Coupling Coalition Politics and Foreign Policy:
A Multiple Streams Analysis of Peacekeeping Operations
Assessing a State’s Rationales to Withdraw
The Case of the Netherlands
Naomi Krekelberg
A dissertation submitted to the Institute of Public Administration of the Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs
In partial fulfilment of the requirements to be awarded the degree of Master of Science (MSc) after completing the Master’s Program in Public Administration, International and European
Governance at Leiden University
January 8th, 2021
Supervisor: Dr. V.P. Karakasis Second reader: Dr. J. Christensen
Acknowledgments
I would first like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Vasilis Karakasis for his enthusiasm, support, advice and knowledge throughout this process. Although the current crisis of Covid-19 caused the usual consultation process with my supervisor and peers to have changed, the virtual guidance was highly valuable.
Secondly, I would like to thank my parents for their support, their encouragement and most of all, their eternal patience in hearing me talk about this thesis. Their home on the countryside in Southeast Brabant is and always has been a safe haven to run to when I was in need of a quiet and peaceful place to study.
Lastly, I am extremely thankful for the love and support of my significant other, Tim, who stood by my side, literally 24/7 because of Covid-19, and provided me with motivational speeches on the moments I needed it the most.
Abstract
The rationale of a government’s decision to dispatch troops in order to participate in peacekeeping operations has already been at the centre of attention in the academic field of Public Administration and the study on Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) for a couple of decades. Many scholars investigated the impact of certain domestic factors on foreign policy decisions. On the contrary, the rationale of a government’s decision to withdraw its troops from a peacekeeping operation is still a destination unknown in academic literature, due to the more societal character. In order to detect what led to such a policy decision, more extensive research is needed on the role of domestic factors that exercised their influence on the policy-making process.
The aim of this research is to retrospectively detect what domestic factors affected the outcome of the government’s decision to withdraw its troops from a peacekeeping operation. Much of the attention in academic literature is focussed on e.g. the role of coalition politics and the impact on a country’s foreign policy. However, not much is known yet about that role on the decision to withdraw. Therefore, the following research question is addressed: ‘To what extent does coalition politics affect a government’s decision to withdraw troops from peacekeeping operations?’ In order to answer the research question, a qualitative research design with a document-analysis method was used. Due to the societal character of the research question I chose a comparative case-study to analyse the participation and withdrawal of Dutch troops in two peacekeeping operations: The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan 2006-2010 and the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). The societal character of a government’s decision to withdraw warrants a more comprehensive approach rather than investigating the influence of only one domestic factor on its own. Therefore, the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) was used as a theoretical lens to analyse other domestic factors next to the political context.
The conclusion is that the impact depends on whether the dynamics within the Cabinet are characterized by consensus or dispute at the time of the mission. When the Cabinet finds itself in consensus on the purpose and the execution of the mission, it is more likely that if troops are withdrawn, this is due to shifting political interests and decreased added value. On the contrary, when the Cabinet finds itself in a situation of highly political disputes amongst its coalition parties,
it is likely the opposition rejects further work relations in which the only option is to announce their resignation.
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... II ABSTRACT ... III TABLE OF CONTENTS ...V LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... VII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 PROBLEM INDICATION...2
1.2 OBJECTIVES ...3
1.3 STRUCTURE ...4
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 5
2.1 COALITION POLITICS ...6
2.2 PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS:RATIONALES TO DISPATCH TROOPS ...8
2.3 KINGDON’S MULTIPLE STREAMS FRAMEWORK:TO UNCOVER THE RATIONALES TO WITHDRAW TROOPS ... 10
2.3.1 Problem stream... 11
2.3.2 Policy stream ... 12
2.3.3 Political stream ... 14
2.4 THE DUTCH POLITICAL CONTEXT AND UN PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS ... 15
2.4.1 Historical context – Foreign Policy ... 15
2.4.2 Dutch participation in UN peacekeeping operations ... 17
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 20
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN AND CASE SELECTION ... 21
3.2 DATA COLLECTION ... 22
3.3 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ... 23
3.4 OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE MULTIPLE STREAMS FRAMEWORK ... 24
3.4.1 Problem Stream ... 24
3.4.2 Policy Stream ... 25
3.4.3 Political Stream ... 26
3.4.4 Policy Window ... 27
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS ... 28
4.1 UNPEACEKEEPING MISSION 1:ISAF–AFGHANISTAN... 28
4.1.1.1 Policy Window ... 30
4.1.2 Problem Stream ... 31
4.1.3 Policy Stream ... 35
4.1.4 Political Stream ... 36
4.1.5 Comparison of the three streams ... 38
4.2 UNPEACEKEEPING MISSION 2:MINUSMA–MALI ... 39
4.2.1 Context ... 39
4.2.1.1 Policy Window ... 40
4.2.2 Problem Stream ... 42
4.2.3 Policy Stream ... 43
4.2.4 Political Stream ... 46
4.2.5 Comparison of the three streams ... 48
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ... 50
5.1 CONCLUSION ... 50
5.2 DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS... 52
REFERENCES ... 56
APPENDICES ... 68
APPENDIX I-A FRAMING BY THE MEDIA ... 68
APPENDIX I-B FRAMING BY THE CABINET ... 69
List of Abbreviations
3D Defence, Diplomacy and Development
ACOM Algemeen Christelijke Organisatie van Militairen AFISMA African-led International Support Mission to Mali AFMP Algemene Federatie van Militair en Burger Personeel CDA Christen Democratisch Appèl
CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy
COIN Counterinsurgency
CRS Congressional Research Service
D66 Democraten ‘66
EUTM European Training Mission to Mali
FPA Foreign Policy Analysis
HCSS the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies ISAF International Security Assistance Force
KFOR Kosovo Force
MINUSMA Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali MSF Multiple Streams Framework
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NWO Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek OEF Operation Enduring Freedom
OMF Opposing Militant Forces OvV Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid PRT Provincial Reconstruction Team PvdA Partij van de Arbeid
RvOMR Reglement van Orde voor de Ministerraad SFIR Stabilization Force Iraq
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNPROFOR United Nations Protection Force UNSC United Nations Security Council
US United States
VBM Vakbond voor Burger en Militair defensiepersoneel
VU Vrije Universiteit
VVD Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie
Chapter 1 Introduction
This study focuses on Dutch foreign policy and the influence of the governing parties in the Dutch coalition system. A sequence of shifts in foreign policy occurred during the first decades of the 21st-century because of friction and disagreement between the Cabinet’s coalition parties. In the early morning on Saturday February 20th, 2010, after a sixteen hour-long meeting, the Dutch Cabinet ‘Balkenende IV’ collapsed. The Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende announced the news at four a.m. in an official press conference and stated the Ministers of coalition-party Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA) had decided to resign from office, because the Cabinet could not agree on yet another extension of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission to Uruzgan, Afghanistan. Therefore, the Netherlands ended their mission in August 2010, after having executed their role as lead nation for more than four years to improve security and safety measures and restore stability and democratic values. During the mission 25 Dutch soldiers were killed and almost 150 soldiers were injured.
The Dutch Minister of Defence accompanied by the Commander of the Armed Forces both resigned from office less than a decade later, on October 3rd, 2017, after a five hour-long debate in the Dutch House of Representatives or Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. The Minister resigned as a matter of taking political responsibility after a research report underlined the insufficiently recognized safety risks by the Ministry, which led to a number of tragic events. Nevertheless, the Cabinet had already decided upon another extension of the mission by one year. In September 2018 only immediately after another report was published, the newly established Cabinet decided to end the MINUSMA mission and withdraw the Dutch troops in May 2019.
In a multi-party cabinet, which is the case in the political system of the Netherlands, the parties are in competition with one another to gain more public support and therefore eventually electoral votes. This often results in disagreements on how their country should respond to certain situations or crises on an international level. On the one hand the group of appointed ministers aim to come up with successful (foreign) policies due to sufficient cooperation, where this becomes more complicated on the other hand due to each of their preferences to push a policy towards a direction that is more appealing to their political parties. Moreover, it becomes even more complicated for ministers, because the duration and therefore their success or failure, is often out
of sync with the reigns. Upcoming elections could therefore possibly have a disproportionate influence on the decision-making on (the extension of) missions.
1.1 Problem Indication
In a report, an investigation-committee on Dutch political decision-making processes regarding foreign policy decisions to dispatch troops, concluded that political decisions on the participation in peacekeeping operations are often made based on insufficient knowledge and information, in the year 2000 already (Commissie Bakker, 2000). A lack of communication between ministers, members of the House of Representatives, bureaucrats and military personnel were a central issue to the report. But why would there be a lack of communication and information to one another? Why does a government behave the way it does, today and in the past? What is the role of coalition party politics in the latter? Why do some of these issues result in change and more specifically, policy change?
The academic literature on this subject is a relatively novel object of scientific inquiry, and this discipline’s literature is therefore inadequate to explore, solve these problems or answer these questions. Where some scholars focus on domestic factors and their influence on foreign policy from a broad perspective to create a more generalizable approach, other scholars focus on certain specific domestic factors, such as coalition politics, on foreign policy in a country’s context. When it comes to studies on specific outcomes in this policy field, the amount of literature is even more limited. In the case of participation in peacekeeping operations the literature is mainly focussed on the more academically explainable side of peacekeeping mission, which is the rationale of a state’s decision to dispatch troops to peacekeeping operations (Bellamy & Williams, 2013). The literature lacks research on the more societal perspective of peacekeeping missions, which is the rationale of a state’s decision to withdraw its troops from peacekeeping operations. Therefore, I am interested in a rather unexplored phenomenon: the relationship between coalition politics and the rationale of a country’s decision to withdraw its troops from a peacekeeping mission. Therefore, in order to contribute to the academic field of Public Administration and the study of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), this research aims to answer the following research question:
To what extent does coalition politics affect a government’s decision to withdraw troops from UN-peacekeeping operations?
1.2 Objectives
This research aims to contribute to the academic field of FPA by answering the above-mentioned research question and specifically by creating a more comprehensive image of what domestic factors alongside the dominant political perspective affect the outcome of a state to withdraw troops from peacekeeping operations. In order to provide such a comprehensive indication of how coalition politics in the Netherlands affects a decision to withdraw, this thesis utilizes the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) of Kingdon (1984) as merely a theoretical lens to analyse the research question instead of testing a particular theory. With this model not only the political perspective is taken into mind, but also the roles of other actors are analysed in how a problem is put on the political agenda. Following the streams of the MSF, this research aims to analyse the role of the media in particularly the problem stream and the role of research organizations in the policy stream. The role of coalition politics falls under the category of the political stream. The sub-questions then are as follows:
● What is the role of the media in framing the policy problem?
● What is the role of research organizations in framing and offering policy solutions? ● To what extent did possible tensions between political conceptions and the direction of the
mission and its military implementation affect the outcome of the mission (the decision to withdraw troops)?
If it occurs, as it does quite occasionally, that coalition parties firmly disagree on e.g. foreign policy, these other factors are very important because external pressures as well as internal opposition are both cited by parties as a reason for someone to support a particular policy those parties prefer (Kaarbo, 2012).
In order to write this thesis a qualitative research design was used, in which data are collected through a document-analysis method and in which data are analysed using a comparative case study or small-N design on the peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan and Mali. Inferences were drawn out of already existing primary and secondary resources in order to explore the relationship between the main concepts under scrutiny in this study. To sum up, understanding the how and why of a state deciding to withdraw troops is the main objective of this research besides the objective to find out whether there are similarities or differences between the two cases of Afghanistan and Mali.
1.3 Structure
In the following chapters, first the theoretical framework will be presented in the second chapter. This chapter includes a brief explanation of the literature on coalition politics, an understanding of the literature that addresses states’ rationales to dispatch troops and an overview of Kingdon’s MSF and how this framework would serve as a theoretical lens to uncover the rationales to withdraw troops. The chapter is closed by a section that provides a better understanding of the Dutch foreign policy. Secondly, the choices of methodology with regard to this study are written under chapter three. The choice of research design, case selection, data collection, the reliability and validity and the operationalization of the three MSF streams are explained. Thirdly, the analysis is divided into two sub-chapters, which represent the two cases of Afghanistan and Mali. Following the structure of the MSF, each sub-chapter is split into three sections that represent the three streams. Prior to these streams, each sub-chapter starts with a section on contextual information of the case and includes a section on the outcome of when those three streams are aligned and thus create the possibility to be coupled: the policy window. The thesis ends with a conclusion in which first the sub questions are answered. This constitutes an introduction to answering the research question. The second part of the conclusion consists of a section in which I reflect upon the limitations of the study and the use of the MSF as a theoretical lens. Therefore, recommendations are given with regards to future research.
Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework
In this thesis, the influence of domestic factors on foreign policy decisions is analysed, specifically the relationship between coalition politics and a government’s decision to withdraw its troops from a peacekeeping mission. The notion made by scholars such as Kaarbo (2012) that domestic factors such as coalition politics do impact the outcome of the decision-making process in a government’s foreign policy, constitute the foundation of my interest in writing this thesis and therefore formulating the research question mentioned in Chapter 1. However, one factor such as coalition politics does not act on its own, which means the bigger picture is important. This chapter starts with the existing literature on the independent variable (coalition politics) and includes the relationship between coalition politics and foreign policy decisions in general, which is followed by a section in which the content reveals the lack of other domestic factors in understanding the bigger picture. The chapter continues with the literature on the central concept in this research’ setup: UN peacekeeping missions. This section provides a brief explanation of the rationales to dispatch troops in order to grasp an understanding of the decision-making process as a whole with regard to a country’s participation in peacekeeping operations, instead of focussing on just one aspect. The literature on a government’s decision to dispatch troops is more extensive with regard to the academic character of the decision’s substantiation. Here, few attempts were made to create a more general theory of contributions to peacekeeping operations of the United Nations (UN), however without success. Offering such a general causal explanation is challenging given the variation in state behaviour, political context, and domestic factors. The prominent approaches are inspired by realism, liberalism, Public Good Theory and Institutionalism.
The literature on a government’s decision to withdraw troops from peacekeeping operations is minimal due to the more societal aspect of the decision. Existing literature, such as Bellamy and Williams (2013) merely explain that states do have the possibility to withdraw legally when the operation’s mandate changes or in the case of an inappropriate mandate. Other than a formal institutional rationale, societal factors such as pressure from the international political arena, the reliance on allies in peacekeeping operations and domestic decision-making are mentioned in some academic articles in an attempt to explain the decision to withdraw. However, these factors are examined as individual independent variables and are often not placed in the bigger picture. In order to understand what thrives governments to withdraw, this research aims to
address this phenomenon from a multi-dimensional approach. What are the conditions under which an idea or consideration to withdraw of a foreign policy maker could appear on the foreign policy agenda? Here is where Kingdon’s MSF comes in. This will be further explained in section 2.3 of this chapter.
2.1 Coalition politics
This thesis intends to contribute to the research area of FPA. FPA initially differs from International Relations research in explaining actions taken by states, in which states are defined as individual actors in an international arena. Early studies of FPA, e.g. Rosenau (1966) identify several variables that affect foreign policy making, such as the size of a country, the form of government or the level of development. These explanations are rather broadly constructed. Later on, scholars such as Allison (1971), Janis (1972) and Jervis (1976) dive into more specified or focussed explanatory factors: organizational and bureaucratic factors, social psychological factors and cognitive factors. From this point, the amount of literature on explaining factors that influence foreign policy expanded.
This contribution in the field of Public Administration is focused on the organizational and bureaucratic factors, in specific the factor of coalition politics and its relation to foreign policy. For a long time, coalition politics was only studied as a matter of its formation (Axelrod 1970; de Swaan 1973; Martin & Stevenson 2001; Riker 1962; Sened 1996; as cited in Schermann & Ennser-Jedenastik, 2013) and/or its termination (Diermeier & Merlo 2000; Diermeier & Stevenson 1999; Laver 2003; Warwick 1994; as cited in Schermann & Ennser-Jedenastik, 2013). The decision-making process or the impact on the policy output, however, was relatively new. One of the studies that are examining coalition policy making is conducted by Schermann and Ennser-Jedenastik (2013). Kaarbo (2012) started digging into the coalition decision-making process because of her interest in groupthink which can occur from processes of social influence. She described the coalition decision-making process from several perspectives and how electoral interests with different coalition partners in domestic policy areas outweigh international and foreign policy subjects (Kaarbo, 2012). An important note here is that previous studies on foreign policy were merely based on the U.S. system. However, Kaarbo (2012) decided to focus on any country other than the United States (US), merely because of her field of study on coalition politics and coalition decision-making was already particularly dominant in Western Europe since WWII. Nowadays,
this form of governance can be found worldwide. The dynamics between parties in a coalition system (one might focus on the international game while others focus on domestic games) in this particular field will be supported through Putnam’s (1988) two-level theory on the relationship between the domestic and international level: e.g. cited from Kaarbo’s book (2012):
‘’Rochon notes that Dutch domestic conditions, including coalition politics, constrain the government in international negotiations but that this constraint can be leveraged to their advantage, a la Putnam’s two-level game framework’’
An important note here is that limitations can derive when focusing only on the cabinet structure as an independent effect on foreign policy. While structure tells us something about the nature of coalition politics in foreign policy, it does not tell us anything about the direction. This calls for an examination of the coalition party’s preferences, according to Elman (2000). This can be seen in the literature by Martin and Vanberg, cited by Kaarbo (2012, p.4) who wrote the following:
‘’Parties that participate in a coalition are engaged in a ‘’mixed motive’’ game. On the one hand, they have reason to cooperate with their partners to pursue successful common policies. On the other hand, each party faces strong incentives to move policy in ways that appeal to party members and to the constituencies on which the party relies for support. [...] . In short, the policy and position-taking incentives of coalition parties continually put them in competition with one another.’’
With this statement Martin and Vanberg (2004) refer to the result of a classic principal-agent problem. They argue that policymaking powers are delegated to the ministers that cover certain portfolios in a coalition government, which means that a cabinet with different preferences amongst it on some issues, must delegate power to ministers that belong to a certain party (Martin & Vanberg, 2004). The ministers of a particular party could then possibly aim for a policy that is preferred by the party the minister is associated with, despite the preferences of other coalition parties.
Thus, Kaarbo (2012) states the coalition party system to be the dominant factor, because when partners in a coalition disagree with one another on a certain decision in the area of foreign
policy, this might have an impact on policymaking, choices in policy and international politics in general. Also, when the international environment and certain domestic factors cause a certain country to be highly constrained by it, Kaarbo (2012) says the effect of those constraints are still ‘funneled’ through the coalition. The reason for this is that the decision-making authority is assigned to the cabinet. She therefore acknowledges the influence of possible ‘others’, however these domestic influences are not mentioned and are not involved in her research. Therefore, this thesis will dive into what scholars such as Kaarbo did not do: investigate those other domestic influences next to the impact of coalition politics.
2.2 Peacekeeping Operations: Rationales to dispatch troops
As described in the introduction of this chapter, I incorporated the perspective to dispatch troops to provide an understanding of the decision-making process as a whole concerning a country’s participation in peacekeeping operations, instead of focussing on just one aspect. I aim to gain insight on the initial rationale of a particular mission, in order to be able to examine whether that will change when it is decided to withdraw. With this in mind, the dominant theory and first conceptualization of decision-making in peacekeeping operations by states comes from Bellamy and Williams. They have identified five potential reasons for countries to participate in such operations, which are related to political, economic, institutional, security and normative concerns (Bellamy & Williams, 2013). They serve to inform states’ preferences to provide troops.
Originally, the work of Thomas Hobbes (1668) is considered to be the foundation of modern realist theory in the research field of international relations. His book Leviathan contains his argument regarding the security of a state, which was a sovereign’s main principle task to fulfil. While UN missions are often not associated with national defence, a particular conflict could pose a certain level of perceived threat to a state. When a state believes participation would promote national security interests, they are thought to be more likely to send troops to peacekeeping operations. This type of self-interest originates from a realist-inspired approach. This approach argues states to provide peacekeepers ‘’to establish, preserve or increase [their] position and power base in the world’’ (Neack, 1995, pp. 188) and because this phenomenon is seen as a traditional part of foreign policy, instead of being merely charitable. The latter suggests a state’s foreign policy agenda to involve improving international status and more specifically, influence decision-making at UN level. Nevertheless, this approach lacks a distinction between various state
characteristics such as variations in size and behaviour and the different outcomes. Bellamy and Williams (2013, p.7) argue the self-interest approach does not explain a state’s motivation on its own.
From a rationalist perspective, described by Bures (2007), states are assumed to act rational and use their participation in peacekeeping operations merely as a tool for its foreign policy, especially as a tool where interests align. Political pressure, the aim to improve its position and prestige at the international stage and access to certain information are only a few of many political reasons to dispatch troops. According to liberal accounts, described by Daniel et al. (2008), it is more likely for democratic countries to dispatch troops compared to non-democratic countries as they perceive such an action as offering political benefits. Moreover, Lebovic (2010) states that the level of democracy would explain the number of countries that participate in peacekeeping missions as well as a country’s rationale to contribute. Keohane and Martin (1992) argue from a liberal institutionalist perspective that when the contribution is made to a mission with multilateral cooperation character, in which costs and risks are spread, this would provide a level of political legitimacy. The legitimating functions of organisations such as the UN are such multilateral missions aligned with the security aspect mentioned above, in which international peace and security is maintained. Following this perspective, states could decide to deploy troops due to normative rationales (Bellamy & Williams, 2013). As mentioned earlier, states with a higher level of democracy are more likely to promote and support international institutions such as the UN. The appeal to liberal ideals, and therefore a shared set of norms, explains the relationship between states and international institutions.
Financial considerations often play a key role in a state’s decision to participate. Bellamy and Williams (2013, p.19) however argue the need to distinguish the types of benefits countries take into account when making the decision. These benefits vary from compensation payments for developing states with small economies, to budget opportunities for national defence and security sectors and from individual mission subsistence allowances to UN procurement contracts for goods with private firms and national corporations.
When a government decides to deploy troops to peace operations due to institutional interests, a nation’s civil-military relations are central to the decision-making process. The government must receive consent and the support of the armed forces. Therefore, the integration between the roles of both defence and foreign policy should be taken into account. Sotomayor
(2010) for instance argues that a decision to engage results from doctrinal policies and bureaucratic infighting within a state. This shows, again, the relationship between domestic and international politics and the level of bargaining foreign ministers have to deal with.
In general, the contribution of Bellamy and Williams confirms the quixotic search for a general theory that explains the decision-making of states in UN peacekeeping operations. While the analysis remains rather complex, this thus means that the UN is still opportunistic in terms of influencing the national peacekeeping operations politics.
2.3 Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework: To uncover the rationales to withdraw troops
While academic literature mainly entails theories on the reason why governments decide to dispatch troops and to participate in UN peacekeeping operations, there is a significant gap on the rationale of state’s deciding to withdraw from such a mission. Within the paradigm of policy change Kingdon’s framework is the prominent theoretical model in the analysis of a government’s decision to withdraw. Compared to other theoretical frameworks of policy change that are more context-centred, such as the punctuated equilibrium framework (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993), the advocacy coalition framework (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993) and the framework of path dependency (Pierson, 2000), Kingdon’s actor-centred framework is better suited to this research. The following chapter explains Kingdon’s theoretical model and will touch upon its highlights and the main criticism. With this theory Kingdon (2011) aims to define how some policy issues are prioritized over others and how such issues end up on the agenda of policymakers. As was mentioned before, the role of policy actors and how they act within the policy context is central to this framework. The inclusion of several perspectives and the interplay between policy entrepreneurs, such as the public, the media, interest groups, public institutions and the political context play a central role in Kingdon’s framework. It is rooted in Cohen, March and Olsen’s (1972) garbage can model of organization, which analyses the interplay between the four streams of problems, solutions, participants and choice opportunities. They state in order to generate outcomes, there is a need for the right blend of those four streams. Unlike Kingdon’s framework for political organizations, this model was designed to apply to any type of organization (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972).
The process in the MSF, however, is divided into three conceptually separate streams that usually exist parallel to one another: the problem stream, the policy stream and the political stream. Figure 1 (Kingdon, 1984) shows that these three streams align a window of opportunity that is likely to occur, through which the policy can be decided upon.
Figure 1. Multiple Streams Framework adapted from Kingdon (1984)
This policy window is often identified by policy entrepreneurs as they respond to the occurring signals from all three streams by bringing them together. This means three ingredients must be present in order to open a policy window: recognition of a problem, an available solution and a political environment that is positive for change. Afterwards, the open window facilitates policy change. However, Kingdon (1984) specifically mentions the limited time of a policy window to be open. Therefore, policy entrepreneurs should act immediately when such a possibility appears.
2.3.1 Problem stream
In this stream policy issues play a central role. Policy problems get the attention of policy makers through various ways. Feedback mechanisms, focusing events and an increased ‘weight’ of a certain problem are mechanisms that alert policy makers. In most cases, issues get attention as a result of how a problem is identified or ‘framed’ by those actors competing for attention: policy entrepreneurs. Kingdon (2011, p.110) argues that ‘’problems are not simply the conditions or the external events themselves; there is also a perceptual, interpretive element’’. This refers to the public having an important role in subjectively deciding what issue gets prioritized and which issue won’t.
One of the scholars who conducted research on focusing events is Thomas A. Birkland. He defines such events or crises as ‘an event that sudden; relatively uncommon; can be reasonably
defined as harmful or revealing the possibility of potentially greater future harms; has harms that are concentrated in a particular geographical area or community of interest; and that is known to policy makers and the public simultaneously’ (Birkland, 1998, p.54). On the contrary, Kingdon (p.94-95) defines focusing events as ‘’a crisis or a disaster that comes along to call attention to the problem, a powerful symbol that catches on, or the personal experiences of a policy maker.’’ A focusing event could potentially cause a policy window to open in the problem stream. Zahariadis (2008, p.517) argues policies to be ‘rationally’ designed to address problems that affect society and are in need for a solution.
A factor that could play an important role in influencing the policy agenda of policy makers is the media. The media has the power to accelerate and ‘frame’ certain information or symbols while also having the power to omit other messages or information. However, while Kingdon (2014) acknowledges the influence of the media on the agenda-setting phase, he questions the influence on the decision-making process. He argues the media’s influence to have a short attention span, which means the high influx of new information causes the attention to fade before it reaches a concrete policy proposal. Therefore, the media often reports on what is already known by policy makers or on something that has already been acted upon.
To elaborate more on this subject, Stone (2012) highlights the political struggle of and therefore the importance of values and ideas. As part of her book Policy Paradox, she elaborates on the use of symbols and symbolic devices in politics. She states that symbols, e.g. objects, songs, words, events, pictures, logos, are widely used in defining a policy problem and politics in general as its meaning depends on the different audiences and how they interpret, use or respond to it. It can also refer to a set of ideas in an organization, such as a political party. Stone defines three categories of symbolic devices in the use of stories: synecdoche, metaphors and ambiguity. Moreover, she argues that these devices ‘’function as weapons in the problem-definition arsenal. Political actors use them strategically to define problems in a way that will persuade doubters and attract support for their own side in a conflict’’ (Stone, 2012, p.160).
2.3.2 Policy stream
In this stream recommendations to policy are provided by a policy community that consist of specialists who frame a solution to a certain policy issue. Sabatier (1993, p.7) defines policy communities as ’’a mechanism by which policy makers and other political actors organize
themselves to achieve policy goals’’. Kingdon (1984, p.123) describes policy communities to be ‘‘composed of specialists in a given policy area (…) scattered both through and outside of government’’. Marsh (1998a) and Thatcher (1998) characterize those communities to consist of closed, restricted and stable relationships.
Policy proposals are highly dependent on the circumstances at that particular moment in order to be noticed by policy makers. Focusing events with an environmental or societal character are only subject to the exploitation of a policy maker’s attention when a proposal to the particular issue already exists. Kingdon (2003) believes that such proposals float around, waiting for the right environmental or societal circumstances to emerge. He calls this phenomenon the policy primeval soup. Timing and knowing when to persuade others are therefore necessary skills for policy entrepreneurs when addressing an issue to policy makers. To create support for certain proposals Kingdon defines such a process as softening up. In this process policy entrepreneurs persuade policy communities and soften up their resistance towards change. They aim to do so through the organization of hearings and conferences, introduction of bills and providing speeches, reports, studies and papers. Nevertheless, after having created support, a policy proposal is only likely to survive when it is considered to be technically feasible, cost-effective and acceptable in terms of values.
The role of experts and the use of their (scientific) knowledge in the policy stream can also specifically be found in evaluation research. Such a study usually provides a specific type of knowledge, in which the effectiveness of a certain policy is assessed. The result of this type of research is that perceptions and understandings are likely to change over time. Radaelli (1995) argues this concerns knowledge. It has a long-term effect and impact on policy-making. The impact of knowledge on the policy process is however not an only ingredient of the policy process. Several scholars in public policy (Lindblom and Cohen, 1979; Weiss, 1986; Cronbach et al. 1980) thus consider it as not just a knowledge-driven model that would assume knowledge to rationally flow from basic research to applied research to development to application. Therefore, they also do not support the knowledge as a problem-solving model, in which there would be a problem without the necessary information for which research is conducted to create a solution. One of the scholars, Cronbach, favours policy-shaping over policy-making, by which he refers to features of the garbage-can model of Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) and the interplay between policy
problems and actors who exert influence. This all comes back to Kingdon’s model, which does not rely on a rational linear perspective of the policy process.
The role symbols, as mentioned in the previous section, are also present in the policy stream, especially the symbolic device of stories and numbers. Works of experts and research organizations in the policy stream also have a certain story to tell, although it is not their main purpose to call blame or to choose sides. In terms of numbers, Stone (2012, p. 188) states that ‘’measures imply a need for action, because we don’t measure things except when we want to change them or change our behaviour in response to them.’’ Therefore, the results of a measurement and the use of numbers is the creation of a subtle pressure on those that require change or at least do something about what needs improvement.
In terms of solutions, Stone talks about the variety of policy instruments governments use as solutions to solve a certain policy problem. One of those instruments and the one that is relevant to the policy stream in this research is the use of facts. Where facts are ideally seen as neutral from a rational perspective, Stone argues facts to be actually dependent on interpretive lenses. This refers to the previous section of stories, as facts are expressed through words, in which words often mean a variety of things and are potentially different to anyone who reads them. Words are loaded.
2.3.3 Political stream
The political stream functions as a facilitating platform for the other streams to converge. Instead of persuading other actors to support alternative proposals, this stage is more concerned with the process of bargaining. According to Kingdon (1984), this stage is dominated by interest groups and their influence on policy making. Hence, he defines three categories within the political stream: the national mood, organized political forces and change of governmental administration. First, the national mood is characterized by the state’s climate, public opinion and broad social movements. It is of great importance to policy makers as it influences the policy agenda by deliberation on what policy items should be promoted or not. Secondly, organized political forces are interest groups that pressure officials with having similar interests which point them in similar directions. The balance or opposition between those interests can determine whether an idea is pushed forward or not. Politicians must therefore be cautious of and carefully examine the situation before they make a decision to support a particular issue. Thirdly, sometimes the political landscape changes due to internal shifts, which can affect the policy agenda. According to Kingdon
(1984) the change of administration is an event that often occurs and causes a policy window to open.
The dynamics between and the influence of political parties on policy-making is also at stake in this particular stream. The process of bargaining in this stage, especially when it involves foreign policy, is best explained with Putnam’s two-level game (Putnam, 1988). This method was already mentioned under the section on coalition politics as a method to explain the dynamics between coalition or political parties. However, Putnam’s theory refers to another dimension, which is the dimension of international bargaining. With this theory Putnam argues bargaining games are played simultaneously at both the international and national level. A government leader, or in the case of foreign policy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is seen as the ‘chief negotiator’. He or she is often involved in an international negotiation and for this the chief negotiator aims to get approval by the domestic front. According to Putnam (1988) this approval is gained through either a formal voting or through measures of the public opinion. This set of negotiation agreements to gain approval on the national level together with the possible results of agreements made on the international level will define the chief negotiator’s win-set.
2.4 The Dutch political context and UN peacekeeping missions
A country such as the Netherlands with a coalition government and an active role in international diplomacy serves as a relevant and interesting case to specify the above-mentioned streams of Kingdon’s framework. In his book Governance and Politics of the Netherlands, Andeweg (2014, p.188) defines the Dutch political arena as ‘’a country of minorities, a multi-party system, coalition government, a formally weak position of the Prime Minister, strong parliamentary committees in a bicameral Parliament’’. Consociationalism and corporatism both characterize governance in the Netherlands, which means that with a history of internal division on ethnic, religious or linguistic grounds, exchange and cooperation have become the foundation of the relationship between the Dutch government and interest groups.
2.4.1 Historical context – Foreign Policy
From 1940, the beginning of World War II, the Dutch government ‘’joined the allied war against the Axis Powers.’’ (Voorhoeve, 1979, p.47) Due to the neutral abstentionist stance before World War II, in which the Dutch aimed to not get involved in political battles of states other than itself,
one could argue the Netherlands lacks experience in world politics. In his book, Voorhoeve (1979, p.49) cites Telders, a prominent international lawyer from the Netherlands: ‘’The public of the Netherlands which is interested in international affairs is seriously deprived of a proper international education and thinks that this lack can be compensated for by pacifistic objectives and moralistic observations.’’ Also, the absence of a large army and trade interests in peace at international level support the pacifist approach. These are only a few of the factors that determine the Dutch international-idealist tradition. Other factors are Dutch legalism, originated from Calvinist traditions, which emphasizes a strong belief in the rule of law.
Despite the more sceptical national style, Voorhoeve (1979) describes Dutch foreign policy as activist and with high aspirations. While he states others, foreign journalists, to call the Dutch political stability dull, the Netherlands has a political system that is best described as merely divided with a large number of political parties. This multi-party system is based on historical differences in terms of the variety in religions and ideologies. These subsystems or pillars in early Dutch society are known as Catholic, Socialist, Liberal and Protestant. The influence of these sub-systems was not limited to politics and churches, it was rooted in all that was part of the Dutch society. Although such a fragmented society seems unlikely to be governed properly, a consociational approach formed a solution with cooperation instead of competition. Later on, when the pillar-system crumbled and polarization caused many political parties to change or split, Dutch civilians were left confused and feeling alienated from domestic politics. In this troubling period in the mid-70s, foreign policy offered a refreshing and clear playing field between only two perspectives: progressive and conservative. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Ministry gained importance and developed in terms of importance only after the Second World War. Although daily tasks in foreign policy are dealt with by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Parliament gained influence over the years, starting from the 60s. Rudy Andeweg (2014) argues that Dutch foreign policy, which has seen a real decrease in its influence internationally in a continuous changing world, has become more and more complicated over the years by politicization.
In the area of security and defence, the Netherlands seemed slightly reluctant in war-participation since the end of the Cold War. In the 1991 Gulf War, the Dutch government did not participate themselves, but it was willing to send a limited-sized, medical convoy under the flag of the Western European Union (WEU). Compromising between domestic pressure and
international prestige was and still is a core element of foreign policy. Therefore, non-participation in the Gulf war was parallel to the reduction of hard power and the promotion of soft power, as soft power indicates a state adheres to international norms and puts co-opting with others above coercion. Two main examples of soft power in the Netherlands is on the one hand the Dutch campaign to promote international law and justice by presenting itself as ‘the country of Grotius, with The Hague as the Capital of International Law’. On the other hand, the Netherlands adapted a strategy of contribution to UN peacekeeping missions and operations that aim to enforce peace.
2.4.2 Dutch participation in UN peacekeeping operations
From organizing rescue operations and humanitarian missions, assisting in promoting and protect (inter)national interests to supporting stabilization forces, the Netherlands expanded their contributions since the Cold War ended in the 1990s. Sending forces to stabilization missions in particular, is what the Dutch government did most recently. Well-known missions initiated by the UN in which Dutch troops often contributed are for instance the Stabilization Force Iraq (SFIR) and the ISAF-mission in Uruzgan, Afghanistan. The most recent case is the involvement in the UN’s Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission (MINUSMA) in Mali.
Although a state’s rationale of sending troops is easier to substantiate theoretically, envisioned outcomes are often challenged by multiple factors. Historically speaking, the one example that has left severe wounds to the Netherlands when it comes to providing troops to UN peacekeeping missions, is the mission in Bosnia: The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). As was already mentioned in the introductory section of this chapter, one of the reasons for withdrawal from UN peacekeeping missions that is known to scholars, is the malfunctioning of the mandate. This was also the case in Bosnia. The Dutch government sent an airborne battalion of 1,100 troops to Srebrenica in 1993, which was one of the enclaves in Bosnia the UN declared as a ‘safe area’ (Van Willigen, 2016). This mission, the so-called Dutchbat, consisted of 1,100 troops, but failed to maintain this so-called ‘safe haven’, when the enclave got under attack two years later, making the Dutch forces feel forced to extradite all civilians that took refuge in this UN-stronghold to the Bosnian-Serbs. This caused the deaths of 8,000 civilians, of which the (political) impact eventually led to the collapse of the Dutch government. The two main reasons why Dutch troops were completely overrun can be found in the report of the Dutch Institute for war, holocaust and genocide studies or the Nederlands Instituut voor oorlogs-, holocaust- en
genocide studies (NIOD), in which the investigators argue that first, the Dutch government took an irresponsible decision by sending military personnel with a poor mandate, poor preparation and poor equipment. Moreover, the mandate was no combat mandate (NIOD, 2002). The second main cause can be found in the role of the UN, when Dutchbat Commander Karremans called the UN headquarters two times to receive air support, and the UN refused to provide the support.
In the late 1990s the political debate in the Netherlands was still affected by a mission in Kosovo (KFOR), which included a highly risk-based operation, something that the Dutch were quite cautious about after the Srebrenica mission. Moreover, they were not satisfied with the limited role they played on an international level in the decision-making process of peacekeeping missions and questioned the objectives of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) of the missions the Dutch participated in. Consequently, a temporary commission called Commissie Bakker was established to investigate this process and concluded that there was much to improve in the national decision-making process of the dispatchment of troops, the inclusion of a proper exit-strategy and the communication between the Dutch Cabinet and Parliament. The commission argued the Parliament must be involved as they are the official representatives of Dutch citizens and could not just be seen as spectators of the game (Commissie Bakker, 2000). As a result, Article 100 of the Dutch Constitution laid down that the Cabinet shall provide both the First and Second Chamber with information on the deployment in advance of the mission. The Cabinet is however not obliged to act only with consent of the Parliament. The article merely includes the demand to inform the Parliament.
Therefore, another factor that led to withdrawal as outcome was the domestic decision-making process. The government’s will to act was considerably stronger than the military challenges the troops would face when it would come to an actual defence of the Bosnian enclave (lack of military feasibility). This led to several changes, as described in the previous paragraph, in the decision-making process regarding military interventions and military participation in UN peacekeeping operations. With these newly introduced procedures, the Parliament gained a more prominent role, by which the government is obligated to inform the Parliament prior to any mission. However, the Dutch government is not limited to act without the Parliament’s formal consent as a formal approval is not required. This has not happened yet, as the government has not decided to participate in a mission without the Parliament’s support, or at least a majority, due to the Parliament’s de facto power.
The failure of the UN mandate and the rise of alternatives in the field of peace and security both explain the reason to withdraw. From an institutional choice perspective, Jupille et al. (2013) argue that when the focal institution is not functioning well, states might decide to look for alternative options. The Netherlands first found its alternative options in NATO and in ad hoc multinational operations, which was followed by the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union. The Srebrenica situation created a shift from UN interests towards European security interests, however yielding a critical view on sending military forces.
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
There is a common theme in theoretical models that are used in political science, which can be found in the pluralistic characteristic of the policy development setting. Therefore, I acknowledge assumptions that e.g. a civil society exists, democratic involvement in the policy process is possible and permitted by political structures through institutional structures or society, there is no fixed relationship between a state and its citizens, several interests are disputed which does not necessarily mean an equal distribution between those who aim to exercise their influence and lastly, it is possible for change to happen in public policies.
The qualitative character of this explanatory research is supported by a comparative case study design. Creswell (2007, 2009) stated that the focus on investigating the ‘why’ instead of the ‘how’ of a particular event is central to this research method, which makes it a suitable tool to explore, understand and describe a research subject. He also mentions that qualitative studies are involved with multiple perspectives, which makes collecting data necessary to identify the variety of themes. Moreover, some issues, such as the reasons why a government decides to withdraw troops from UN peacekeeping missions, are in need of a complex detailed understanding, which calls for a qualitative approach (Creswell, 1998). Therefore, a qualitative design would be a solid fit for this research, given the variety of factors that affect the particular outcome. It is the focus on ‘retrospectively accounting for the outcomes of particular cases rather than prospectively estimating average causal effects’ that makes a comparative case study the right design to this topic (Toshkov, 2016). Exploring the reasons or factors that led to a particular outcome is what is central to this research. In order to create the most comprehensive understanding of what led to the outcome, theories are applied to a twofold of UN peacekeeping cases: Afghanistan and Mali.
The research’s primary focus is to provide the reader with a comprehensive approach to stipulate what drives a government to withdraw from a UN peacekeeping operation, supported by an in-depth description of the three streams and how these were coupled. In the previous chapter the theoretical background regarding the subject was addressed, whereas this chapter presents the research question, the research design and the case selection. This is followed by a section that elaborates on the methodological decisions that were made in order to conduct this research and is concluded with a paragraph on how the data was collected.
3.1 Research Design and Case Selection
In order to succeed in answering the research question, this research is conducted through qualitative research methods. The dependent variable or concept of this research is ‘a state’s decision to withdraw its troops from UN peacekeeping mission’. In order to analyse the research question and to operationalize the dependent concept, I used Kingdon’s framework based on a comparative case-study approach, for which the UN peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan and Mali were chosen. I acknowledge the limitations of such a case study as it limits the possibility to generalize or even apply the outcomes to a different context or to make a comparison with other study results. Therefore, no claims are made. Besides, it is important to mention that Kingdon’s theory is merely used as a lens in this comparative case study rather than it being tested in this research. Nevertheless, the use of Kingdon’s Framework gives us three independent concepts under the main subject of ‘domestic factors’: media, research organizations and coalition politics (Figure 2). The operationalization of these variables is further explained in section 3.4 of this chapter.
Historically, qualitative research based on case studies has been highly criticized. Scholars such as Yin (1994) or Miles and Huberman (2002) stated case studies were simply just a part of the pre-study in the exploratory process. According to Yin (1994), an explanatory case is one of the five case study applications he has identified. He defines this application as something that aims to explain causal links that are not likely to be conducted through quantitative research. Therefore, as this research deals with multiple situations in which the contextual details are analysed across several levels, a comparative case-study design is applied. A trade-off was faced between the number of cases that are used in this research.1 A two-fold case selection offers a more efficient
and thorough analysis in order to get a full understanding of what led to the Dutch government deciding to withdraw its troops in both UN peacekeeping operations. Three cases, however, would have a rather superficial outcome.
3.2 Data Collection
A qualitative research design usually involves data collection methods such as interviews, observations and document analysis. This study, however, is not suitable to gather information through the application of interviews or observations because events have already taken place too long ago. Moreover, memories, and therefore testimonies of possible respondents usually decrease in reliability over time (Schwarz & Oysermann, 2001). Bowen (2009) states that ‘’documents may be the most effective means of gathering data when events can no longer be observed or when informants have forgotten the details.’’ The information necessary to unfold the societal context and historical insights, providing a tool to track change and development and to verify other documents, is abstracted from several descriptive sources. Therefore, data analysis is used as a stand-alone method in this study.
With regards to data collection, I used a set of questions or criteria that can be referred to the three streams to select both primary and secondary sources. The problem stream included a set of questions such as the nature of the problem, was it a focusing event, how the problem was framed and the potential impact of the portrayal. In the policy stream the set of questions focussed on who was considered to be the main policy entrepreneur, whether these beliefs were widely shared and what specialist knowledge or expertise was accumulated. The political stream included
1This was highly dependent on the length of the thesis and the average word count permitted by the Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs at Leiden University.
a set of questions on the current political mood, how this could potentially influence the policy agenda, the dominant political party or the party in office and how this party affected possible change.
The documents included in this research are both primary and secondary sources from the online (academic) search engines and databases or were found in the library of Leiden University. Examples of primary sources are government and policy documents, such as meeting agendas, minutes, transcriptions, letters and committee reports of e.g. the House of Representatives. Secondary sources are official statements, book chapters, articles from academic journals, newspaper articles, media reports, reports by research organizations and literature reviews. I acknowledge the variety of different newspapers and bear in mind the possible distinction in news-portrayal. Internationally speaking, examples of such distinctions are found in e.g. the UK where two distinct categories exist. According to an article of the Oxford Royale Academy (2016), the more serious and intellectual newspapers, referred to as broadsheets or quality press and others that are collectively known as popular press. The Netherlands has a similar approach in which examples of quality press are NRC Handelsblad, NRCnext, Volkskrant, Financieel Dagblad and Trouw. Examples of popular press are De Telegraaf and Algemeen Dagblad. According to a study of Boukes and Vliegenthart (2017) commissioned by the Dutch Research Council or Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) regional newspapers in the Netherlands have similar characteristics as popularity press. With this in mind, data is collected from quality press only, however analyzing the use of framing means I must include all types of newspapers as they all might influence the Dutch public opinion.
3.3 Reliability and validity
The following section presents the compliance with the two cornerstones of qualitative research, reliability and validity, therefore provides information on how the research was performed.
In order to find these sources, the Google Scholar search engine was used and the LexisNexis database with access through the online Catalogue of Leiden University. Keywords that were used in the preliminary research were initially the ones that indicated a more generic meaning such as ‘domestic factors’, ‘foreign policy’, ‘Dutch’, ‘impact’, ‘affect’ and were later modified to keywords such as ‘coalition politics’, ‘research organizations’, ‘media’, ‘politicians’, ‘UN peacekeeping missions’, ‘UN peacekeeping operations’, ‘dispatch troops’, ‘military
contribution’, ‘withdrawal troops’. The keywords were used in sentences of both languages, English and Dutch, to enhance the research. After the cases were decided upon, the names of the UN peacekeeping missions were combined with the above-mentioned keywords.
After having found several documents and other online sources I selected the sources carefully to ensure a good representation of the various perspectives on the subject. This is necessary to avoid biased selectivity. Overrepresentation or being over reliant on certain elite informants would only decrease the level of reliability and validity. (Yin, 1994).
3.4 Operationalization of the Multiple Streams Framework
An important note to Kingdon’s framework is that it’s abstractedness is a foundation for flexibility and leaves room for interpretation. Rawat and Morris believe that this explains why policymaking is delicate and unpredictable. Nevertheless, this study design does not allow for an extensive analysis, which means the unit of analysis within each stream needs to be carefully demarcated. The fourth chapter is therefore divided into two sub-sections which represent the two UN peacekeeping missions. Each sub-section starts with a brief summary of relevant background information and continues with the application of Kingdon’s framework.
3.4.1 Problem Stream
This stream is operationalized first by looking for potential focussing events that might have occurred which caused actors such as the media to act upon and frame the situation in a certain way to gain attention from policy-makers. Scholars like Knaggård (2015) argue that there are elements of three underlying concepts in a problem frame: knowledge, values and emotions. In order to frame a condition, there must be some type of knowledge to be based upon. This does not always have to be scientific but can also be bureaucratic or professional knowledge or even local everyday knowledge. Second, a problem frame is often based on an underlying idea to make one care about the problem: values. Moreover, the responsibility of the one that must act upon the problem is pointed upon. Some scholars argue that values and thus ideology are more effective in a problem frame than knowledge because it is something that is widely shared in society (Kangas et al. 2014). Lastly, emotions are used in problems frames, although it is a concept that is rather vague. That is why scholars focus on the collective level instead on the individual level, which presents itself for instance in the use of powerful symbols (Zahariadis, 2003). For the purpose of
this research, the activity of the media and how the problem was presented will be scrutinized by looking at the use of symbols as symbolic devices as was described by Deborah Stone (2012) in order to uncover what these symbols indicate.
Therefore, the use of stories is analysed where this study aims to examine the existence of either a story of change or a story of power. Stone (2012) distinguishes two types of stories of change: the story of decline and the story of rising. She notes that a story of decline often begins with a number of facts or numbers that indicate a worsened situation, with an even more downward future (Stone, 2012). Nevertheless, Stone (2012) argues that both stories can coexist, as societies are very dynamic and are always changing. On the contrary, she divides the story of power into the story of helplessness and the story of control (Stone, 2012). According to Stone (2012), politics and public policy often use or revolve around these types of stories because where situations are bad or out of control, the outcome will always be that control can certainly be taken. It often revolves around a fundamental problem that needs to be restored, such as liberty issues. These stories are often threatening at first but become heartening when it promises to take back control or power. Therefore, Stone (2012) argues these stories always have an assertion that choice exists and presents a sense of hope, whereas stories of decline portray anxiety and despair. Moreover, she mentions both stories of decline and control are often intertwined, in which it commences with a warning of current suffering and ends with hope by stating motivation to take back control.
Stone (2012) argues that stories in public policy or politics include several literary devices, of which the most common are metaphors and ambiguity. First, metaphors are used for a more strategic representation when it comes to policy analysis. When a metaphor is used, it often seems like an ordinary comparison between two things, however, this comparison carries a larger and deeper story that often implies a call for action. A second common device is the feature of ambiguity, in which a symbol can have two (or more) different meanings at the same time, which can also be interpreted differently depending on the person or people.
3.4.2 Policy Stream
In this research the policy stream is operationalized through the examination of scientific information, evidence, research and other knowledge-types, with a specific focus on the role of independent research organizations. These organizations often function as intermediaries between those who produce knowledge and those who consume that knowledge. They make sure the
