Agreeing with the notion that public policies are “whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (Dye, 1987, p. 1) eventuates in breaking down the academic field of public policy to the study of decision making. Whether public policy is indeed in its essence the study of decision making or not is however part of a different debate that this essay will not delve into. Nevertheless, noteworthy here is that questions such as 'who are the decision makers? How and why do they take the decisions they are taking?' have been leading research questions in public policy sciences. One theoretical framework policy scholars have long used to give answers to the questions was the rational choice theory.
(...)
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Bounded Rationality and Incrementalism
2.1 Simon and His Theory of Bounded Rationality
2.2 Lindblom and His Theory of Incrementalism
3. Comparison
3.1 Contrasting Bounded Rationality with Incrementalism
4. Empirical Value of Bounded Rationality and Incrementalism
5. Conclusion
6. Perspectives: Criticism and Further Research
Objectives and Topics
The essay aims to analyze two key alternatives to the rational choice theory in public policy: Herbert Simon's "bounded rationality" and Charles Lindblom's "incrementalism." It evaluates how these models explain real-world decision-making processes, compares their commonalities and differences, and examines their empirical validity through existing literature.
- Critique of the "rational choice" model in public policy.
- Core principles of Simon’s Bounded Rationality.
- Conceptual framework of Lindblom’s Incrementalism.
- Comparative analysis of decision-making models.
- Empirical assessment of budgetary decision-making processes.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Simon and His Theory of Bounded Rationality
In his work "Administrative Behavior" (1957), Simon contests that policy actors operate completely rational. His core argument is that human beings, when they face a problem and are required to act, are prevented from behaving in a fully rational manner due to limitations in their cognitive capabilities and to environmental constraints, even though they are rational in their intentions. Policy actors, taken as individuals, face the same limitations: Instead of engaging in exhaustive calculations on costs and benefits or collecting thorough information, they simply adapt to the given situation that enables them to solve the issue in a "satisficing" way. (1957, p. 76).
The reasons Simon (1997) gives as to why complete rationality is impossible to attain can be summarized as follows: Acting rationally presupposes that one has not only complete knowledge but also an anticipation of the consequences a taken choice will have. Knowledge of consequences, however, is subject to temporariness. Further, a full rational decision requires taking into account all possible and available options. The latter is, however, in actual behavior never the case, since the entire range of alternatives is hardly ever fully exploited. (Simon, 1997, pp. 93-94) In other words, time and organizational constraints, cognitive limitations such as limited information processing capabilities, and attention span makes it "impossible for the behavior of a single, isolated individual to reach any high degree of rationality" (Simon 1997, p. 92).
As a result, policy actors' decisions are characterized by what Simon calls "bounded rationality." (p. 92) Policy actors do not conduct extensive informational researches but use mental shortcuts when considering policy solutions. These shortcuts imply, for instance, that policymakers connect emerging problems to past or present problems, prompting them to draw on solutions contrived earlier instead of starting all over again. (p. 92)
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the shift from rational choice theory to alternative models and sets the scope for comparing Simon's and Lindblom's work.
2. Bounded Rationality and Incrementalism: Defines the cognitive limitations of decision-makers according to Simon and the "muddling through" approach introduced by Lindblom.
3. Comparison: Analyzes the theoretical intersection between the two models and explores their methodological divergences.
4. Empirical Value of Bounded Rationality and Incrementalism: Tests the models against empirical data, specifically focusing on the budgetary decision-making study by Davis, Dempster, and Wildavsky.
5. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings and confirms the models' relevance in understanding real-world policy outcomes.
6. Perspectives: Criticism and Further Research: Discusses limitations of the models, including predictability and the role of institutional power, suggesting areas for future inquiry.
Keywords
Bounded Rationality, Incrementalism, Rational Choice Theory, Public Policy, Decision-Making, Satisficing, Muddling Through, Successive Limited Comparisons, Cognitive Constraints, Empirical Validity, Budgetary Process, Policy Actors, Incremental Adjustment, Administrative Behavior, Political Power.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores alternative theories to the traditional rational choice model in public policy, focusing specifically on how decision-making is affected by cognitive and environmental limitations.
What are the central themes discussed?
The central themes include the feasibility of rational decision-making, the necessity of "satisficing" behavior, the nature of incremental policy adjustments, and the empirical evidence supporting these theories in real-world governance.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to evaluate whether Simon's "bounded rationality" and Lindblom's "incrementalism" provide a more accurate representation of policy-making reality than the idealistic rational choice theory.
Which methodology is employed?
The author uses a comparative theoretical analysis combined with a literature review of empirical studies—specifically examining historical budgetary decision-making data—to validate the models.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the theoretical foundations of bounded rationality, the practical application of incrementalism, a direct comparison between the two, and an empirical evaluation of their real-world applicability.
What defines the core characteristic of the models?
The models are characterized by the recognition that policymakers work under constraints and therefore rely on mental shortcuts and small, incremental changes rather than comprehensive rational calculations.
How does Lindblom's "branch method" differ from the "root method"?
The root method assumes a comprehensive, rational re-evaluation of all possibilities, whereas the branch method acknowledges that policies evolve through successive, limited comparisons built upon previous decisions.
How is the "muddling through" concept evaluated regarding policy progress?
Lindblom argues that "muddling through" is a pragmatic and efficient way to achieve policy agreement and progress in complex systems where comprehensive rationality is impossible.
Why is the 1966 Davis, Dempster, and Wildavsky study significant to this work?
This study is used to provide empirical evidence for incrementalism, showing that federal budgetary decisions rely on slight adjustments to previous years rather than starting from scratch.
What critique does the author offer regarding the models?
The author argues that both Simon and Lindblom overemphasize individual decision-makers and fail to fully account for the influence of institutions, organizational norms, and broader political power dynamics.
- Citar trabajo
- Emre Yildiz (Autor), 2013, Bounded Rationality and Incrementalism. Simon and Lindblom, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/231990
