Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
In situations where policymakers have a long-term interest and expertise in an issue which
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
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
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
Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. London:
SAGE.
Cognitive Processes in Experts. Centre for the Study of Expertise Centre for Cognition and
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.426.4962&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Peters, B. G., & Zittoun, P. (2016). Contemporary approaches to public policy: Theories,
Pomerol, J., Adam, F. (2004). Practical Decision Making–From the Legacy of Herbert Simon to
Publishing House