## 3 An Analytical Framework for Updates of ETP  
Section 2 provides the reasons for the Chinese central government to be boundedly rational and in the course of ETP implementation the central government faces uncertainties of local behavior, and have to learn from experienced uncertainties in order to think more systematically on policy adaptation. In light of this thought, this section builds up an analytical framework that can be used to explain and understand the empirical evidence on ETP implementation and updates. The analytical framework is combined by two models, one the \"phase\" model and the other the \"stream\" model (Figure 1). As pointed out by [PERSON] (1988): \"[In many policy development analyses] policy can be understood and examined as a combination of several phases, which are interrelated but can still be conceived as distinct components that are determinants of government actions\". The phase model takes the assumption of bounded rationality of government and depicts that policy making is the succession of different situations in the evolution of a policy. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2012) provide some indications on phase demarcation. They point out that each phase ends with a crucial decision, a decision that offers a solution for the problem that is central in a particular time period. That means a crucial decision heralds a new phase, where it guides the subsequent policy-making. If a phase results in a clear outcome and offers perspectives about what needs to be done, this will have a motivating and centripetal impact upon the actors involved in policy making. The actors for the next phase join when they see new chances, and thus a new phase emerges with new stakes, new perceptions, and new strategies. The phase model, which divides policy-making activities horizontally, provides us a view that policy development is assumed to consist of different policy making phases, largely due to policy-makers' bounded rationality when making decisions. Each phase can be regarded as an update of the previous one after the policy makers experienced and learned from the previous phase. However, the phase model does not provide insights for us regarding what happens in each phase, how a certain situation becomes the problem on government agenda, and why a policy is selected for problems solution. For this reason, we combine the phase mode with the stream model by [PERSON] [6] that divides activities of policy-making in the vertical dimension (Figure 1). In [PERSON]'s influential book, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Polices, a Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) is proposed to explain public policy agenda-setting and formulation: what determines the emergence of some ideas over others? Why are certain ideas chosen by governments to formulate public policies? [PERSON] built up the MSA's conceptual framework by distinguishing three major components in public policy studies: problems, politics, and policies [6]. The three components are compared to \"streams\" flowing through the decision system, for the reason that they operate independently from one another with their own dynamics and rules, like streams bounded by their banks. The problem stream focuses on the way policy makers learn about conditions and the way these conditions are defined as problems. Three methods are available for defining the conditions. One is indicators, which can be used to assess the existence and magnitude of a condition that, in turn, catches official attention. Second is dramatic events or crises that occasionally call attention to a condition. Third, feedbacks from existing programs can also bring conditions to the fore. However, not all conditions become problems. As [PERSON] [6] asserts, problems are perceptual; conditions become problems when they are consistent with policy-makers' values and interests.