Open government is expected to promote important changes related to transparency, participation, and collaboration in the public sector. This article analyzes the open government policy-making process in Madrid. In order to explain the adoption process of open government as a public policy, this study uses the “multiple streams framework,” originally developed by Kingdon and recently elaborated on by Zahariadis and Herweg et al. Our empirical data, based on semi-structured interviews and qualitative and quantitative analysis provide evidence about the adoption of open government policy in the city of Madrid and help to illustrate some of the multiple roles that policy entrepreneurs play in the policy adoption process. Overall, this article offers insights on how and why open government is adopted into the public agenda of local governments. Also, this article highlights the importance of analyzing the roles of “policy entrepreneurs” and the duality of transparency and citizen participation in open government policies.
Abu-ShanabEA (2015). Reengineering the open government concept: An empirical support for a proposed model. Government Information Quarterly32(4): 453–463.
2.
AckrillRKayA (2011) Multiple streams in EU policy-making: The case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy18(1): 72–89.
3.
AckrillRKayAZahariadisN (2013) Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy20(6): 871–887.
4.
AndericaV (2017) Abriendo Madrid: pasos hacia un gobierno abierto municipal. In: En Naser A, Ramírez-Alujas Á and Rosales D (eds) Desde el gobierno abierto al Estado abierto en América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile: CEPAL, pp. 379–402.
5.
AttardJOrlandiFScerriS, et al. (2015) A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly32(4): 399–418.
6.
BrunnerS (2008) Understanding policy change: Multiple streams and emissions trading in Germany. Global Environmental Change18(3): 501–507.
7.
CairneyPHeikkilaT (2014) A comparison of theories of the policy process. In: SabatierPWeibleC (eds) Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd ed.Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 363–389.
8.
CairneyPJonesMD (2016) Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the empirical impact of this universal theory?Policy Studies Journal44(1): 37–58.
ChatfieldATReddickCG (2018) The role of policy entrepreneurs in open government data policy innovation diffusion: An analysis of Australian Federal and State Governments. Government Information Quarterly35(1): 123–134.
11.
ChowA (2014) Understanding policy change: Multiple streams and national education curriculum policy in Hong Kong. Journal of Public Administration and Governance4(2): 49–64.
12.
CohenMMarchJOlsenJ (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly17(1): 1–25.
13.
CollierDMahonJ (1993) Conceptual ‘stretching’ revisited: Adapting categories in comparative analysis. American Political Science Review87: 845–855.
14.
CompstonHPer KongshøjM (2001) Conceptual innovation and public policy: Unemployment and paid leave schemes in Denmark. Journal of European Social Policy11(2): 117–132.
15.
ContrerasRB (2011) Examining the context in qualitative analysis: The role of the co-occurrence tool in ATLAS. ti. Newsletter 2011, 2.
16.
CookBJ (2010) Arenas of power in climate change policymaking. Policy Studies Journal38(3): 465–486.
17.
CopusC (2006) British local government: A case for a new constitutional settlement. Public Policy and Administration21(2): 4–21.
18.
CriadoJIGil-GarciaJR (2019) Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies: From digital services to artificial intelligence and beyond. International Journal of Public Sector Management32(5): 438–450.
19.
CriadoJIRuvalcaba-GomezEA (2018) Perceptions of city managers about open government policies: Concepts, development, and implementation in the local level of government in Spain. International Journal of Electronic Government Research14: 1–22
20.
CriadoISandoval-AlmazánRGil-GarcíaJR (2013) Government innovation in government using social media.Government Information Quarterly30(4): 319–326.
21.
DimaggioPPowellW (1983) The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48(2): 147–160.
22.
FieldM (2017) How European Union policy actors use and assess the effectiveness of e-transparency. Public Policy and Administration34(1): 42–61.
23.
FosterA (2004) A nonlinear model of information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology55(3): 228–237.
24.
Gallego-CalderonRBarbieriNGonzálezS (2016) Reinterpreting the multiple streams framework from a process approach: Decision-making and policy shift in health public management in Catalonia, 2003-2007. In: Reimut Zohlnhöfer and Friedbert W. Rüb (eds) In Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints: Assessing the Multiple Streams Framework. United Kingdom: ECPR Press, pp. 231–250.
25.
GanapatiSReddickCG (2012) Open e-government in US state governments: Survey evidence from chief information officers. Government Information Quarterly29(2): 115–122.
26.
GascóM (2014) Open government. In: Gascó M (ed) Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance. New York: Springer.
27.
Gil-GarciaJRZhangJPuron-CidG (2016) Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly33(3): 524–534.
28.
GrimmelikhuijsenS (2012) Transparency and trust. An experimental study of online disclosure and trust in government (Doctoral thesis). Utrecht University, Netherlands.
29.
Grønbech-JensenC (1998) The Scandinavian tradition of open government and the European Union: problems of compatibility?Journal of European Public Policy5(1): 185–199.
30.
HammondD (2013) Policy entrepreneurship in China’s response to urban poverty. Policy Studies Journal41(1): 119–146.
31.
Herweg N (2016) Clarifying the concept of policy communities in the multiple streams framework. In: Zohlnhöfer R and Rüb FW (eds) Decision-Making Under Ambiguity and Time Constraints: Assessing the Multiple Streams Framework, pp. 125–145. ECPR Press.
32.
Herweg N and Zahariadis N (2018) The multiple streams approach. In: Zahariadis N and Buonanno L (eds) The Routledge Handbook of European Public Policy, pp. 32–42. Routledge.
33.
Herweg N, Zahariadis N and Zohlnhofer R (2018) The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In: Weible C and Sabatier P (eds) Theories of the policy process, pp. 17–53. Routledge
34.
HowlettM (2019) Moving policy implementation theory forward: A multiple streams/critical juncture approach. Public Policy and Administration 0952076718775791.
35.
IOPD International Observatory on Participatory Democracy (2018) “Decide Madrid” receives the United Nation Public Service Award 2018. Available at: https://oidp.net/en/content.php?id=1461 (accessed 5 May 2018).
36.
IlliaLSonparKBauerMW (2014) Applying co-occurrence text analysis with ALCESTE to studies of impression management. British Journal of Management25(2): 352–372.
37.
Joffe H (2012) Thematic analysis. In: David Harper and Andrew Thompson (eds) Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, pp. 209–223.
38.
JonesMDPetersonHLPierceJJ, et al. (2015) A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal44(1): 13–36.
39.
KamienieckiS (2000) Testing alternative theories of agenda setting: Forest policy change in British Columbia,Canada. Policy Studies Journal28(1): 176–189.
40.
KingdonJ (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York, Harper Collins.
41.
KingdonJ (1995) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York, Harper Collins.
42.
KornbergerMMeyerREBrandtnerC, et al. (2017). When bureaucracy meets the crowd: Studying “open government” in the Vienna city administration. Organization Studies38(2): 179–200.
43.
LathropDRumaL (2010) Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. Newton, MA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
44.
LiebermanJ (2002) Three streams and four policy entrepreneurs converge: A policy window opens. Education and Urban Society34(4): 438–450.
45.
LiuXLindquistEVedlitzA, et al. (2010) Understanding local policymaking: Policy elites’ perceptions of local agenda setting and alternative policy selection. Policy Studies Journal38(1): 69–91.
46.
MeijerAJCurtinDHillebrandtM (2012) Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences78(1): 10–29.
47.
MintromM (2013) Policy entrepreneurs and controversial science: Governing human embryonic stem cell research. Journal of European Public Policy20(3): 442–457.
NoveckBS (2015) Smart Citizens, Smarter State: The Technologies of Expertise and the Future of Governing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
ObornEBarrettMExworthyM (2011) Policy entrepreneurship in the development of public sector strategy: The case of London health reform. Public Administration89(2): 325–344.
52.
OkmaKGChengTMChinitzD, et al. (2010) Six countries, six health reform models? Health care reform in Chile, Israel, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan and The Netherlands. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis12(1–2): 75–113.
53.
Osborne D (1993) Reinventing government. Public productivity & management Review 16(4): 349–356.
54.
OsborneSP (2006) The new public governance?Journal Public Management Review8(3): 377–387.
55.
PierceJJSiddikiSJonesMD, et al. (2014) Social construction and policy design: A review of past applications. Policy Studies Journal42(1): 1–29.
56.
PiersonP (2000) Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review94(2): 251–267.
57.
ReimutZRRübF (eds) (2016). Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints: Assessing the Multiple-Streams Framework. Colchester: ECPR Press.
58.
RiddeV (2009) Policy implementation in an African state: An extension of Kingdon’s multiple-streams approach. Public Administration87(4): 938–954.
59.
RobertsNCKingPJ (1991) Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory1(2): 147–175.
60.
RobinsonSEEllerWS (2010) Participation in policy streams: Testing the separation of problems and solutions in subnational policy systems. Policy Studies Journal38(2): 199–216.
61.
Rodriguez-BolivarMPMeijerAJ (2016) Smart governance: Using a literature review and empirical analysis to build a research model. Social Science Computer Review34(6): 673–692.
62.
Ruvalcaba-GomezE (2019) Open government and citizen participation: Perceptions between civil society organizations and government. JeDEM—EJournal of EDemocracy and Open Government11(2): 1–13.
63.
Ruvalcaba-GomezECriadoJIGil-GarciaJR (2017) Public managers’ perceptions about open government: A factor analysis of concepts and values. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. Staten Island, NY: ACM, pp. 566–567.
64.
SabatierPA (2007) Fostering the development of policy theory. In: SabatierPA (ed) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2nd ed., pp. 321–336.
65.
Sabatier PA (1999) Theories of the Policy Process. 1st Edition, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
66.
SabatierPAWeibleC (eds) (2014) Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
67.
SardellAJohnsonK (1998) The politics of EPSDT policy in the 1990s: Policy entrepreneurs, political streams, and children’s health benefits.The Milbank Quarterly76(2): 175–205.
68.
SchollHJKubicekHCimanderR, et al. (2012) Process integration, information sharing, and system interoperation in government: A comparative case analysis. Government Information Quarterly29(3): 313–323.
69.
Schön-QuinlivanEScipioniM (2017) The Commission as policy entrepreneur in European economic governance: A comparative multiple stream analysis of the 2005 and 2011 reform of the stability and growth pact. Journal of European Public Policy24(8): 1172–1190.
70.
SimonVAlmLR (1995) Policy windows and two-level games: Explaining the passage of acid-rain legislation in the Clean Air Act of 1990. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy13(4): 459–478.
71.
ThierseS (2019) Policy entrepreneurship in the European Parliament: Reconsidering the influence of rapporteurs. Journal of European Public Policy26(2): 267–285.
72.
TravisRZahariadisN (2002) A multiple streams model of U.S. foreign aid policy.Policy Studies Journal30(4): 495.
73.
TurpinC (1996) Responsibility in government. Public Policy and Administration11(2): 35–47.
74.
VilloriaMIzquierdoA (2015). Ética pública y buen gobierno. Madrid: Tecnos.
75.
WeibleCMSabatierPAMcQueenK (2009) Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal37(1): 121–140.
76.
WijnhovenFEhrenhardMKuhnJ (2015) Open government objectives and participation motivations. Government Information Quarterly32(1): 30–42.
77.
Yin RK (2003) Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
78.
Yin R (2009) Case study research. Design and Methods. 4th ed. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
79.
ZahariadisN (1992) To sell or not to sell? Telecommunications policy in Britain and France. Journal of Public Policy12(04): 355–376.
80.
ZahariadisN (2003) Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy: Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
81.
ZahariadisN (2007) The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects.Theories of the Policy Process2: 65–92.
82.
Zahariadis N (2014) Ambiguity and multiple streams. In Sabatier P and Weible C (eds) Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 25-59) 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
83.
ZhouNFengF (2014) Applying multiple streams theoretical framework to college matriculation policy reform for children of migrant workers in China. Public Policy and Administration Research4(10): 1–11.
