Applying Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework in the Establishment of Law No.13 of 2012 Concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region

Bastian Widyatama

doi:10.31000/jgcs.v2i1.643

Applying Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework in the Establishment of Law No.13 of 2012 Concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region

Bastian Widyatama

Abstract

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams, a framework to analyze agenda-setting process is widely considered as a ‘universal’ theoretical framework because of its flexibility to be applied. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the validity of this ‘universal’ term.By using the case of the establishment of Law No.13 of 2012 concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region, this research aims to apply and examine the Kingdon’sframework. The research has been done by using the qualitative method. Interviewing key persons and interpreting written documents are main techniques in data collection process. As the result, this framework remains applicable in the Yogyakarta case. There are 3 factors that brought Yogyakarta issues into the central government’s agenda encompass problem, policy, and politics. Politics is the most dominant factor indicated byYogyakartans strong political movement and Sultanate of Yogyakarta’s political approach. In addition, Sultanate of Yogyakarta canalso be discussed as a policy entrepreneur. As the conclusion, this research has a significant contribution to Kingdon’s multiple streams framework which is still able to explain social phenomena in policy making studies although there are some concerns that need to be explored further, particularly regarding the role of media and policy entrepreneur.

Kingdon,s Multiple Streams, sebuah kerangka kerja untuk menganalisis proses agenda setting secara luas dianggap sebagai kerangka kerja 'universal' karena fleksibilitasnya untuk diterapkan. Oleh karena itu, perlu untuk menyelidiki validitas dari istilah 'universal' ini. Dengan menggunakan kasus pembentukan Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2012 tentang Hak Istimewa Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menerapkan dan memeriksa kerangka kerja Kingdon. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif. Mewawancarai informan-informan kunci dan menafsirkan dokumen tertulis adalah teknik utama dalam proses pengumpulan data. Akibatnya, kerangka kerja ini tetap berlaku dalam kasus Yogyakarta. Ada 3 faktor yang membawa masalah Yogyakarta ke dalam agenda pemerintah pusat yang mencakup masalah, kebijakan, dan politik. Politik adalah faktor paling dominan yang ditunjukkan oleh gerakan politik kuat orang Yogya dan pendekatan politik Kesultanan Yogyakarta. Selain itu, Kesultanan Yogyakarta juga dapat didiskusikan sebagai pengusaha kebijakan. Sebagai kesimpulan, penelitian ini memiliki kontribusi yang signifikan terhadap kerangka aliran ganda Kingdon yang masih mampu menjelaskan fenomena sosial dalam studi pembuatan kebijakan meskipun ada beberapa kekhawatiran yang perlu dieksplorasi lebih lanjut, terutama mengenai peran media dan pengusaha kebijakan.

Keywords

Social; Political Studies; Public Policy

Full Text:

PDF

References

Book

Birkland, T.A. (1997). After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events. Washington DC: George Town University Press.

Dunn, William. (2012). Public Policy Analysis. New York: Routledge.

Fischer, Frank et.al. (eds). (2007). Handbook of Public Policy: Theory, Politics, and Methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press, FL.

Gatara, A.A. Sahid. (2009). Ilmu Politik: Memahami dan Menerapkan. Bandung: Pustaka Setia.

Hogwood, Brian W., and Lewis E. Gunn. (1984). Policy Analysis for the Real World. UK: Oxford University Press.

Howlett, Michael, and Ramesh. (1995). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystem. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J.C. (1995). The Politics of Social Protest: Comparative Perspective on States and Social Movements. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

John, Peter. (1998). Analysis Public Policy. London: Pinter.

Jones, Bryan D. (1994). Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jones, Charless O. (1977). An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. California: Duxburry Press.

Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Lofland, J, and Lofland, L.H. (1984). Analyzing Social Settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Meltsner, Arnold J. (1976). Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy. CA: Sage Publication.

Mintrom, Michael. (2000). Policy Entrepreneur and School Choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Moleong, Lexy J. (2008). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif: Edisi Revisi. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Peters, B.G, and Savoie, D.J (eds). (1995). Governance in a Changing Environment. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Rosari, Aloysius Soni (ed). (2011). “Monarki Yogya” Inkonstitusional? Jakarta: Kompas Media Nusantara.

Santoso, Purwo. (2010). Analisis Kebijakan Publik (Modul Pembelajaran). Yogyakarta: PolGov Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Sesung, Rudianto. (2013). Hukum Otonomi Daerah: Negara Kesatuan, Daerah Istimewa, dan Daerah Otonomi Khusus. Bandung: Refika Aditama.

Sharp, E.B. (1994). Paradoxes of National Anti-drug Policymaking. In D.A. Rochefort and R.W. Cobb (eds), The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence. KS: University Press of Kansas.

Zahariadis, N. (2003). Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy: Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies. Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press.

Zahariadis, N. (2007). ‘The multiple streams framework’ in P. Sabatier (ed). Theories of the Policy Process. Cambridge MA: Westview.

Zahariadis, N. (2014). “Ambiguity and Multiple Streams” in P.Sabatier and C.M. Weible (eds.). Theories of the Policy Process (3rd edition), Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Journal

Balla, Steven J. (2001). Interstate Professional Associations and the Diffusion of Policy Innovations. American Politics Research, 29, pp. 221-245.

Black, Nick. (2001). Evidence Based Policy: Proceed with Care. British Medical Journal, 323 (7307), pp. 275-279. Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/content/323/7307/275.

Cairney, Paul, and Jones, Michael D. (2015). Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach: What is The Empirical Impact of this Universal Theory? Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 00, No.00, pp.1-22.

Chow, Anthony. (2014). Understanding Policy Change: Multiple Streams and National Education Curriculum Policy in Hong Kong. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 49-64.

Cohen, Nissim. (2012). Policy Entrepreneurs and the Design of Public Policy: The Case of the National Health Insurance Law in Israel. Journal of Social Research and Policy, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, pp. 1-22.

Crow, D. A. (2010). Policy Entrepreneurs, Issue Experts, and Water Rights Policy Change in Colorado, Review of Policy Research, 27(3), 299–315.

Dudley, Geoffrey, Parsons, Wayne, Radaelli, Claudio M, and Sabatier, Paul. (2000). Symposium: Theories of the Policy Process. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 122-140.

Houston, D.J. & Richardon, L.E. Jr. (2000). The Politics of Air Bag Safety: A Competition among Problem Definitions, Policy Studies Journal, 28(3), 485–501.

Jones, Michael, Holly Michael Peterson, Jonathan Pierce, Nicole Herweg, Amiel Bernal, and Holly Lamberta et al. (2015). A River Runs Through It: A Multiple Streams Meta-Review. Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 44 (1), pp. 13-36.

Lindquist, E., Mosher-Howe, K.N. & Liu, X. (2010). Nanotechnology … What is It Good for? (Absolutely everything): A problem Definition Approach, Review of Policy Research, 27(3), 255–271.

Mintrom, Michael, and Norman, Phillipa. (2009). Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change. The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 649-667.

Mintrom, Michael, and Vergari, Sandra. (1998). Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State Education Reforms. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 126-148.

Rachman, Arief Aulia. (2014). Dinamika Kerukunan Umat Beragama dalam Kepemimpinan Kesultanan Yogyakarta. Akademika, Vol.19, No.1, pp.90-116.

Sabatier, P. (1991). Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 24, No.2, pp. 147-156.

Shipan, Charles R, and Volden, Craig. (2006). Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from U.S Cities to States. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50 (4), pp. 825-843.

Stout, Karen Evans, and Steven, Byron. (2000). The Case of the Failed Diversity Rule: A Multiple Streams Analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 341-355.

Turpin, SM, and Marais, MA. (2004). Decision-making: Theory and Practice. Orion Journal, Vol. 20, No.2, pp. 143-160.

Wolman, Harold. (1992). Understanding Cross National Policy Transfers: The Case of Britain and the US, Governance, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 27-45.

Woods, B.D and Peake, J.S. (1988). The Dynamics of Foreign Policy Agenda Setting. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No.1, pp. 173-184.

Zhou, Nan and Feng, Feng. (2014). Applying Multiple Streams Theoretical Framework to College Matriculation Policy Reform for Children of Migrant Workers in China. Public Policy and Administration Research, Vol.4, No.10, pp. 1-11.

Thesis and Article

Ardiyanti, Aulia and Darmawan, Ikshan. (2014). Pertentangan Antara Kelompok Pro-Pemilihan dan Pro-Penetapan Gubernur Dalam Proses Formulasi RUU Keistimewaan Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta (DIY) Tahun 2010-2012. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia. (Undergraduate Thesis)

Bangsawan, D. Pandu Yoga. (2012). Media dan Isu Keistimewaan DIY: Analisis Framing Terhadap Berita Keistimewaan DIY pada Harian Kompas dan Koran Tempo Periode Desember 2010 – Januari 2011. Surakarta: Universitas Sebelas Maret. (Undergraduate Thesis)

Budiarto, Milla. (2009). Your Land is My Land: Exploring Land Policy in Tangerang, Indonesia Using Kingdon’s Multiple Stream Model. Louisiana: Louisiana State University. (Master Thesis)

Kompas Online 16th December edition. (2010). Inilah Keistimewaan DIY Versi Pemerintah. Retrieved from http://sains.kompas.com-/read/2010/12/16/17415751/inilah.keistimewaan.diy.versi.pemerintah.

Marcelina, Shella. (2014). Penetapan Gubernur Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Menurut Pandangan Partai Demokrat. Yogyakarta: Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta. (Undergraduate Thesis)

Maxwell, Simon. (2003). Policy Entrepreneurship: Does Evidence Matter? Overseas Development Institute Article. Retrieved from https://www.-odi.org/sites/-odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/events-documents/2640.pdf.

Novasari, Wahyu Surya. (2010). Eksistensi Status Keistimewaan Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta dalam Perspektif Ketatanegaraan Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada. (Master Thesis)

Republika Online 10th December edition. (2010). Draft Keistimewaan DIY Final. Retrieved from http://en.republika-.co.id/berita/en/islam-in-archipelago/17/01-/30/nasional/um-um/14/10/11/nasional/jabodetabek-nasional/-14/10/06/nasi-onal/jabodetabek-nasional/17/09/01/ramadhan/-berita-rama-dhan/10/-09/08/internasional/global/17/06/24/du-nia-islam-/islam-nusantara/17/08/23/regional/nusantara/11/10-/09/-nasional/umum/17/10/01/breaking-news/nusantara/10-/12/-10/151374-draf-ruu-keistimewaan-diy-final.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31000/jgcs.v2i1.643