Multiple Streams and Plausibility Cones: Using Concepts from Future Studies to Depict Policy Dynamics

References

• Abbott, A. (1988). Transcending general linear reality. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/202114
   Google Scholar
• Adam, C., Hurka, S., Knill, C., & Steinebach, Y. (2020). Policy accumulation and the democratic responsiveness trap. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108646888
   Google Scholar
• Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2023). Public administration and politics meet turbulence: The search for robust governance responses public administration. Public Administration, 101(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12874
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arklay, T., Tiernan, A., and White, H. (2011)Advising ministers – the special problem of defence. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(4): 365–376 ( December 1, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2011.00738.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, A. (2013). The gradual transformation? The incremental dynamics of macroprudential regulation. Regulation & Governance, 7(4), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bali, A. S., Capano, G., & Ramesh, M. (2019). Anticipating and designing for policy effectiveness. Policy and Society, 38(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1579502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bali, A. S., Howlett, M., Lewis, J. M., & Ramesh, M. (2021). Procedural policy tools in theory and practice. Policy and Society, 40(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1965379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131866
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (Eds.). (2002). Policy dynamics. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo3625049.html
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D., & Mortensen, P. B. (2018). Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 55–101). Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Béland, D., & Schlager, E. (2019). Varieties of policy feedback research: Looking backward, moving forward. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benedikter, R., & Karim, F. (2022). “Post-Corona, multi-resilience and ‘futures literacy’: ‘Bring together what belongs together.’” In R. Benedikter & K. Fathi (Eds.), The coronavirus crisis and its teachings (pp. 335–341). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004469686
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, S., Corluka, A., Doherty, J., Tangcharoensathien, V., Patcharanarumol, W., Jesani, A., Kyabaggu, J., Namaganda, G., Hussain, A. M. Z., & de Graft Aikins, A. (2012). Influencing policy change: The experience of health think tanks in low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy and Planning, 27(3), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czr035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bezold, C., & Hancock, T. (1994). “An overview of the health futures field for the WHO health futures consultation.” WHO Consultation. World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Boin, A., & Hart, P. (2003). Public leadership in times of crisis: Mission impossible? Public Administration Review, 63(5), 544–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00318
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boston, J. (2017). Safeguarding the future. Governing in an uncertain world. Bridgit Williams Books.
   Google Scholar
• Breunig, C., Koski, C., & Workman, S. (2016). Knot policy theory. Policy Studies Journal, 44(S1), S123–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12155
   Google Scholar
• Busemeyer, M. R. (2022). Policy feedback and government responsiveness in a comparative perspective. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 63(2), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-022-00377-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairney, P. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy theories. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairney, P., & Jones, M. D. (2016). Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capano, G. (2012). Policy dynamics and change: The never-ending puzzle. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 451–472). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Capano, G., & Woo, J. J. (2018). Designing policy robustness: Outputs and processes. Policy and Society, 37(4), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1504494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerruti, C., Tavoletti, E., & Grieco, C. (2019). Management consulting: A review of fifty years of scholarly research. Management Research Review, 42(8), 902–925. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2018-0100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christine, R. A., & Saint-Martin, D. (2011). Half a century of ‘muddling’: Are we there yet? Policy and Society, 30(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christophilopoulos, E. (2021). Special relativity theory expands the futures Cone’s conceptualisation of the futures and the pasts. Journal of Futures Studies, 26(1), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202109_26(1).0007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage-can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyne, A. (1993). Evaluating public policy: The administrative role. International Journal of Public Administration, 16(8), 1265–1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699308524846
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cremen, G., Galasso, C., & McCloskey, J. (2022). Modelling and quantifying tomorrow’s risks from natural hazards. Science of the Total Environment, 817(April), 152552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152552
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cristofoli, D., Cucciniello, M., Micacchi, M., Trivellato, B., Turrini, A., & Valotti, G. (2022). ‘One, none, and a hundred thousand’ recipes for a robust response to turbulence. Public Administration, July, 12870. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12870
   Google Scholar
• DeLeo, R. A., Zohlnhöfer, R., & Zahariadis, N. (2024). Multiple streams and policy ambiguity (Vol. February). Cambridge University Press Elements in Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009397926
   Google Scholar
• deLeon, P. (1992). Policy formulation: Where ignorant armies clash by night. Policy Studies Review, 11(3/4), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1992.tb00480.x
   Google Scholar
• Dempster, M. A. H., & Wildavsky, A. (1979). On change: Or, there is no magic size for an increment. Political Studies, 27(3), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1979.tb01210.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denyer, D. (2017). Organisational resilience. A summary of academic evidence, business insights and new thinking. BSI and Cranfield School of Management.
   Google Scholar
• Desmarais, B. A. (2019). Punctuated equilibrium or incrementalism in policymaking: What we can and cannot learn from the distribution of policy changes. Research & Politics, 6(3), 2053168019871399. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019871399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhami, M. K., Wicke, L., & Önkal, D. (2022). Scenario generation and scenario quality using the cone of plausibility. Futures, 142(September), 102995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102995
   Google Scholar
• Divers, J. (2002). Possible worlds. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Donnelly, P., & Hogan, J. (2012). Understanding policy change using a critical junctures theory in comparative context: The cases of Ireland and Sweden. Policy Studies Journal, 40(2), 324–350 ( May 1, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00455.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2014). Governments for the future: Building the strategic and agile state. Sitra Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Einhorn, H. J. (1982). Learning from experience and suboptimal rules in decision making. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. T. (Eds.), Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 268–283). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eldredge, N., & Stephen, J. G. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. J. M. Schopf (Ed.), Models in paleobiology (pp. 82–115). Freeman, Cooper & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed scanning: A ‘third’ approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review, 27(5), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.2307/973394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, L. (2020). Scientific advice at a time of emergency. SAGE and covid-19. The Political Quarterly, 91(3), 514–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12885
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gall, T., Vallet, F., & Yannou, B. (2022). How to visualise futures studies concepts: Revision of the futures cone. Futures, 143(October), 103024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.103024
   Google Scholar
• Girle, R. (2010). Modal logics and philosophy (2nd ed.). McGill-Queen’s University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3(2), 115–151. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0094837300005224
   Google Scholar
• Greer, S. L., & Trump, B. (2019). Regulation and regime: The comparative politics of adaptive regulation in synthetic biology. Policy Sciences, 52(4), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09356-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & Ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics: An introduction. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-88338-5
   Google Scholar
• Hall, A., Anderson, P., & Sanzeni, F. (2019). Future forecasting wicked problems: A new framework for design.” In Design and Semantics of Form and Movement. https://www.academia.edu/41581761/Future_Forecasting_Wicked_Problems_A_New_Framework_For_Design
   Google Scholar
• Hancock, T., & Bezold, C. (1994). Possible futures, preferable futures. The Healthcare Forum Journal, 37(2), 23–29.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hayes, M. T. (1992). Incrementalism and public policy. Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Heazle, M., Tangney, P., Burton, P., Howes, M., Grant-Smith, D., Reis, K., & Bosomworth, K. (2013). Mainstreaming climate change adaptation: An incremental approach to disaster risk management in Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 33(November), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.05.009
   Google Scholar
• Heidbreder, E. G. (2017). Public policy, institutional formation, and multilevel policy-making – or ‘how to get it to the people?’. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(14), 1175–1185. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1316286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henchey, N. (1978). Making sense of futures studies. Alternatives, 7(2), 24–28.
   Google Scholar
• Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2015). Straightening the three streams: Theorising extensions of the multiple streams framework. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, J., & Doyle, D. (2009). A comparative framework: How broadly applicable is a ‘rigorous’ critical junctures framework? Acta Politica, 44(2), 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2008.36
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, J., & Feeney, S. (2012). Crisis and policy change: The role of the political entrepreneur. Risk, Hazards, & Crisis in Public Policy, 3(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/1944-4079.1108
   Google Scholar
• Hogan, J., Howlett, M., & Murphy, M. (2022). Re-thinking the coronavirus pandemic as a policy punctuation: COVID-19 as a path-clearing policy accelerator. Policy and Society, 41(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (1998). Predictable and unpredictable policy windows: Institutional and exogenous correlates of Canadian federal agenda-setting. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 31(3), 495–524. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900009100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2019a). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2019b). Procedural policy tools and the temporal dimensions of policy design. International Review of Public Policy, 1(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.310
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2024). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments (3rd ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., Capano, G., & Ramesh, M. (2018). Designing for robustness: Surprise, agility and improvisation in policy design. Policy and Society, 37(4), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1504488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Goetz, K. H. (2014). Introduction: Time, temporality and timescapes in administration and policy. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(3), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314543210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Leong, C. (2022). The ‘inherent vices’ of policy design: Uncertainty, maliciousness, and noncompliance. Risk Analysis, 42(5), 920–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13834
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., McConnell, A., & Perl, A. (2015). Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., McConnell, A., & Perl, A. (2016). Weaving the fabric of public policies: Comparing and integrating contemporary frameworks for the study of policy processes. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1082261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., McConnell, A., & Perl, A. (2017). Moving policy theory forward: Connecting multiple stream and advocacy coalition frameworks to policy cycle models of analysis. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Migone, A. (2011). Charles Lindblom is alive and well and living in punctuated equilibrium land. Policy and Society, 30(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2022). Designing for adaptation: Static and dynamic robustness in policy‐making. Public Administration, April, 12849. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12849
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Walker, R. M. (2012). Public managers in the policy process: More evidence on the missing variable? Policy Studies Journal, 40(2), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00450.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, A. M., & Kent Weaver, R. (2010). Policy feedback and policy change. SSRN scholarly paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1642636
   Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00431.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D., Baumgartner, F. R., & True, J. L. (1998). Policy punctuations: U.S. Budget authority, 1947-1995. Journal of Economic Literature, 60(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647999
   Google Scholar
• Jones, L. R., & Thompson, F. (1984). Incremental vs. Comprehensive reform of economic regulation: Predictable outcomes and unintended consequences. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 43(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1536-7150.1984.TB02218.X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, A., Bauer, M. W., & Green-Pedersen, C. (2013). Policy dismantling. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(5), 795–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.771092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, A., & Matt, E. (2014). Designing policies that intentionally stick: Policy feedback in a changing climate. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9201-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kettl, D. F. (2004). System under stress. CQPress.
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. HarperCollins College Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Leong, C., & Howlett, M. (2022). Policy learning, policy failure, and the mitigation of policy risks: Re-thinking the lessons of policy success and failure. Administration & Society, 54(7), 1379–1401 ( August 1, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211065344
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi-Faur, D., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). New public policy, new policy transfers: Some characteristics of a new order in the making. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(4–6), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690500437147
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling-through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/973677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526. https://doi.org/10.2307/976178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory & Society, 29(4), 507–548. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007113830879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manski, C. F. (2011). Policy analysis with incredible certitude. The Economic Journal, 121(554), F261-F289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02457.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manski, C. F. (2013). Public policy in an uncertain world: Analysis and decisions. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, G., Crenson, M. A., & Crissey, B. L. (1976). Models in the policy process: Public decision making in the computer Era. Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, R. (2011). Being without existing: The futures community at a turning point? A comment on Jay Ogilvy’s ‘facing the Fold’. Foresight, 13(4), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636681111153940
   Google Scholar
• Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00329.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintz, A. (2004). How do leaders make decisions?: A poliheuristic perspective. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002703261056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, M. G. (2017). Theory and practice in policy analysis: Including applications in science and technology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316882665
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2009). The network governance of crisis response: Case studies of incident command systems. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 19(4), 895–915. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nair, S. (2020). Designing policy pilots under climate uncertainty: A conceptual framework for comparative analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(4), 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2019.1695973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nørgård, R. T. (2022). What comes after the ruin? Designing for the arrival of preferable futures for the university. In S. S. E. Bengtsen & R. E. Gildersleeve (Eds.), Transformation of the university (pp. 156–174). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H. (1992). Time and social theory: Towards a social theory of time. Time & Society, 1(3), 421–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X92001003006
   Google Scholar
• Pau, S. S. T., & Hall, A. (2021). New spaces for healthcare futures studies: Connecting existing theory to deeper participatory practice. Futures, 126(February), 102689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102689
   Google Scholar
• Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400841080
   Google Scholar
• Prigogine, I., Stengers, I., & Toffler, A. (2017). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn, J. B. (1978). Strategic change: Logical incrementalism. Sloan Management Review, 20(1), 7–21.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Richard D. Irwin.
   Google Scholar
• Redman, D. A. (1992). A reader’s guide to rational expectations: A survey and comprehensive annotated bibliography. Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Shafran, J. S. (2021). More than agents: Federal bureaucrats as information suppliers in policymaking. Policy Studies Journal, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, G., & May, D. (1980). The artificial debate between rationalist and incrementalist models of decision-making. Policy & Politics, 8(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557380782629005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, A. (2018). New institutionalism, critical junctures and post-crisis policy reform. Australian Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2017.1409335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (Eds.). (1992). Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511528125
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. W. (1988). Alternative world scenarios for strategic planning. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA201065
   Google Scholar
• Thelen, K. (2004). How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790997
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131 ( September 27, 1974). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voros, J. (2017). Big history and anticipation. In R. Poli (Ed.), Handbook of anticipation (pp. 1–40). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31737-3_95-1
   Google Scholar
• Wildavsky, A. (1975). Budgeting: A comparative theory of budgetary process. Little Brown and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Workman, M., Dooley, K., Lomax, G., Maltby, J., & Darch, G. (2020). Decision making in contexts of deep uncertainty - an alternative approach for long-term climate policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 103(January), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.002
   Google Scholar
• Workman, S., Jones, B. D., & Jochim, A. E. (2009). Information processing and policy dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00296.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed. pp. 65–92). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zahariadis, N. (2019). The multiple streams framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy Process, by Paul Sabatier (1st ed. pp. 65–92). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367274689-3
   Google Scholar
• Zahariadis, N., & Allen, C. S. (1995). Ideas, networks, and policy streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany. The Review of Policy Research, 14(1–2), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1995.tb00622.x
   Google Scholar
• Zahariadis, N., Herweg, N., Zohlnhöfer, R., & Petridou, E. (Eds.). (2023). Reimut Zohlnhöfer. In A modern Guide to the multiple streams Framework. Elgar modern guides. Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar