model (Schäfer et al., 2014). In a paper which took Liu’s approach as a model, factors relating to media production and journalistic norms and routines were also excluded from consideration on the basis that these routines and norms are relatively stable and do not change over short periods of time (essentially, they are an independent variable), and that levels of coverage of an issue are influenced by factors external to the media rather than by internal factors (Ibid 2014, p. 155). This omission of media influence, and the characterisation of the media as passive conduits in agenda systems, seems to underestimate media influence assigned by agenda-setting and theories of media effects.
Kingdon’s theory formed the theoretical basis for an examination of the promotion of adaptation to climate change in the UK, Finland, Italy and Sweden in which it was found that climate change adaptation experienced some success in the UK due to support from a broad coalition at local and national level whereas support in the other three countries was more dispersed (Keskitalo, Westerhoff and Juhola, 2012). An influential study of US media coverage of climate change and US Congressional hearings on the topic found that the agenda theories of Kingdon and Baumgartner and Jones were largely supported by the empirical evidence (Liu, Lindquist and Vedlitz, 2011). Issue dynamics relating to environmental matters in the Swedish media were found to be complex; increased coverage of some environmental issues can increase media attention for others (Djerf- Pierre 2012b), while in times of crisis, the limited carrying capacity of the media means that news of war and economic crises “crowd out” environmental news (Djerf-Pierre 2012a).