Examples Of Kingdon's Multiple-Streams Framework

As stated in the introduction to this paper will be split into two segments, the first segment will be outlining the first two cycles of the public policy process, these being Problem Identification and Agenda Setting. This section of the paper will be looking at the theory behind agenda setting which explains what occurred. This legislation is an example of Kingdon’s Multiple-Streams Framework . In Kingdon’s Multiple-Streams Framework, he writes that there are three streams to agenda setting, the first stream is called the problem stream this stream is dominated by perceptions of what is a “public” problem. (Béland, 2016) These public problems are usually brought to the attention of lawmakers in a variety of ways such as disasters or crisis.
As the theory outlines the three streams did indeed diverge after the crisis at the Fukishima-Daichi Nuclear power station on March 11th, 2011. The public outcry over the perceived danger of utilising Nuclear Power to source our energy (Is nothing new, as there has always been a strong anti-nuclear lobby within public discourse, however it reached its pinnacle during this crisis in March 2011. This is the 1st stream of the theory in action since the crisis dominating news headlines across the globe had put the question of whether Europe’s Nuclear power stations are safe on the agenda. The 2nd stream of Kingdon’s Multiple-Streams framework was initiated when the European Nuclear Safety Regulation Group (ENSREG) were empowered by the European Commission based off a mandate given to it by the European Parliament and the Council to examine the current situation which the European Nuclear Energy sector found itself in and to conduct stress tests on Nuclear reactors across the European Union. And finally, the 3rd stream was when the European Commission after consulting reports made by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European Nuclear Safety Regulation Group, adopted a formal position on the matter and compiled a proposal on it. The legislative proposal adopted by the European Commission at the end of the agenda setting stage adopted the
Where an earthquake measuring 9 on the Richter scale caused severe damage to the nuclear powerplant. This was coupled with a large tsunami which led to a meltdown of 3 of the reactors at the Nuclear Power plant. The disaster spurned the public on in some European nations to demand an end of the use of Nuclear Power as an energy source, which led to national administrations amending their plans for the sector on a temporary basis. And the high-profile nature of the disaster encouraged the European union to take strong action on the issue of nuclear safety since before this piece of legislation the European Union made little attempt in the past on regulating safety standards in this sector. The stress test report organised by the European Nuclear Safety Regulatory Group (ENSREG) showed the situation which the Nuclear energy sector found itself in the months and years after the melt down at the Fukishima Nuclear Power station. What’s interesting here is that the issue of nuclear power rarely made it onto the agenda of the European Authorities, it was a competency which was largely at the behest of the national administrations. In developing this policy