Comparative use of the Multiple Streams Approach: An analytical framework for Chinese policymaking

TY - CONF

T1 - Comparative use of the Multiple Streams Approach: An analytical framework for Chinese policymaking

AU - Chen, Chunhua

PY - 2023/7/5

Y1 - 2023/7/5

N2 - There is a great need to study Chinese policymaking because policy analysis in China focuses on individual policies and their effects, with little attention paid to the policymaking process and the development of analytical frameworks. This lack of attention is understandable, as explaining Chinese policymaking across regions with significant disparities is challenging. The comparative use of the Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) provides a useful analytical framework to capture the policymaking process, which involves complex political considerations among multiple levels of government and actors. More importantly, from a relational perspective, it highlights the local specificities and also establishes links between localities, which is well suited to a mixed political system like China characterised by political centrality, fiscal decentralisation, and functional fragmentation. This paper draws on a comparative study of long-term care (LTC) policymaking in Beijing and Shanghai to elaborate on this framework, including its theoretical underpinnings and application to empirical inquiries. Data were collected between May and December 2018 through face-to-face interviews with policymakers involved in LTC policymaking in two sample sites, including government officials from responsible functional departments, as well as researchers and key service providers invited by the relevant government departments. The data were subjected to thematic analysis. Through the comparative use of MSA, this paper identifies four factors that influence LTC policymaking in China. These are the tension between evidence and politics in constructing LTC issues, the tension between policy effectiveness and stability in assessing policy options, strong or weak political will, and the presence or absence of the municipal government. Furthermore, this paper identifies two different local policymaking approaches, a politics-centred approach in Beijing and an issue-oriented approach in Shanghai. To fit the Chinese context, this paper has made multiple conceptual modifications to the original MSA; however, issues remain that require further empirical testing in more localities and policy areas and conceptual development in the long run.

AB - There is a great need to study Chinese policymaking because policy analysis in China focuses on individual policies and their effects, with little attention paid to the policymaking process and the development of analytical frameworks. This lack of attention is understandable, as explaining Chinese policymaking across regions with significant disparities is challenging. The comparative use of the Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) provides a useful analytical framework to capture the policymaking process, which involves complex political considerations among multiple levels of government and actors. More importantly, from a relational perspective, it highlights the local specificities and also establishes links between localities, which is well suited to a mixed political system like China characterised by political centrality, fiscal decentralisation, and functional fragmentation. This paper draws on a comparative study of long-term care (LTC) policymaking in Beijing and Shanghai to elaborate on this framework, including its theoretical underpinnings and application to empirical inquiries. Data were collected between May and December 2018 through face-to-face interviews with policymakers involved in LTC policymaking in two sample sites, including government officials from responsible functional departments, as well as researchers and key service providers invited by the relevant government departments. The data were subjected to thematic analysis. Through the comparative use of MSA, this paper identifies four factors that influence LTC policymaking in China. These are the tension between evidence and politics in constructing LTC issues, the tension between policy effectiveness and stability in assessing policy options, strong or weak political will, and the presence or absence of the municipal government. Furthermore, this paper identifies two different local policymaking approaches, a politics-centred approach in Beijing and an issue-oriented approach in Shanghai. To fit the Chinese context, this paper has made multiple conceptual modifications to the original MSA; however, issues remain that require further empirical testing in more localities and policy areas and conceptual development in the long run.

M3 - Abstract

T2 - 2023 Social Policy Association Conference

Y2 - 5 July 2023 through 7 July 2023

ER -