![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) has developed into one of the major theoretical lenses to explain policy change. However, it has been mostly used to explain policy formation whereas studies on policy termination remain scarce. This article addresses this gap. It combines the MSF and the literature on policy termination to study both the formation and the termination of one and the same policy. We explain why an algorithm-based university admission system in France, Admission Post Bac (APB), was introduced in 2008 before being abolished ten years later. While we find that the problem stream and the political stream were ripe and facilitated policy change in both cases, a policy entrepreneur coupling a policy solution with the open window could only be found for the introduction of APB. Instead, the termination was mainly characterized by enormous problem pressure. Our results contribute to theoretical refinement of the MSF and to empirical studies on political dynamics in the understudied field of algorithmic governance.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Correction Statement
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Notes
1 However, access to the highly selective "Grandes Écoles" is evidently different.
2 Kingdon distinguishes a “governmental agenda” where we find many issues to which people in government give attention, from a “decision agenda” which only contains those issues that call for immediate decision (Kingdon Citation2003, 3–4).
3 However, as Kingdon (Citation2003, 171–172) points out, whether a policy window is actually open is also a matter of perceptions: Actors can also perceive an open policy window when this is not the case or be too late with their proposal.
4 Besides, Kingdon distinguishes between “predictable windows” such as budget cycles and unpredictable ones which are driven, for instance, by focusing events (Kingdon Citation2003, 186–189). Clearly, predictable windows creating regular opportunities for policy entrepreneurs to engage in consequential coupling activities even in absence of a problem at stake.
5 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers to point out this aspect.
6 While our single case study does not allow us to present a systematic analysis of necessary conditions, the theoretical considerations point to the obvious fit between the MSF as theoretical lens and theoretical reasoning based on relationships of necessity and sufficiency (Sager and Thomann Citation2016; Shephard et al. Citation2020).
7 A participation in these “classes préparatoires” (CP) is the usual way to prepare a “grande école” (GE). Classes are usually situated in high schools, very work-intensive and structured in different disciplines. Successful participation in a CPGE is seen as equivalent to earning a B.A. degree.
8 All interviewees have voluntarily participated in the interviews signed an agreement on the storage and use of the results of the interviews (anonymously). We followed standard practice in expert interviewing and fulfilled the guidelines by the German Political Science Association (DVPW Citation2017).
9 If we refer to evidence from the interviews, we will indicate in footnotes the number of the interview. A list with information on the interviews is provided in the Appendix. All interviews have been conducted in French and translated by the authors for the purpose of this article.
10 Interview 3, internal documentation available to the authors.
11 The problem stream, instead, did not seem play a significant role in 2003.
12 Interview 3.
13 Interview 10, Interview 3.
14 Over the years, some special schools joined APB. This explains the increase of programs. In the last years, only a small part of academic institutions did not wish to integrate into APB, such as Science Po Paris.
15 France is organized in 30 académies that represent the national ministries of education and higher education in a de-centralized manner all over France.
16 Over time, the administrative translation of these broad criteria into the ranking algorithm was adjusted here and there: Before 2011, the relative preferences were considered whereas, from 2011, the “first wish” was given an absolute priority and the relative wishes were only taken into account in a second step (Cour des Comptes Citation2017). In addition, the geographical criterion was adjusted to account for the closeness of a student’s residence to the next university (Interview 9). Moreover, several other decisions had been taken for special cases (such as applicants coming from French schools from foreign countries (AEFE)). These were sometimes taken without any legal foundation.
17 Technically, the use of this first ranking was highly problematic because the preferences of the candidates were now used both for the rank order created in APB and the wish list as given by the candidates themselves. This invited strategies on the sides of the students for adjusting their preferences (Grenet Citation2018; Interview 4).
18 Interviews 1, 3.
19 Interview 1.
20 Interview 1.
21 This dialogue was also politically strengthened by the creation of a position of the “delégué interministeriel à l’orientation” in charge to establish a liaison between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Higher Education. Clearly, APB was one of the central instruments to this broader policy change around “active orientation” (Henriet et al. Citation2012).
22 Interview 1.
23 Interview 7.
24 Interviews 1, 3.
25 Interview 3.
26 Interview 10.
27 Interview 7.
28 Internal documentation of APB service.
29 It was only in 2017 that a provision (circulaire) of the Ministry officially acknowledged that the random draw as a criterion was used (see below).
30 Interviews 7, 9.
31 See the report of the Senate in 2016 (Kennel Citation2016), Interview 9.
32 Interview 9.
33 Interview 9.
34 Interview 9.
35 Interview 9.
36 Interview 7.
37 Interview 7.
38 Interview 5.
39 Interview 7.
40 The circulaire was declared invalid by the Conseil d’État (22.12.2017) because the introduction of new selection criteria would have necessitated proper legislation, not a mere administrative decree (Decision no. 410561 of the Conseil d’État).
41 Interview 10.
42 In fact, “ParcourSup”, also uses a similar matching procedure (Cour des Comptes Citation2018). The key difference is the new legal basis (loi “ORE”, March 2018) which enables the non-selective programs with limited capacity to classify candidates.
43 Interview 7.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Georg Wenzelburger
Georg Wenzelburger is Professor of Policy Analysis and Political Economy at the University of Kaiserslautern. His research interests include the politics of welfare state reform, law and order policies and the effects of digitalization on politics. Recent work has been published with Oxford University Press (The partisan politics of law and order) and in leading political science journals such as the British Journal of Political Science, the European Journal of Political Research, Party Politics or West European Politics.
Kathrin Hartmann
Kathrin Hartmann is a research associate at the chair of Policy Analysis and Political Economy at the University of Kaiserslautern. Her research interest lies in the field of public policy analysis, focusing on the effects of digitalization on politics.