This was my first piece of written work at degree level and is still something in which I take great pride.
Which of the theories of decision-making within the policy-making process is the most persuasive?
Decision-making in politics is a highly controversial issue. There are four important methods within the policy-making field which all have positive and negative aspects, these are; rational actor model, incremental model, bureaucratic organisational model and belief system model. The basic policy process however is also split up into four main stages; initiation, formulation, implementation and evaluation. Although all the theories of decision making are distinct, all follow this simple pattern when various decisions are made on policy. Deciding which of the four theories of decision-making is most persuasive is simply a matter of opinion. In order to come up with a ‘rational’ answer, all the political and moral aspects will have to be considered before coming to a definitive conclusion.
The policy-making process includes four basic stages of operation before a government, or policy makers, can claim to have developed a feasible policy for which a party can follow. However, the process is not as simple as it might look to the public or press. Heywood states: “Policy process not only involves clusters of decisions, in the sense of a number of related decisions concerning a particular policy area, but also different kinds of decisions.” (Heywood, 2002, p.404). The ‘decision to make a decision’ is a first and crucial part of the process which leads to the first of the four main stages of the policy-making process, the ‘policy initiation’. This is where an issue first arises and becomes part of a policy agenda (Heywood, 2002). An issue could either come from a public disagreement or a press or media concern, indeed usually both. This is known as a concern arising from ‘below’, whereas an issue concerning a politician or a government agency would come from ‘above’. The ‘policy formulation’ stage is all about defining specifically the policy a party wishes to implement. Policy-makers have to take a step back and look at both the short and long-term consequences of their actions. This relates to the theory of ‘forecasting’ and to the idea that policies at this stage are easily reinterpreted by peers. The main concern for a public body at this stage, which may have raised the issue in the first place, would be whether the government has fully understood their point of view and actions they feel need to be taken. Of course particularly when taking into account recent controversy over politician’s expenses, the public and press are currently unlikely to fully trust any government be it considered ‘open’ or not. Their main fear would be that a government will simply implement a policy to benefit themselves. Heywood argues: “Although public opinion and the concerns of bodies such as the media, political parties and interest groups are likely to influence objective setting, there is of course, no guarantee that the priorities identified by priority formulators will be the same as those advanced by policy initiators.” (Heywood, 2002, p.406). The third stage, the implementing of policy, follows the idea of the ‘perfect’ implementation. It has been argued that in order to achieve this goal a policy needs; perfect obedience or perfect control, perfect information, perfect communication and perfect coordination (Hood, 1976). The final point of the policy-making process is the evaluation stage. As with all the four stages, it is relatively self-explanatory but the main issue is the idea of appropriate feedback. After considering ‘policy feedback’ a policy-making body may choose to go back to the formulation stage in order to finalise some amendments. Heywood’s thoughts on the evaluation process also include, “decisions being made about the maintenance, succession or termination of the policy in question.” (Heywood, 2002, p.409).
In accordance to the policy-making process there are, as mentioned, four decision-making models which operate within it. The first of the four, the rational actor model is just that, rational and more logical than any of its alternatives. This stems from the concept of utilitarianism and the notion of the ‘economic man’, which draws on the idea that people are self-interested, deciding which option would most likely maximise their pleasure and minimise pain. Another reason the rational actor model could be seen as more logical is because it sets out its goals and aims first, which means more radical or bold decisions have to be made in order to achieve them. The means of then achieving a goal or objective are evaluated in terms of their reliability, costs and effectiveness before coming to a decision. The rational actor model has, along with other models, been analysed deeply by Graham T. Allison who uses the case study of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. After President Kennedy did not back up the ‘Bay of Pigs Invasion’ the soviets were on the front foot. According to Graham T. Allison’s study, ‘Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis’, it is thought that Kennedy and his advisors used a version of the rational actor model to plot there next move. After considering a range of options, in the end they decided on a blockade of Cuba to force the next move on the soviets. This was a bold move but one which brought, according to Heywood, a decision made through a selection of the means most likely to secure the desired end (Heywood, 2002). Perhaps the most persuasive factor of this model to a policy-making body is that it is how the percentage of people feels decisions should be made in politics and indeed in other walks of life. However, this argument is often countered by those who claim that while the model is clearly rational; perhaps the people making the decision are not i.e. politicians, currently not the most trustworthy group of professionals.
The incremental approach to decision making is widely regarded as being more realistic, both in terms of the idea itself but also of what actually goes on in politics today. It is considered by many as a Conservative method as befits their stereotypical ideological stance that is resistant to change. Of course this is not entirely true, the Conservative party has been known to change its stance, particularly today with regards to David Cameron’s more modern outlook. As was with Barack Obama, he is campaigning on a need specifically for ‘change’. Despite this thought, the traditional Conservative ideology can accept change and it does so with a certain degree of caution; thus fitting the incremental model perfectly. Heywood states that the Conservatives had, “accepted change, or change in order to conserve.” (Heywood, 2004, p.138). Furthermore the incremental model, instead of making big brash policy decisions (like the rational actor model), would keep with the previous policy but perhaps with a few amendments or ‘adjustments’ depending on circumstance. This is seen as safer, more realistically logical and ultimately conservative. Although recently there has been evidence that the Labour party has adopted this method of decision-making on its drug policy when, in January 2009, they upgraded cannabis to class B. Professor David Nutt was then sacked after stating that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol, further evidence to suggest that small adjustments to policy can have a big impact whether it be positive or negative. The benefits of adopting this theory of decision-making are that it is, particularly in a pluralist democracy, clearly more flexible and responsive according to the theory of ‘muddling through’ (Lindblom 1959). Critics of the system claim it is based too securely around a Conservative form of government, which to many is a criticism in itself and also that it lacks innovation with regards to policy solutions. Other, less partisan, criticisms centre on the fact that the model is inherently a short term solution to decision-making without looking at the long-term consequences in the future. Also, small policy changes implies that the decision being taken is small and insignificant thus raising issues that decisions within a policy-making process could be ill-informed with individuals lacking the adequate information required.
The bureaucratic organization model differs from the previous two decision making models in that it is more aware of the need to have a solid policy-making structure in order for it to be successful. Both the incremental and rational actor models pay no attention to this point. The bureaucratic organizational models dwell on the impact made upon large organizations as a result of a policy changing decision. Impact such as those on basic ideological values, assumptions and regular patterns of behaviour which exist in any large organization (Heywood, 2002). Instead this decision-making model states that decisions in policy making should be made to reflect the core values of an organization, not conflict against them. Furthermore any policy changes should be done so with the appropriate degree of appreciation for the internal organizational factors. While this model may operate in accordance to the majority of personnel in an organization, it also has a number of drawbacks. Chief among which is the fact that political leadership becomes almost obsolete, or not needed, in the sense that it would be the consensus of an organization which in the end would ultimately make a decision. Without leadership ‘from above’, critical decisions could become few and far between. Furthermore, the model goes against national interest in favour of departmental interest, something which would not appeal to the electorate. Again, in accordance to Graham T. Allison’s theory, President Kennedy’s actions in the Cuban Missile Crisis could have been interpreted differently by applying the bureaucratic organization model as opposed to the rational actor. Instead of looking at an array of options before making a decision, Kennedy would have chosen the first idea which was considered adequate as opposed to waiting for the optimal solution, in the name of saving time.
The belief system model draws on the ideological values of a policy-making body or indeed, of an individual. The model sets out three levels of ideological strength. The first being ‘deep core ideological values’ which are our fundamental moral principles, the second being our ‘near core values’ which indicate our policy preferences and finally our ‘secondary beliefs’, which influence our views on policy implementation. An example of when ideological values matter most is perhaps during Prime Minister’s question time. As the two major parties battle for the supremacy of the house through jeering and shouting, perhaps the only thing separating them is their ideological values. Under the belief system model, ideological values are seen as the ‘glue’ of political decision-making. Though this theory of decision-making would make policy easy to decipher, it is not a feasible or commonly used method on which to formulate policy. Its level of persuasiveness is low to say the least, particularly to a highly political policy-making body. An advocator of the belief system model would counter that argument by involving political culture as opposed to an individual’s ideology. Moran claims that political culture, “consists of more than attitudes to political authority or beliefs about the purpose of government; it encompasses the political practices and ceremonials of a community” (Moran, 1989, p.34).
Within the policy-making process, political decisions are hugely important if a government wishes to be successful. Deciding upon which is the best or the most persuasive is a difficult question. If a government were to decide upon the use of one of the four theories, it would like to evaluate all of them for their strengths, weaknesses and the reality of implementing such a model into the party line. The first to be brushed aside would be the belief system model as it is too simplistic to suggest that ideology is all that matters, particularly in decision making. The idea that politics is making progress, in appealing to all in society, would be lost thus deeming the belief system model a backward step. The bureaucratic organization model would also falter. While few want to see the return of a dictatorship, this model seems to satisfy only the interests of those on the inside, the public voters would not approve. In my opinion, were a government to be persuaded by just one of the decision making models, it would be the incremental model. A bold decision taken in light of using the rational actor model could be seen as the right way forward to many, particularly those who place themselves on the left of the ideological spectrum. However, a bold decision implies that there is a certain element of risk involved. Taking a wrong turn because of an irrational thought or political leaning, especially in today’s economic climate, could result in disaster.
Bibliography
Andrew Heywood, (2002), Politics, Second Edition, Hampshire: Palgrave Foundations.
Andrew Heywood, (2004), Political Theory An Introduction, Third Edition, Hampshire: Palgrave Foundations.
Michael Moran, (1989), Politics and Society in Britain an Introduction, Second Edition, London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
C Hood, (1976), The Limits of Administration, London: John Wiley.
C Lindblom, (1959), ‘The Science of Muddling Through’, Public Administration Review, vol. 19, pp. 79-88.
Graham T. Allison, (1999), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Second Edition, Longman.
The Word Stable 