COURSE MANUAL

SC1: Public Policy

Module 6

[Add institute name here]

[Add School/Department name here]
Copyright
© Commonwealth of Learning, 2012

All rights reserved. No part of this course may be reproduced in any form by any means
without prior permission in writing from:

Commonwealth of Learning
1055 West Hastings Street
Suite 1200
Vancouver, BC V6E 2E9
CANADA

Email: [email protected]

[Add institute name here]

[Add School/Department name here]
[Add address line 1]
[Add address line 2]
[Add address line 3]
[Add country]
Fax: +[Add country code] [Add area code] [Add telephone #]
E-mail: [Add e-mail address]
Website: www.[Add website address]
Acknowledgements
The Commonwealth of Learning (COL) wishes to thank those below for their contribution to the
development of this course:
Course author Michele Fromholtz
Lecturer in Public Policy and Management
School of Management
Charles Sturt University
New South Wales, Australia

Course editor Mary-Ev Anderson

Vancouver, Canada

Course revision Professor Robert Dibie, PhD

Dean and Professor of Public Affairs
Editor, Journal of International Politics and Development
School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA)
Indiana University Kokomo, United States

Course editor Symbiont Ltd.

Otaki, New Zealand

COL would also like to thank the many other people who have contributed to the writing of this
course.
 SC1: Public Policy

Contents
Module 6 1 
Optimal Policy-Making ..................................................................................................... 1 
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 
Case studies .............................................................................................................. 3 
Normative models .................................................................................................... 3 
Case studies .............................................................................................................. 5 
Activity 6.1 ........................................................................................................................ 6 
Case studies .............................................................................................................. 9 
Activity 6.2 ........................................................................................................................ 9 
The normative-optimum model ............................................................................. 10 
Activity 6.3 ...................................................................................................................... 10 
Other models and approaches ................................................................................ 11 
Case studies ............................................................................................................ 12 
Case studies ............................................................................................................ 13 
Activity 6.4 ...................................................................................................................... 13 
Case studies ............................................................................................................ 16 
Decision-making models and the policy cycle ...................................................... 16 
Activity 6.5 ...................................................................................................................... 17 
Module summary ............................................................................................................. 18 
References ....................................................................................................................... 19 
Further reading ................................................................................................................ 20 
 SC1: Public Policy

Module 6

Optimal Policy-Making
Introduction
This module focuses on the process of actually preparing for and making
policy decisions. Decision-making has traditionally been the key area of
focus in policy studies. Several major models have been used, though two
primary models – the rational and the incremental – have dominated the
discussion. Today, the focus is much less narrow; decision-making
models are seen as only a small part of a much wider policy process.
You will note that some of the relevant discussion was introduced in the
second module. The process of assessing or appraising a proposed policy
(or proposed policy alternatives) is an essential lead-up to the policy
decision (assuming there is a conscious decision). As Mulgan (1989)
suggests, “we need a means of organising the mass of evidence so that it
can be comprehended and evaluated” (p. 37). While Mulgan is talking
about a model to describe the political process, the comment applies
equally to the complex context of policy decision appraisal and decision-
making. A policy-making environment has one of the following
characteristics. It is:
 Certain – information is sufficient to predict the outcomes of
each policy alternative under consideration
 Risky – there is a complete lack of certainty, but some awareness
of the probabilities associated with the possible outcomes of
policy alternatives under consideration
 Uncertain – information is completely insufficient to assign
probabilities to the outcomes of the alternatives under
consideration.
(Wood, Wallace & Zeffane, 2001, p. 487)

This module will examine the characteristics of both the rational and
incremental models and explore the major areas of dispute between their
proponents. As a result of the debate over the validity of these models,
some degree of compromise has been reached. The modifications made to
these models will be discussed and other models will be presented,
particularly Dror’s optimal model (1989). We need to bear in mind that
no matter what the model, our aim should be optimal policy-making.
Formulation, or decision-making, is the core stage of the policy-making
process. If a narrow definition is adopted, “making decisions about plans
or courses of action for the future”, then this is the stage at which policy-
making really occurs.
As indicated, most of the policy literature has concentrated on this stage –
how policy decisions are made. It is thus appropriate to deal with these
models at this stage. First, though, it is important to reconsider why

1
Module 6

models might be useful. As discussed in Module 1, descriptive models

describe situations as they actually are occurring, normative models state
how situations should be, giving prescriptive formulas for how decision-
making should be conducted. Policy-making models often have both
descriptive and prescriptive elements; how descriptive or prescriptive the
models are can be determined through analysis.
Some questions to focus on:
 What models exist to help policy makers process the complex
inputs to decision-making?
 How useful are these models?
 Is there an ideal or perfect model?
 What faults does each model have?
 How do these models help fit in with the idea of a cyclical policy-
making model?

Upon completion of this module you will be able to:

 explain the purposes of decision-making models

 describe the rational policy-making model and explain its
strengths and weaknesses as a model
Outcomes  describe the incremental policy-making model and explain its
strengths and weaknesses as a model
 describe the normative-optimum model of policy-making and
explain its strengths and weaknesses as a model
 describe two or more other models and explain their strengths
and weaknesses as models
 describe other approaches to understanding policy-making and
explain their strengths and weaknesses as models
 compare and contrast the various policy-making models
addressed in this module
 evaluate the relationship between these models and the cyclical
approach to policy-making.

2
 SC1: Public Policy

Case studies

Case study comments

Case study Case 7: The environment of the refugees in Somalia is

described as being “turbulent” (p. 123). It would be risky
or uncertain at best.

Case 12: The environment could be interpreted as one of

risk. There seemed to be an escalating problem with
housing that could not be completely predicted, but it
does not appear that every consequence that occurred was
unpredictable. It appears that many of the impediments to
successful policy implementation were in existence for
many years (such as the problems with land acquisition).

Normative models
The rational and incremental models are two predominant models of
policy-making in the literature. Traditionally, the rational model was seen
to be more prescriptive or normative and the incremental model as more
descriptive. However, this can be disputed, and the process of debate has
led to considerable modification and softening of the dichotomy between
the two. In the literature and in our context, these models are usually
applied in their traditional sense before modifications, unless otherwise
stated. The detail in each model is extensive and the information provided
below is limited. We strongly recommend that you seek out more detailed
information about the models.

Rational model
The best-known is the rational-comprehensive model, developed by
Herbert Simon. It is the most normative of the rational policy-making
models – it offers prescriptive recommendations about how policy should
be made. The model’s main premise is that decision-making involves
selecting alternatives to meet previously stated goals. In its purest form,
all possible alternatives and all possible consequences must be
considered. It has six basic steps:
1. A problem must be identified.
2. The values, goals and objectives of the decision-maker must be
determined, and ranked in order of priority.
3. All the options for achieving the goals must be identified.
4. The costs and benefits of each option must be determined.
5. Costs and benefits must be compared.

3
Module 6

6. On the basis of this comparison, the rational decision-maker

selects the course of action which maximises the outcome in line
with the values, goals, and objectives identified in step 2.
(Davis, Wanna, Warhurst & Weller, 1993, p. 161)

While it is accepted by many theorists that this model, in its pure sense,
has limitations, it still forms the basis for many government initiatives.
Many budgetary control programmes in the 1970s and 1980s were based
on this approach. The emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness which
accompanies many government decisions today reflects a rational
approach because it suggests that alternatives can be objectively
considered in terms of cost-benefit analysis.
It has been suggested that the rational approach is value-free – that
expertise is brought to bear on problem definition and research and that
decisions are made neutrally.
Critics of this view suggest that a weakness common to rational
approaches is that they are limited by how they define the problem. For
instance, all options cannot be identified and are often ignored, neglected
or simply not thought of. Narrow perspectives, values and power can
limit the rational approach to policy-making.
The model assumes the manager acts “in a world of complete certainty”
(Wood et al., 2001, p. 489) but also in a neutral, value-free world. This
provides a desirable prescription, but an impossibility in view of time and
human capacity. It assumes that objectives are value-free and neutral. If
they were, it might be easy to identify them quickly, then move on to
identify alternatives, evaluate them and make a decision. Wildavsky
(1987) presents an argument, below, in which he asserts that objectives
are a human intervention, one which is not free of values:

...Objectives are not just out there, like ripe fruit waiting to be
plucked; they are man-made, artificial, imposed on a recalcitrant
world… the very act of defining objectives may be considered a
hostile act. If they are too vague, no evaluation can be done. If
they are too specific, they never encompass all the indefinable
qualities that their adherents insist they have. If they are too
broad, any activity may be said to contribute to them. If they are
too narrow, they may favour one segment… over another.
(Wildavsky 1987, p. 216, cited in Bridgman & Davis, 2000, p. 45)

Simon made a rather important modification to his rational-

comprehensive approach. Accepting that in reality all options and
consequences could not be considered, he came up with the concept of
bounded rationality. This concept accepts the limited ability of humans to
deal with vast amounts of data and probabilities in a totally objective
way. Another way of appreciating the problem would be to say that
people “act only in terms of what they perceive about a given situation”
(Wood et al., 2001, p. 490) – and their perceptions are likely to be
limited. As March and Simon state:

...Most human decision-making, whether individual or

organisational, is concerned with the discovery and selection of

4
 SC1: Public Policy

satisfactory alternatives; only in exceptional cases is it concerned

with the discovery and selection of optimal decisions.
(March & Simon 1958, pp. 137–142, quoted in Wood et al., 2001, p. 490)

This idea was further developed with the introduction of the concept of
“satisfying”, choosing an option that is “good enough”. Importantly, in
deciding to eliminate alternatives, or in accepting limited alternatives, the
questions of whose values and whose discretion, which facts and whose
power is involved, become critical. These are applicable to all models,
however.

Case studies

Case study comments

Case study Case 2: Rational decision-making processes are apparent in this

case, although there is much evidence of other, less-clear policy-
making processes. The policy was a clear change from existing
policy, a radical change introduced by the relevant minister
(Dawkins). There were many articulated aims, including
development of a user-pays system, improvement of economic
performance and increased international competitiveness through
enhanced skill levels (p. 28). Task forces and working committees
were established to think through the issues in the best way possible
(pp. 29–32). Discussion papers were prepared to elicit further
comment from the wider public. See the list of alternatives
considered on page 41 along with the criteria used. Alternatives
were ranked by a set of criteria. If it were not for some of the
occurrences in this case (see other case comments) one might think
it was a perfect example of rational decision-making.

Case 7: The authors criticise rational decision-making in their

opening pages, expressing the opinion that policy-making is much
more complex and dynamic than it suggests. They suggest that the
writers of the policy documents provide specific detail that reflects
“political considerations, guess-work and imaginative
accounting”,and that they lack sufficient understanding of the
context of the policy (p. 121). “Rational”, in this sense, is a relative
term. They suggest that no ground for policy is neutral (p. 122) and
criticise the notion that decisions are an absolute from which
everything else can proceed (p. 122).

Case 8: There is not much discussion about the decision-making

process in this case, but it is worth mentioning the author’s
comment that the decisions made about the dam represent “bad
logic”. This draws attention to the fact that rationality is a relative
term – what is rational for one person may not be rational for
another (p. 144).

Case 9: One might ask whether any rational decision-making

5
Module 6

occurred when the choice was made to promote shrimp farming in

the southeast of Bangladesh. It appears that there were disastrous
environmental effects and poor gains for the local farmers (p. 148).
This case study also draws attention to the need to question the
effects and achievements of foreign aid and casts doubt on the
rationality of foreign aid programmes.

Activity 6.1
1. Many of the current trends in policy-making suggest more rational
approaches. Can you think of some examples of policies that have been
formulated in this rational manner?
2. Can more rational approaches to policy-making ensure better policy?
Activity

Incremental model
The incremental model was developed by Charles Lindblom (1959).
Lindblom’s early version of this model explained policy-making as
“muddling through”. In response to many criticisms, Lindblom (1979)
adapted it until he came up with a much more detailed model. He sought
to modify the model from being purely descriptive to having some
prescriptive elements – disjointed incrementalism, partisan mutual
adjustment and strategic analysis, discussed below.
Lindblom (1959) believed many small steps would likely lead to a good
decision, or that at least minimal damage would be done because change
would be marginal. Also, an opportunity would be provided to test the
water with minimal chance for error. The concept of “successive limited
comparisons” starts from the existing situation and brings about changes
incrementally (Ham & Hill, 1984, p. 80). This contrasts with the rational
model, which starts at the root, beginning with basic issues on each
occasion and making decisions from the ground up.
The basic approach of the incremental model is that decision-making
tends to be unplanned and reactive. Marginal changes are made to
existing policy. Decisions are not based on pre-set objectives, but are
based on the means available to decision-makers. The focus is on the
known and manageable. The incremental model is often criticised for
favouring inertia and the status quo.
Lindblom’s model, however, in many ways simply addresses, albeit from
a different angle, the reservations that Simon had about rational models,
including his own rational-comprehensive version (Ham & Hill, 1984).
Lindblom explicitly lists some of these as failures of the adaptation of the
rational-comprehensive method. In Braybrooke and Lindblom’s view,
Simon’s rational-comprehensive method is not adapted to:
 man’s limited problem-solving capacities
 inadequacy of information

6
 SC1: Public Policy

 costliness of analysis
 failures in constructing a satisfactory evaluative method
 the closeness of observed relationships between fact and value in
policy-making
 the openness of the system of variables with which it contends
 the analyst’s need for strategic sequences of analytical moves
 the diverse forms in which problems actually arise.
(Braybrooke & Lindblom, as cited in Ham & Hill, 1984, p. 80)

While Simon was modifying his model to take into account the human
limits to completely rational policy-making, Lindblom was doing almost
the opposite. He introduced elements to his model to address the criticism
that it was not appropriate just to allow policy to be formulated by
“muddling through”. He developed a number of modifications to explain
how incremental policy-making was a useful method, including the fact
that the slower adjustments and disconnected activities had the potential
to produce good policy. In this way, he was redefining his policy as one
that might have some normative value.
Lindblom developed a number of terms to explain the new elements in his
model. His terminology appears to be self-explanatory, but there are
subtle distinctions worth describing.
Partisan mutual adjustment – this suggests that throughout a policy-
making process (whether formal or informal), the groups and individuals
involved will make successive adjustments to their positions in response
to the changing circumstances of their policy area.
Disjointed incrementalism – this suggests constant incremental changes.
In incrementalism there is a fluid link between means – how policies will
be executed – and ends –what policies should be achieving. There is no
reason to assume a single set of agreed-upon ends or objectives, and thus
the means of doing things is also influential in deciding what will be
done. The disjointed incrementalism approach allows for disjointed
changes, not just a series of minor adjustments in a single direction,
towards single objectives. It can thus be said that the problem is
constantly subject to redefinition and analysis and that evaluation is an
ongoing part of the policy formulation process. It allows policy-makers to
move away from problems rather than moving toward goals (Smith &
May, 1980, p. 151). It is interesting to note that Etzioni highlights a risk
of incremental changes being circular instead of advantages
accumulating. (Ham & Hill, 1984, p. 85)
Strategic analysis – this suggests that strategic analysis is necessary in
instances of major breakdowns in policy, or for new policy areas.
Partisan mutual adjustment and disjointed incrementalism together allow
for diverse participants and their perspectives in the policy process. They
can include a fragmented policy-making process across a range of
institutions or involving many individuals and groups, such as in federal
systems and/or pluralism. This is much closer to the policy system view
of Considine (1994) discussed in Module 5.

7
Module 6

Table 6.1 provides a working tool to compare incrementalism with

rational approaches.
Table 6.1: Two models of policy analysis

Rational policy-making Incremental policy-making

Clarification of values or objectives distinct from and Selection of value goals and empirical analysis of
usually prerequisite to empirical analysis of the needed action are not distinct but are closely
alternative policies intertwined

Policy formulation is therefore approached through Since ends and means are not distinct, means-end
means-end analysis: first the ends are isolated, analysis is often inappropriate or limited
then the means to achieve them are sought

The test of a good policy is that it can be shown to The test of a good policy is typically that various
be the most appropriate means to desired ends analysts find themselves agreeing on it (without
their necessarily agreeing that it is the most
appropriate means to an agreed objective)
Analysis is comprehensive Analysis is limited drastically:
Every important relevant factor is taken into account  important possible outcomes are neglected
 important alternative potential policies are
neglected
 important affected values are neglected

Theory is relied upon heavily A succession of comparisons greatly reduces or

eliminates reliance on theory

Source: Lindblom (as cited in Bridgman & Davis, 2000, p. 55)

As these models evolved, they became more like each other. The rational
model softened its belief in pure and complete rationality, and Lindblom
introduced some elements of rationality into incrementalism. Smith &
May (1980) describe the debate between the two models as artificial.
They say:
. . .[I]n spite of prolonged dissension between rationalist and
incrementalist models of decision-making, both they and the
several versions of a rapprochement have in common
epistemological features the significance of which outweigh any
specific points of variance (p. 154).

8
 SC1: Public Policy

Case studies

Case study comments

Case 2: Details of this case point to the fact that it does not
Case study display the features of incremental approaches described above.
Rather than involve a lot of small incremental changes in response
to immediate demands from a range of participants, it was aimed
at introducing policy change that was rather radical and enduring.
The policy-makers were not just trying to vary the status quo, but
rather were moving towards a new status quo.

Case 7: It would be too simple to say that this case supports an

incremental approach; it offers something more complex.
However, there are useful elements that can be linked – a
constantly changing policy and an array of participants in the
policy process. For example, there was reference to policy that
was not static but constantly changing (though not necessarily in
incremental steps). Also, the policy choices were not just made by
decision-makers, but instead there was a complex web of
changing circumstances, many players with many voices and
viewpoints, and quick, sometimes ad hoc reactions (p. 129).
Sometimes this was incremental and marginal for corrective
reasons (p. 133), such as to overcome the next emergent problem.

Case 12: The policy decisions made in this case appear to be

incremental in many ways, lacking radical change. There was no
major change that completely shifted the nature of housing policy
overnight. Instead, there were ongoing changes over many years
that responded to the current situation. However, there is little
background material about how policies were developed and the
duration of the period suggests some major revisions of policy
might have been subject to rational analysis.

Activity 6.2
1. To consolidate your understanding, outline the major features of each
of the two policy-making models.
2. Think of a policy example from your experience and briefly indicate
how it can be explained by Lindblom’s incremental model and/or
Activity
Simon’s rational-comprehensive model. (Note: both models might be
useful in explaining the same policy.)
3. How much do you think the models have in common after
modifications have been made?

9
Module 6

The normative-optimum model

Dror endeavours to provide an optimal method for improving and
strengthening decision-making, particularly by adapting a model to suit
the circumstances (Ham & Hill, 1984, p. 85). He called this model “a
normative-optimum model for policy-making”. Whether he achieves such
an outcome is questionable, but he does remind us that optimal policy-
making is a desirable goal and one to which most theorists probably
strive.
Dror’s model is very comprehensive, providing several stages. Through
his normative-optimum model, he seeks to accommodate qualitative
rather than merely quantitative aspects of policy. He aims to increase the
rational content of decision-making models, but acknowledges that:
...Extrarational processes play a significant role in optimal policy-
making on complex issues.
Dror (as cited in Smith & May, 1980, pp. 153–154)

While there is much that is rational in the model, care is taken and caveats
are made along the lines of “some clarification of values”, “preliminary
estimation of pay-offs”, and “explicit arrangements to stimulate
creativity” (Smith & May, 1980, p. 154).
The model’s meta-policy-making stage requires the policy-maker to
consider the best approach in a given context. For example, it may be
more appropriate to take an incremental approach or a rational approach
on different occasions. The extra-rational dimensions allow for some
intuitive processes, though they should be as informed and rational as
possible. Thus, the model presents some similarity to Vickers’ art of
judgement model. Finally, post-policy-making incorporates evaluative or
feedback dimensions which are not included in most other models.
Dror (1989), as indicated by the title of his model, seeks to provide a
prescriptive model aimed at achieving optimal public policy. However,
the model has been criticised for its vague variables, its weak, residual
categories for non-rational sources of information, and its statements of
commitment to rationality and non-rationality without means of achieving
them (Smith & May, 1980, p. 154).

Activity 6.3
List the main features of Dror’s model.
1. What is your opinion of the model?
2. How is it a modification of each of the rational and incremental
Activity models?

The preparation for the policy decision is as much a part of the decision-
making process as the decision itself – should one be clearly made. The
way decision-makers go about making the decision and the underlying

10
 SC1: Public Policy

values and assumptions they have, will impact upon how the decision is
made. In many cases there may not even be a clear decision-making
process, it may simply be another small response to the circumstances,
though policy is being shaped and modified as it happens.

Other models and approaches

Other models have emerged since the development of the rational and
incremental models. Theorists sought other ways to describe or prescribe
the policy-making process, often striking a compromise between the two
major models.
Two commonly discussed models to emerge from the debate about
incrementalism and rationalism are Etzioni’s mixed scanning and
Vickers’ art of judgement models. Whether they successfully span the
apparently irreconcilable differences between the incremental and rational
approaches has been a matter of considerable discussion. Analysis should
make the models’ features clear and allow you to determine their validity
for yourself.

Vickers’ art of judgement model

Vickers’ model is, in some ways, more difficult to grasp. Its essence lies
in appreciating the value of intuition and of judgement heuristics.
Intuition is “the ability to know or recognise quickly and readily the
possibilities of a given situation”. Judgement heuristics are “simplifying
strategies or ‘rules of thumb’ that people use when making decisions”
(Wood et al., 2001, pp. 490–491).
The art of judgement model describes policy-making as a “continuous
interaction between systems and environment”. (Subramaniam, 1971, p.
338). Rather than seeking goals, the decision-maker seeks to maintain
norms. The decision-maker uses his or her “appreciative system”
continuously to deal with the constant interaction between reality
judgements and value judgements. Reality judgements relate to the
decision-maker’s estimate of past events and future probabilities; value
judgements relate to the unexpressed opinions and probable reactions of
other people. The process can be useful in accommodating conflicting
interests. It accepts that skills such as being able to predict problems and
educate one’s appreciative system can be developed through experience.
It suggests that senior public servants may thus have developed
appreciative systems that make them able to deal quite successfully with
policy issues. (Wood et al., 2001, pp. 337–347).

11
Module 6

Case studies

Case study comments

Case study Case 2: The author of this case paints a clear picture of what
she thought was interesting about the case, including the
comments: “effective policy-making requires an artful
mixture of process, people, politics and analysis” and “these
people variously contributed drive, political judgement and
public persuasion, ideas and theory, rigorous analysis and an
understanding of administrative practicalities” (p. 53). These
seem to suggest that there is room for “artful judgement”.
Certainly some of the players on the committee and task
force as well as the minister himself had appreciative
systems that could foresee where resistance and problems
were likely to occur.

Etzioni’s mixed scanning model

The mixed scanning model was developed by Amitai Etzioni. The model
allows policy-makers a combination of detailed scanning (from the
rational model) for fundamental decisions and truncated scans (from the
incremental model), for altering only part of the policy afterwards. What
this really means is that when a big and fundamental decision is being
made, Etzioni thinks it more appropriate to take a rational approach – to
look for alternatives and detailed appraisals of how they might work, how
effective they may be, what the costs and benefits might be. If the policy
is to be altered only in some marginal or partial way, then Etzioni
suggests an approach more like the incremental model. It is not necessary
to undertake thorough and extensive research or scanning, but instead a
less-thorough and partial scan of the policy changes can be undertaken.
Etzioni was seeking to avoid the extremes of rationalism and
incrementalism as was Dror (Smith & May, 1980). Etzioni claims that:

...[E]ach of the two elements in mixed-scanning helps to reduce

the effects of the particular shortcomings of the other;
incrementalism reduces the unrealistic aspects of rationalism by
limiting the details required in fundamental decisions and
contextuating rationalism helps to overcome the conservative
slant of incrementalism by exploring longer-run alternatives.
(Smith & May, 1980, p. 153)

The major criticism is how to distinguish fundamental from other

decisions. This is a matter of judgement and is likely to depend on the
situation. Smith & May (1980) argue that rationalism and incrementalism
are based on diametrically opposed principles “which are not reconciled
by mixed scanning’s sampling of either side” (p. 153).

12
 SC1: Public Policy

Case studies

Case study comments

Case study Case 4: While perhaps not fitting neatly into Etzioni’s model,
some variations to policy are discussed in this case that show
incremental adjustment. For example, the FCC modified its rules
to allow local service providers “to interconnect their private lines
with the interstate facilities of local telephone companies” (p. 77).
In other respects, the case probably demonstrates more radical
departures from existing policy, or suggestions for more radical
departures, that might be the result of more extensive appraisal
and wider scanning for ideas. The emphatic suggestion to remove
some provisions from the 1984 Cable Act might be a case in point
(p. 76).

Activity 6.4
1. List the main features of Etzioni’s model.
2. What is your opinion of the model?
3. How is it a modification of each of the rational and incremental
Activity models?
4. List the main features of Vickers’ model.
5. What is your opinion of the model?
6. How is it a modification of each of the rational and incremental
models?

Other approaches
Newer models of decision-making in business literature focus on
emphasising neutrality, with brainstorming, the Delphi technique and
nominal group techniques seeking to overcome the influence processes
that work in group decision-making contexts. Efforts to minimise
criticism, allow creativity, or ensure anonymity in suggestions can help to
overcome the influences of higher status, the loudest voices, majority
domination and alliances, and work towards a more objective solution.
Allowing creativity in decision-making may have some application to
policy-making, as it does to business. There are four steps:
1. Preparation and problem definition – choosing which
problems are good to focus upon, then being broad and open in
deciding how to frame the problem and consider options.

13
Module 6

2. Incubation – looking at the problems in diverse ways and

allowing unusual alternatives.
3. Illumination – responding to flashes of insight and being open to
recognising when all the pieces of the puzzle suddenly fit
together.
4. Verification – not just relaxing after illumination, but using
logical analysis to confirm that good decisions really have been
made.
(Wood et al., 2001, p. 492)

Sometimes decisions are made simply because decisions have already

been made. This can be interpreted in two ways.
1. There can be an escalation of commitment – the tendency to
continue with a previously chosen course of action even when
feedback suggests it is failing.
(Wood et al., 2001, p. 497)

2. There can be an implicit favourite – without knowing it, a

decision-maker or several decision-makers can have an unstated
favourite outcome. Inevitably, their judgement about alternative
outcomes, their selection of outcomes and their criticism of other
outcomes will be biased. They will see their implicit favourite in
a good light and the alternatives in a poor light.
The garbage can model is an interesting decision-making model that
allows us to recognise that sometimes the solution comes before the
problem. The theory accepts that decision-making is “sloppy and
haphazard” (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995, p. 305) and that it involves four
independent streams of events that create:
...[A] collection of choices looking for problems, issues and
feelings looking for decision situations in which they might be
aired, solutions looking for issues to which they might be the
answer and decision-makers looking for work.
(Wood et al., 2001, p. 497)

This means that political or personal reasons might interfere with proper
problem identification and that individuals’ agendas (whether conscious
or not) might affect perceived problems and solutions. In this way it can
be linked to the implicit favourite model. The garbage can model
certainly questions rational decision-making and instead allows for a
complex array of rationales for human action and choice.
Artificial intelligence methods that use computing technology are
increasingly being put forward as a means of decision-making,
particularly in business contexts. Given that policy-making is all about
making decisions and also that policy-making theorists have identified the
weakness of humans in processing all the possible information, artificial
intelligence may provide some hope for enhancing policy-making
methods. However, we have yet to see artificial intelligence used
extensively in policy-making. Artificial intelligence occurs when
computers are programmed to think like a human brain but process much
more data in a shorter time frame. However, there is no reason to suppose

14
 SC1: Public Policy

that this will not occur – especially as policy decisions can be so complex.
Ethics, another significant issue, will be explored further in Module 7.
Consultation and participation with affected parties are together another
important feature of modern policy-making, though these processes are
sometimes more symbolic than real (see Module 7). Many newer
approaches suggest that much policy-making is undertaken so that
politicians can be seen to be doing something about a situation, or to
create a sense of occasion, nationhood, or progress (among others). The
key to understanding symbolic approaches is to recognise that humans
understand their world in a symbolic way, through stories, legends, logos
and so on. Politicians often implicitly recognise this; many a cynical
commentator has said that a policy is there to make a politician look
good. How policies are presented to the media is sometimes a good
indication of their symbolic aspects. If departments and/or politicians
wish to promote particular policies, it is often because they will make the
party, cabinet, department or nation appear progressive and proactive. In
fact, some of the newer approaches to case analysis in policy-making use
metaphors such as “theatre” and “performance” to explain events in the
policy arena. Dobuzinskis (1992), for example, uses modernist and
postmodernist metaphors to describe a false sense of control in policy-
making, and criticises the delusory nature of our generally modernist
policy-making paradigms.
Modernists tend to have a paradigm that paints the world as a very
concrete and real place that can be constantly improved. They seek new
ideas at the expense of old ones. There is a sense that we can completely
understand the world around us and by understanding it, learn how to
control it. Postmodernists see the world as more complicated and multi-
faced, with constantly changing forces and uncertain realities. While
modernists would want to improve the world and dismiss the past,
postmodernists are happy to accept the old with the new and blend them
into some form of transient reality. There is no sense that a solution can
be found and put in place that will satisfy everyone and be enduring.
These are very different approaches and, by using metaphors,
Dobuzinskis argues that the modernist view is no longer entirely
workable. A postmodernist view that allows for constant change, multiple
viewpoints, multiple needs and demands and an appreciation of
symbolism through metaphors is perhaps more appropriate. Metaphors
themselves seem a strange thing to introduce into a subject about public
policy, but people do react to symbolic stimuli and often it is the slogans
and gestures of politicians that win popularity as much as the content of
their policy statements.

15
Module 6

Case studies

Case study comments

Case study Case 2: Dawkins appears to have had an implicit favourite in

this case. The desired ends were strategically concealed so that
a more rational process was seen to occur. Whether this was
intentional is difficult to say, although at least one
interpretation would say that it was.

Case 9: Perhaps the idea to support shrimp farming was a

solution waiting for a problem. It certainly appears not to have
been useful.

Decision-making models and the policy cycle

In each stage of the policy process the values of participants are relevant.
The incremental model openly acknowledges the values of different
participants, while the rational model stresses an objective, values-free
approach. The acknowledgment that competing values are involved in
policy-making enables us to appreciate that people will be competing to
have their values expressed in the resulting policy. For example, a
pluralist approach accepts that there are many different people and groups
competing to have their opinions heard, though who has the most power
is an issue that some of the other theories of the state identify as unequal.
Rational models not only treat objectives as value-free, but they also do
little to acknowledge the power struggles that are likely to underlie the
policy process. They tend to assume that agents (perhaps politicians or
bureaucrats) are legitimately endorsed to make informed policy decisions
on behalf of the populace.
During the policy formulation stage of the policy process it is likely that
all the policy-making actors will have some role to play. Policy
formulation is not a task solely for politicians – public servants advise
politicians; citizens and pressure groups also seek to have input, and
sometimes organisations such as industry groups, business councils, or
farmer groups are incorporated into decision-making committees.
Professionals may be engaged to help develop policies though their
professional values may not be subject to scrutiny but rather accepted as
compatible with policy aims or simply overlooked.
It is worth examining whether policy-making models extend past policy
formulation to analyse other stages of policy-making such as appraisal,
evaluation and implementation.
Policy is not formulated at a discrete stage of the policy-making process.
Discussions about implementation will reveal that policy cannot be
determined and then simply put into action. There will always be more
decisions to be made and they will, in essence, comprise an ongoing

16
 SC1: Public Policy

method of policy formulation. It may, then, not be so simple to describe

this type of policy formulation in terms of the above models. This point of
view reflects the policy-action continuum covered in Module 2 and is
valuable in helping us to understand how some methods involved in the
models above might extend beyond formulation. Certainly, we could
appreciate that incrementalism and the detailed adjustments in the second
stage of Etzioni’s mixed scanning enable the adaptation of continuous
policy-making. The approaches described in this section seek to explain
policy formulation, but, like the rational and incremental models, they do
not necessarily state precise boundaries between policy-making stages
and may not even consider policy stages at all. Whenever this is the case,
it is useful to try to attempt to apply them to all policy-making stages, not
just policy formulation, as they may better inform us about the dynamics
of policy activity at those stages as well.

Activity 6.5
1. How applicable do you think the different models are to public
policy-making today?
2. How descriptive are they?
Activity 3. Which model do you think would be the most suitable for ensuring
good public policy-making?
4. What is the prescriptive value of each model?

17
Module 6

Module summary
There are many policy-making models to draw from and no need to rely
solely on one to explain everything in a policy-making situation. They can
be seen as competing ways of describing or prescribing the way policy-
Summary making occurs, or should occur. Each has some merit, though each also
has limitations and shortcomings. The most appropriate strategy as a
policy analyst or policy adviser is to understand the models and use
features from them when they are useful. Having an understanding of all
these methods will enable you to have a richer understanding of the very
complex phenomena of policy-making.

18
 SC1: Public Policy

References
Bridgman, P. and Davis, G. (2000). Australian policy handbook (2nd ed.).
Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

References Considine, M. (1994). Public policy: A critical approach. Melbourne:

Macmillan.

Davis, G., Wanna, J., Warhurst, J., & Weller, P. (1993). Public policy in
Australia (2nd ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Dobuzinskis, L. (1992). Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the

policy process: Control and stability vs. chaos and reflexive
understanding. Policy Sciences, 25:355–380.

Dror, Y. (1989). Public policy-making re-examined (New ed.

incorporating 1968 original.). New York: Chandler.

Ham, C. & Hill, M. (1984). The policy process in the modern capitalist
state. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1995). Organizational behaviour (3rd ed.).

Chicago: Irwin.

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of ‛muddling through’. Public

Administration Review, 19(2): 79–88.

Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public

Administration Review, 39(6): 517–525.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

Mulgan, R. (1989). Democracy and power in New Zealand: A study of

New Zealand politics (2nd ed.). Auckland: Oxford University
Press.

Smith, G., & May, D. (1980). The artificial debate between rationalist and
incrementalist models of decision-making. Policy and Politics,
8(2): 147–161.

Subramaniam, V. K. (1971). Two complementary approaches to macro-

decision making. Public Administration Review, 30(4).

Wildavsky, A. (1987). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of

policy analysis. New Brunswick: Transaction.

Wood, J., Wallace, J., & Zeffane, R. (2001). Organisational behaviour: A

global perspective (2nd ed.). Brisbane: Jacaranda Wiley.

19
Module 6

Further reading
The following readings relate to policy-making models. This is only an
indication of possible readings, not a comprehensive list. You may find
many other relevant sources for further reading.
Further reading
Carley, M. (1980). Rational techniques in policy analysis. Aldershot:
Gower.

Chapter 2 explores the idea of rationality in policy-making.

Dror, Y. (1989). Public policy-making re-examined (New ed.

incorporating 1968 original). New York: Chandler.

This is Dror’s seminal work on his optimal policy-making model.

Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed scanning: A “third” approach to decision-

making. Public Administration Review, December 27(5): 385–
392.

This is the source article for Etzioni’s mixed-scanning approach.

Ham, C., & Hill, M. (1984). The policy process in the modern capitalist
state. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.

Chapter 5 explores the key differences between rational and incremental

decision-making.

Hill, M. (1993). The policy process: A reader. Hemel Hempstead:

Harvester Wheatsheaf.

The two readings in Part V explore some of the issues that arise in
comparing incremental and rational approaches. The first of these is a re-
publication of the Smith & May reading listed below.

Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real
world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 4 gives an overview of policy-making models and their strengths

and weaknesses.

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy: policy cycles
and policy subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 7 compares the incremental and rational models.

Lane, J.-E. (1995). The public sector: Concepts, models and approaches
(2nd ed.). London: Sage.

20
 SC1: Public Policy

or

Lane, J.-E. (2000). The public sector: Concepts, models and approaches
(3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Chapter 3 introduces some brief descriptions of key policy-making

approaches.

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

Administration Review, 19(2): 79–88.

Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public

Administration Review, 39(6): 517–525.

These are the Lindblom articles that established his original model of
incrementalism and his modifications to it in view of later criticism.

McGrew, A. G., & Wilson, M. J. (Eds.). (1982). Decision-making:

Approaches and analysis. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.

All the readings in Section 2 of this book relate to the idea of rationality in
decision-making models. One is a reprint of the Smith & May article
below.

Smith, G. & May, D. (1980). The artificial debate between rationalist and
incrementalist models of decision making. Policy and Politics,
8(2): 147–161.

This is a leading article summarising the terms of the debate about the
incremental and rational models. If it is not available, see McGrew &
Wilson or Hill, above, in which the article is reprinted.

21