Understanding policy change: multiple streams and national education curriculum policy in Hong Kong
Document Type
Journal Article
Publication Date
2014
Keywords
Educational policy, Multiple streams framework, Agenda setting, Policy analysis, Curriculum policy
DOI
10.5296/jpag.v4i2.5184
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the policymaking process of the Moral and National Education (MNE) curriculum in Hong Kong by employing Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework. The aim of the paper is threefold. First, it will describe the policy process of the national education curriculum policy as a foundation for the analysis. Second, the author will critically evaluate and apply Kingdon’s MSF to examine the policymaking process, both to analyse how such policy came to be constructed as a problem and to consider the proposed policy solutions, as well as the surrounding political forces. Third, the analysis will identify the possible coupling of these lines of thought and the notions of "policy entrepreneurs" and "policy windows".
The MNE policy provided a good example of how a policy problem is constructed in various policy contexts, as well as how the solution is matched to the problem. Although the policy outcome is not entirely predictable, Kingdon’s framework is excellent for explaining the likely outcomes.
This paper contributes to the wider policy literature by bridging the East-West gap in policy analysis. It provides a better understanding of the policymaking process in Asian countries, and it should also prove useful to both education policy scholars and policymakers. Finally it suggests further research is needed on how social media affects each of Kingdon’s streams in Hong Kong.
Source Publication
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
Volume Number
4
Issue Number
2
ISSN
2161-7104
First Page
49
Last Page
64
Recommended Citation
Chow, A. C. (2014). Understanding policy change: multiple streams and national education curriculum policy in Hong Kong. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 4 (2), 49-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v4i2.5184