By Kelsey
Approaches of public policy vary regarding whether the researcher is defining the disciple as a science or describing the realistic environment of stakeholders, beneficiaries, policy makers, advocates, and various other actors that make up the policy process. There is two dominate theories to the decision-making process that informs public policy: rational decision-making and incrementalism. Howlett and Ramesh (2009) present both of the theories in their book, with critiques of each position. Lindblom (1959) presents the incrementalistic approach as a muddling through of alternatives by policy makers and Forester (1984) sums up both frameworks and suggests environments when each would provide the most beneficial application. What I am left wondering is whether the process of decision making for public policy could benefit from an infusion of other disciplines like philosophy, history, psychology, sociology and anthropology as well as a realistic perspective from actual policy makers and actors.
Howlett and Ramesh present the different forms of policymaking including the two most popular, rational decision-making and incrementalism. They argue that rational decision making provides a defined goal, explores all strategies to reach defined goal, knows no limits including time and all consequences to each strategy undertaken, and determines implementation strategy based on benefits outweigh costs. The strategy has been presented by several authors (DeLeon, 1999) and provides a useful framework for decision-making by breaking down the process into steps, often employed by various actors and in an non-linear fashion, culminating in a process implemented.
Conversely, Lindblom, the father of the incremental approach, argues that in reality the policy process is a “muddling through” of alternatives and is not as technical or process oriented as the former. He argues that each process involved in making policy are intertwined, often unrecognizable from the other, and policy makers just make due with what they have, limited intellectual faculties and all.
Forester (1984) sums up the debate between the two points by concluding that each policy process, both incrementalism and the rational decision making policy, is applied in different situations. Variables such as number of agents, environment, framing of problem, information available and time available will determine the type of process the agent(s) utilize (Forester, 26).
These authors present decision-making processes, suggest when each process would provide maximum benefits, and add to public policy in important ways. Frameworks for policy-making processes are important, for different reasons to each side. For one they are important for increasing efficiency, and others they might provide helpful guidance to include stakeholders and create “ownership” in beneficiaries to create sustainable solutions. However, I wonder whether the frameworks are indicative of actual practices and rely to heavily on business strategies than real relationship building practiced. Lindblom’s theory of “muddling through” may lack any prescriptive framework like that presented in the rational decision-making theory, yet it provides a perspective into the “reality” of public policy that seems ignored in the other articles.
What I am left wondering is whether public policy needs an added perspective of reality, as behavioral economics has given to rational choice theory, and possibly other disciplines in order to truly come up with a working framework for policy making. Interpretations of decision-making processes beginning with philosophical, historical, and psychological disciplines could inform a more in-depth analysis of the policy making process.
Resources:
Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Oxford University Press, 2009 (3rd Edition).
DeLeon, Peter, Chapter 2: “The Stages Approach to the Policy process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going?” In Paul A. Sabatier Ed. Theories of the Policy Process, Westview Press, 1999.
Lindblohm, Charles E., “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’,” Public Administration Review,19(2), 1959.
Forester, John, “Bounded Rationality and the Politics of Muddling Through,” Public Administration Review, 44(1), 1984.
Approaches of public policy vary regarding whether the researcher is defining the disciple as a science or describing the realistic environment of stakeholders, beneficiaries, policy makers, advocates, and various other actors that make up the policy process. There is two dominate theories to the decision-making process that informs public policy: rational decision-making and incrementalism. Howlett and Ramesh (2009) present both of the theories in their book, with critiques of each position. Lindblom (1959) presents the incrementalistic approach as a muddling through of alternatives by policy makers and Forester (1984) sums up both frameworks and suggests environments when each would provide the most beneficial application. What I am left wondering is whether the process of decision making for public policy could benefit from an infusion of other disciplines like philosophy, history, psychology, sociology and anthropology as well as a realistic perspective from actual policy makers and actors.
Howlett and Ramesh present the different forms of policymaking including the two most popular, rational decision-making and incrementalism. They argue that rational decision making provides a defined goal, explores all strategies to reach defined goal, knows no limits including time and all consequences to each strategy undertaken, and determines implementation strategy based on benefits outweigh costs. The strategy has been presented by several authors (DeLeon, 1999) and provides a useful framework for decision-making by breaking down the process into steps, often employed by various actors and in an non-linear fashion, culminating in a process implemented.
Conversely, Lindblom, the father of the incremental approach, argues that in reality the policy process is a “muddling through” of alternatives and is not as technical or process oriented as the former. He argues that each process involved in making policy are intertwined, often unrecognizable from the other, and policy makers just make due with what they have, limited intellectual faculties and all.
Forester (1984) sums up the debate between the two points by concluding that each policy process, both incrementalism and the rational decision making policy, is applied in different situations. Variables such as number of agents, environment, framing of problem, information available and time available will determine the type of process the agent(s) utilize (Forester, 26).
These authors present decision-making processes, suggest when each process would provide maximum benefits, and add to public policy in important ways. Frameworks for policy-making processes are important, for different reasons to each side. For one they are important for increasing efficiency, and others they might provide helpful guidance to include stakeholders and create “ownership” in beneficiaries to create sustainable solutions. However, I wonder whether the frameworks are indicative of actual practices and rely to heavily on business strategies than real relationship building practiced. Lindblom’s theory of “muddling through” may lack any prescriptive framework like that presented in the rational decision-making theory, yet it provides a perspective into the “reality” of public policy that seems ignored in the other articles.
What I am left wondering is whether public policy needs an added perspective of reality, as behavioral economics has given to rational choice theory, and possibly other disciplines in order to truly come up with a working framework for policy making. Interpretations of decision-making processes beginning with philosophical, historical, and psychological disciplines could inform a more in-depth analysis of the policy making process.
Resources:
Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Oxford University Press, 2009 (3rd Edition).
DeLeon, Peter, Chapter 2: “The Stages Approach to the Policy process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going?” In Paul A. Sabatier Ed. Theories of the Policy Process, Westview Press, 1999.
Lindblohm, Charles E., “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’,” Public Administration Review,19(2), 1959.
Forester, John, “Bounded Rationality and the Politics of Muddling Through,” Public Administration Review, 44(1), 1984.
RSS Feed