KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

TASK: DECISION MAKING IN PBLIC POLICY

UNIT CODE: APP 817

UNIT TITLE: PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS

PRESENTED BY: CATHERINE N. MITHIA

ADMISSION NO: C153/CTY/PT/38988/2016

PRESENTED TO: DR. MUNA

DUE DATE: 16th OCTOBER, 2018

Introduction

Decision making is commonly described as a process or sequence of activities involving stages

of problem recognition, quest for information, description of alternatives and the selection of an

actor of one from two or more alternatives consistent with the ranked preferences (Morcol,

2006). According to Aristotle rationality is the characteristic that distinguishes human beings

from animal, and that rational thinking is a close acquaintance of empirical enquiry. Seventeen

century Newtonian Science seemed to support Aristotle’s principles where scientists came with

up with a new methodology of empirical scientific investigation and reinforced the notion of

empirically verifiable rational thinking. Later in the 20th century, logical positivists organized the

enlightenment principles of scientific investigation and turned it into a system of logical and

mathematical operations (Morcol, 2006).

History of Decision Making

Generally, there have been several attempts to understand the process of decision making with

several models advanced. Lindbolm, Simon and other initial contributors to empirically-based

theories of decision making recognized that human problems are indeed extraordinarily complex,

while our analyzing capabilities and resources are restricted (Simon 1955; Lindblom 1959). In

addition, humans lack adequate knowledge of cause-and effect to comprehend complex social

problems, and almost certainly disagree about almost anything and have no satisfactory analytic

method of resolving diverse perceptions and priorities into collective choices (Arrow, 1951).

Recognizing that analytical methods alone were not able to determine the scope of problems,

Herbert Simon devised a cognitive strategy he aptly named as “bounded rationality”. Lindbolm

and Braybookers’ (1965) developed the incremental model where decision making is a process
that involves several steps and in which political decisions are adjusted over time. Pluralists such

as Dahl (1961), focused on a theoretical development towards network-theory and governance.

Simon’s Bounded rationality Model

However, Herbert Simon is considered one of the most important influencers and researchers in

the area of decision making, in the field of behavioral studies. Prior to Simon’s contribution, the

field of decision making belonged to economics rather than management/administration with the

dominant theory of rationality of individuals maximizing a utility function under constraints.

They reasoned that economic actors maximize utility and in order to do that then they must be

perfect rational agents. This means that they must undertake a cost-benefit analysis with all the

options available, utilizing the rules of logic or probability perfectly to get a meaningful end

result. Economist theorists do not assume that all economic agents produce the same results, but

they uphold that departures from rationality are rare and that non-maximizing agents would

vanish since they would not survive in a market (Kahneman, 2003). Simon, however observed

that economic theory of rationality informs us nothing about technology underlying production,

nor the motivations that inspire the decisions of managers and employees or the processes that

leads to optimal decision (Simon, 1959).

Simon sought to understand organizations and their management as a summation of human

choice, unlike in economics which is based on abstracted human behavior, but based on real

behavior of people. He pointed out the limitations of a purely rational approach advocated for by

economists stating that it is not possible for a decision maker to analyze all the information and

options when analyzing a problem (Baachi, 1999). He further argued that the rationality of

neoclassical theorists such as Henri Fayol and Fredrick Taylor, assumed that the decision maker

has a comprehensive, consistent utility function, is aware of all the alternatives that are available
for choice, can calculate the expected value of utility associated with each alternative, and selects

the alternative that maximizes expected rationality. He suggested that the complexity of the

environment and human’s narrow cognitive system make maximization impossible in real-life

decision making (Campitelli, 2010).

He proposed as an alternative that people do not maximize instead they decide and have a

criterion to decide whether an alternative is satisfactory and they choose the first option that

satisfy this criterion. Simon’s approach to decision making consisted of three main assumptions:

first, decisions are not performed by agents with perfect rationality, they are made by agents with

bounded rationality; second, the quality of decisions vary as a function of the expertise of the

decision maker; third, to understand decision making, it is vital to investigate the cognitive

processes involved; that is, an examination based on performance only is not sufficient.

According to him, to choose a good enough option, not the best option guides the process of

decision making and not evaluating all available options and carrying a full cost-benefit analysis

(Simon, 1958).

He thus, devised the theory of bounded rationality where decisions can be made with reasonable

amounts of calculation and utilizing incomplete information. According to him, bounded

rationality is a rationality that is consistent with human knowledge of actual human choice

behavior, and assumes that the decision maker must search for alternatives, has egregiously

incomplete and inaccurate knowledge about the consequences of actions, and chooses actions

that are expected to be satisfactory (Simon, 1997)

Incremental model of Charles Lindbolm

Charles Lindbolm developed a decision-making model in 1959 in a paper titled “The science of

Muddling through” where he focused on the concept of incrementalism. At the time of writing

his paper, rationalism was at its peak, and various forms of rationality such as game theory,

optimization and algorithms were used as scientific methods of decision making, which was

meant to bring sanity in the political process. However, he departs from the rational approach of

decision making by rejecting the ideas of policy outcomes as a result of a decision process.

Instead, he describes a policy making decision making process based on incrementalism, where

one policy trails another. In this model, policies are evaluated against the present situation, then

as policies continue to be implemented the anticipated results from each implementation is

expected and compare to desired result (Lindbolm, 1959). He reasons that policies are not a

product of a decision rational choice but rather the political results of interaction among various

actor possessing different information, adhering to different values and driven by diverse

individual or group interests.

Unlike the rational method where alternatives are evaluated in terms of their ability to satisfy

their pre-established mix, incrementalism avoids this difficulty by focusing on more concrete

problems to be improved, rather than intangible ideals to be achieved such as self-actualized

citizenry. In fact, the incrementalism model moves away from problems rather than towards

ideals that cannot be quantified with adequate precision to allow rational analysis (Lindbolm,

1963). According to Lindbolm, policy makers are not entirely faced with a problem instead

affected publics bring problems to government. A such, no single actor in the policy making

process needs to possess full information on the problem, rather participants bring to the table

some portion of the knowledge that is required to analyze the problem. Essentially, different
individuals are the best judges of their own interests and therefore it is difficult for policy makers

to assess the varying value preferences of different individuals without some input from them.

Thus, disagreements can be accommodated through bargaining (Morcol, 2006)

Decision-making in public policy

Even though there are several methods being used to make public policy decisions, there is no

standard methodology, nor is there a methodology that forces decision makers to determine

effects of the policy. However, Hastak et al (2001) and Howard (2005) emphasize the

importance for public policy practitioners to have a decision making methodology.

For example, Cost-benefit analysis is the most commonly used method of decision making

currently where the most heavily weighted factor is the cost and not the impact of public policy

action on citizenry. If cost is within budget constraints, then the policy will be adopted. The

rational model possesses several qualities as decision maker focus essentially on the problem, the

contents of the alternatives and preferences, as well as choosing good criteria suitable to the

content. Several analyst and policy makers have prescribed to this model, even trying to improve

it by examining all possible options and their costs and come up with an improved model called

the rational-comprehensive model (Profiroiou, 2006)

In situations where policymakers have a long-term interest and expertise in an issue which

arouses disagreements among themselves, incremental method of decision making is favored. In

many cases, decision makers, in order to favor mass public opinion demanding action on a

particular problem, are forced to negotiate an incremental solution to distract or even appease

mass public opinion (Hayes, 2013).

Herbert Simon’s bounded rationality makes assumptions about individuals and the environment

and views decision making as a problem of individuals decisions and institutional aggregation.

This logic of argument has been adapted to policy making, and adapted to other policy

frameworks. Even though it does not exist currently in the form that Simon intended, it does

form fundamental logic or series of assumptions within other frameworks e.g. Lindbolm’s

disjointed incrementalism is stimulated by bounded rationality (Peters, Zittoun, 2016).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the decision making approach is not without limitations but it is an important

current structure of administration and relation between the state and the public. Even though

there is no single methodology universally used to determine effects of decision in public policy

decision making and must be conducted in a logical and scientific manner of policy making to

ensure proper and effective performance and administration.

References

Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. London:

SAGE.

Campitelli, G., Gobet, F (2010) Herbert Simon's Decision-Making Approach: Investigation of

Cognitive Processes in Experts. Centre for the Study of Expertise Centre for Cognition and

Neuroimaging Brunel University. Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.426.4962&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling” through. Public Administration Review,

19(2), 71-80. Business Source Complete Database

Morcol, G(2006). Handbook of Decision making. CRC PRESS.

Peters, B. G., & Zittoun, P. (2016). Contemporary approaches to public policy: Theories,

controversies and perspectives.

Pomerol, J., Adam, F. (2004). Practical Decision Making–From the Legacy of Herbert Simon to

Decision Support Systems.

Profiroiu, M. (2006). Public Policies, Theory, Analysis, Practice. Bucharest, Economic

Publishing House