California State University Long Beach

Graduate Center for Public Policy and Administration

Summer 2002, Third Session


PPA 590 WOMEN & PUBLIC POLICY


DECISION-MAKING IN PUBLIC POLICY


Decision-making in public policy has evolved into two camps: the camp that favors decision-making based more on techniques derived from mathematics, economics, and management science; and the camp that favors decision-making based more on politics. The former is often referred to as “ideal” decision-making, while the latter is referred to as “real” decision-making.


Management Science


Decision-making in management science is based on assumptions that complex problems can be broken down into smaller parts that are more easily analyzed; alternatives can be easily identified and assessed; and systematic thinking increases the likelihood of better decisions.

 

Management science techniques are largely based on models of rational decision-making, which are derived from mathematics and economics. Decision-making is the choice of an alternative from among a series of competing alternatives. The rational model assumes that

            1) people make choices (or have preferences);

2) people's preferences are ordered (if there are three alternative courses of action, A, B, and C, each person can rank the alternatives in order of preference from most to least);

3) the order is transitive (if A is better than B, and B is better than C, then A is also better than C);

4) this is an intra-personal process;

            5) negative externalities may result for others (which is why we have government).


The most favorable conditions for the adoption of management science techniques include:

            sponsorship of top decision-makers;

            clearly assigned responsibility for decision-making;

            decision-makers have experience with this method;

             data are available and/or data collection is rapid;

            and record-keeping is accurate.


The limitations of management science techniques include high costs; inapplicability to some problems; poor data bases; and techniques divorced from reality.


Rational-Comprehensive

            The rational-comprehensive model of decision-making focuses on the steps or activities in selecting alternatives. These steps or activities are:

 

1. Define the problem so that it is separate from other problems

2. List all the goals and objectives and their relative weights or values

3. List all the alternatives

4. List the costs and consequences of each alternative

5. Calculate the ratio of costs to benefits for each alternative

6. Identify the alternative that maximizes attainment of goals and objectives

7. The best alternative is that which most efficiently achieves the given goal.


The literature of public administration, decision-making, policy formulation, and planning emphasized formalized methods for making decision, but public agencies are often limited in their ability to practice the rational-comprehensive method. Public policy-makers are constrained from using this approach due to limitations in terms of intellectual capacity, time, sources of information, resources, and their legal mandate.


The methods of systems analysis, operations research, and statistical decision theory tend to rely on rational comprehensive decision-making. They stress clarity of objectives, explicitness of evaluation, a comprehensive overview, and quantification of information and values wherever possible. However, these methods may be applicable only to lower-level decisions.


Problems with rational-comprehensive decision-making are:

 

1. It assumes a given problem can be separated from other problems. Can't define a problem in isolation from other problems; there are sunk costs in seeing the problem as it is now defined; legitimacy of accepted policies.

 

2. The goals, values or objectives that guide the decision-maker can be clarified and ranked in order of importance. Must clarify values and objectives before analysis of alternatives. It is impossible to know social goals and objectives; only those of individuals can be known; and all values are not always applicable. Places unrealistic demands on the decision-maker in terms of human ability, namely time, information, knowledge, and ability to predict the future.

                        -different actors have different frames of reference

                        -individually rational decisions may not produce an overall rational outcome

                        -difficulty of interpersonal agreement on socially valued goals

 

3. The alternatives can be known and examined. Many alternatives will not be practical or feasible. Means-ends analysis requires that the ends be identified first and then the means, but where do means leave off and ends begin? Some means may conflict with other ends.

                        -limited ability to search for alternatives

 

4. The costs and consequences of each alternative can be investigated. Analysis must be comprehensive--it must take every relevant factor into account. Theory is heavily relied on. Inability to predict future costs and to identify what costs are to be calculated.

-Political expediency limits possible costs; no certainly about consequences.

                        -limited information about the future

                        -no certainty about consequences

 

5. Each alternative can be compared to every other. Endless process of comparing each alternative to every other alternative in terms of costs and benefits; difficulty of separating related alternatives.

 

6. The choice will be a simple one, as only one alternative can maximie attainment of values, goals, and objectives. Since there is value conflict rather than value agreement, the optimal choice can't be determine.

 

7. Serially rational decisions may not add up to an overall rational outcome.



COMPARISON OF DECISION-MAKING MODELS


RATIONAL-COMPREHENSIVE

INCREMENTAL

1. Define the problem so that it is separate from other problems

1. It is accepted that problems arise in a context, that problems are not distinct from one another.

2. List all the goals and objectives and their relative weights or values

2. The guiding criteria are program objectives.

3. List all the alternatives

3. A few alternatives are considered, which differ only marginally from the existing program.

4. List the costs and consequences of each alternative

4. Some of the consequences of each alternative are considered.

5. Calculate the ratio of costs to benefits for each alternative

5. The problem may be continually re-defined as different means are proposed to achieve the desired ends; it is adjusted to make it more manageable.

6. Identify the alternative that maximizes attainment of goals and objectives

6. Agreement is reached on at least one good solution, even if it is not the best possible solution.

7. The best alternative is that which most efficiently achieves the given goal.

7. A good decision is one which is agreed upon and which produces better conditions in the short run.



Incrementalism


In public administration, decision-making typically involves a pattern of action extending over time, and involving many decision, both routine and non-routine. Taking into account the limitations of the rational-comprehensive model, and observing how public decision-makers actually perform, another type of decision-making can be identified. It is called the method of successive limited comparisons, or incrementalism. The steps are:

 

1. It is accepted that problems arise in a context, that problems are not distinct from one another.

2. The guiding criteria are program objectives.

3. A few alternatives are considered, which differ only marginally from the existing program.

4. Some of the consequences of each alternative are considered.

5. The problem may be continually re-defined as different means are proposed to achieve the desired ends; it is adjusted to make it more manageable.

6. Agreement is reached on at least one good solution, even if it is not the best possible solution.

7. A good decision is one which is agreed upon and which produces better conditions in the short run.


There are also limitations to the incremental method.

 

-It doesn't encourage comprehensive approaches to problems; the problem is usually seen as one of adjustments at the margin.

 

-Some values may be overlooked if not represented among the decision-makers, e.g., long-term vs. short-term. What is important is defined narrowly. It assumes each important value will be represented by some group so that no one group has to represent them all.

 

-Some acceptable alternatives may never be suggested if decision-makers are isolated. There are political limits to the types of alternatives that can be considered. Only alternatives which do not differ fundamentally can be accepted. It ignores the possible consequences of alternatives not suggested.

 

-It is really a series of successive approximations to ends or goals, each one moving a little closer. Not too much has to be accomplished at any one time. Satisficing replaces maximizing.

 

-"Goodness of fit" is the criteria used by the decision-makers. It relies on past outcomes as a guide and realies that some knowledge can be gained at each step. Errors can thus be corrected fairly easily. It acknowledges the element of bargaining that occurs in decision-making. It reduces reliance on theory. It is remedial; it is geared to the amelioration of present concrete social imperfections, not the promotion of future social goods. It is more typical of the actual decision-making process in pluralist societies.

 

-Incrementalism is politically expedient because it is easier to reach agreement when the matters in dispute among many various groups are only modifications of existing programs, rather than "all or nothing" choices of great magnitude. Decisions are the product of give-and-take and mutual consent among numerous participants in the decision process, which is seen as partisan (not neutral). Incrementalism reduces the risks and costs of uncertainly with regard to future consequences of present decision-making actions. It recognies the human limitations of time, intelligence, and information, and instead searches for the first acceptable, limited, pragmatic decision.


            To use incremental decision-making, you must have continuity in the problem, there must be a high degree of continuity in the available methods for dealing with the problems, and the results of present policies must be at least minimally acceptable, so that marginal changes would also be acceptable. Thus where there are no past policies, where the values have changed, or where the problem has changed significantly, then incrementalism won't work. Incrementalism remains more conservative but also less authoritarian than rational comprehensive decision-making.


Environment of Decision-Making in the Public Sector


            Policy makers function in a political environment and must consider the costs of adopting or implementing a decision--will it really improve accountability, effectiveness, or attention to values? They must be aware of the external forces that impinge on decision-making: political, economic, social, demographic, cultural, historic, etc.


            Private executives sometimes have clearer goals, such as return on invested capital, market share, or net profit, than public policy-makers, whose goal may be citizen satisfaction with government services. Also, in politics, who sets the goals is important. Time frames may differ in public and private decision-making, depending on the service or good. The limitations in the private sector are competition, but in the public sector decisions are limited by political factors. Private firms have more flexibility in allocating resources and changing personnel, policies, and procedures, while public entities tied into existing policies and resources. Corporate managers have near anonymity while public managers operate in a goldfish bowl. Public managers also must deal with special interest groups, who try to impact the private sector via government.


Actors in the decision process can include:


Insiders and outsiders: consultants, private citiens, and advisory boards are assumed to be more objective; however they may create conflict (e.g., citien review boards for police departments).


Line and staff: Staff don't usually come into contact with agency clients and, as newcomers, often don't know the agency history, what has or hasn't worked in the past. Line personnel may be more concerned about technical questions related to the work, and more loyal to the organiation or its subunits or programs. Staff may be more concerned about the profession or the public interest.


Professionals and administrators: professional standards may conflict with administrative decisions, e.g., doctors set their own standards in hospitals for most things, but career administrators make other decisions.


Career executives and political appointees: career executives often attempt to win by delaying, foot-dragging, debates, leaks to the press, or other long-term strategies which can outlast the political appointees.


The Dynamics of Decision-Making: Groups vs. Individuals


            Groups may be more ready to make risky decisions, because the responsibility is shared;

            groups may make more accurate judgments by including high quality specialists;

            groups may make more rational decisions, as more points of view must be considered;

groups can identify more alternatives, develop a definition of objectives, evaluate more courses of action, and consider innovative suggestions, and enhance the likelihood of acceptability and implementation of decisions.


However, groups are slower and take up more resources.

Groups may make compromises rather than the most effective decisions;

a dominant personality or clique may gain control;

status differences can inhibit group participation;

size limits the amount each member can participate;

groups can become subject to group-think;

the structure of group decision making influences the output, as cooperatively structured

groups are usually more productive than competitively structured groups.


Types of group decision-making may include:


Brainstorming--

            group members suggest as many solutions as possible in the time allotted without discussion or criticism;


Nominal Group Technique--

            all members contribute their own solutions, which are then discussed and voted on by secret ballot;


Delphi Technique--

            respondents independently answer a questionnaire.

            Results are then summaried and circulated in a second round;

            the process goes on until alternatives are

            selected by the decision-maker(s).


Outside Groups–

            Consultants, citizen groups, or other grassroots or expert advice is sought.


Scenario Writing--

            Knowledgeable people try to think of the factors that will be important in making a decision.


Other Decision-Making or Problem-Solving Techniques


Operations Research--

Focuses on efficiency problems in which some payoff can be maximied. it relies on probability theory, queuing techniques, and mathematical modeling. Developed in the U.K. during the 1930s to invent radar; also used for delivering mail, scheduling bus service, waste management, land use, urban planning, highway safety, education, agriculture, etc.


Typical applications include:

1) Inventory management: idle resources, training

2) Allocation: optional mix of resources and methods

3) Queuing: how to get things through a service in the fastest and most efficient way;

4) Sequencing: to minimie waiting time within assigned priorities;

5) Routing: minimiing the distance, cost and time between points

6) Replacement: minimie the cost of replacing items that wear out

7) Competition: maximizing returns in the face of competition

8) Search: optimizing the method of decision-making in auditing, inspection, geological explorations, etc.


Operations research techniques are designed to obtain efficiency no matter how that efficiency has been defined. it has been used to speed up mail delivery but also to evaluate the effectiveness of bombing in killing civilians during wartime. It is not value-free but accepts the pre-defined values of efficiency and effectiveness.


Decision Trees--

Values are assigned to alternatives, and the likelihood of each alternative occurring is combined with the value to produce a comparison of decisions. It relies on assumptions by knowledgeable persons.


Simulations and Gaming--

Models of variables and their behavior in a system are examined in order to help clarify how the system works, by simplifying and abstracting it. It began with war games, and has several variants.


Two-Person Games: are zero-sum or non-zero-sum. Example: heads or tails.


N–Person Games are more complex; they cannot be diagrammed in a 2x2 matrix. The possibility exists of coalitions, deals, and bargains. While it is more like real life, it loses the simplicity of two-person games. It often requires the help of a computer.


Computer games and simulations: Are used to clarify relationships among variables and to help expand the awareness of the players in a system.


Technology, Bureaucracy, and the Public Interest


            What are the implications of the use of computers in government? The main focus seems to be on the issue of privacy, which is uniquely a public issue. Government is developing data bases for many reasons:

            -statistical data bases for policy studies

            -executive data bases for general administration  

            -central data bases for use by several agencies

            -individual agency data bases for routine work

            -mixed public/private data bases.


            The problem seems to be that government must have more and more information (data) in order to develop responsive and responsible policies. The use of computers can facilitate information sharing, reduce duplication of information gathering, and upgrade efficiency (e.g., IRS auditing). There are also pressures to consolidate and centralie information (which means centralied control). Decision-making is then pushed up to higher levels. The government has problems with lack of skilled personnel, officials who are unfamiliar with computers, the need to rewrite laws, the need to integrate different data systems, the lack of coordination among agencies, reluctance to share information, and fears of Big Brother.


            However, there is a fear that this will result in a trade-off with citiens' rights to privacy. Who will control the government's computer capacities? What will happen when more is known about phenomena? How will democratic participation be integrated? And will centraliation of knowledge widen the scope of government?