Advancing Problem Framing in the Multiple Streams Framework

A Refined Model of the Problem Stream and Its Key Settings

Bibliographic Data

ID6445486
AuthorsWenjin Chen (0009-0007-8511-7572, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), Naubahar Sharif (0000-0002-2496-9938, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), X Wang (0009-0006-8109-1996), Wang Xinyi (0000-0002-0334-2810, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)
Year2025
Volume53
Issue5
Publication date2025-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitics & Policy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1555-5623 • E-ISSN: 1747-1346
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/polp.70083
OpenAlexW4414984287
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited90

In response to calls to extend the theoretical development of the multiple streams framework (MSF), this article proposes the integration of a refined problem framing process model and its key settings into the MSF. Despite its popularity in recent decades, the MSF has not systematically addressed the role of contextual factors in the problem framing process. We conceptualize problem framing in the MSF context as a continuous, dynamic process that proceeds in three critical phases: recognition and disclosure of a situation, engagement with the public and society, and activation of key actors. We argue that problem identification in public policy is completed through these phases, rather than being determined solely by key actors such as the problem broker and the policy entrepreneur. Additionally, we categorize important contextual factors for problem framing into four key settings: institutional, knowledge, ideological, and social. We assert that these settings are essential for the emergence and effectiveness of key actors in driving problem framing. An empirical illustration using the mental health equity policy process in Australia demonstrates the model and settings and their significance compared with the original problem stream analysis in the MSF. By introducing this refined model, the article contributes to enhancing the analytical precision and empirical applicability of the MSF, offering a more comprehensive understanding of how public problems are constructed. The study suggests that the transition in policymaking from situations to public problems should be further explored in public policy theory, while future research should test the proposed model in other policy areas and contexts. Related Articles Bache, I. 2025. “The Multiple Streams Framework and Non‐Politicized Issues: The Case of Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide.” Politics & Policy 53, no. 1: e70016. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.70016 . Angervil, G. 2021. “A Comprehensive Application of Kingdon‘s Multiple Streams Framework: An Analysis of the Obama Administration‘s No Child Left Behind Waiver Policy.” Politics & Policy 49, no. 5: 980–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12432 . Rawat, P. and J. C. Morris. 2016. “Kingdon‘s ‘Streams’ Model at Thirty: Still Relevant in the 21st Century?” Politics & Policy 44, no. 4: 608–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12168

Construction Project Management and Performance · Education and Public Policy · Evaluation and Performance Assessment

Tools

Open DOI