Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Part 1 - Muddling Through (An incremental model and process (a small and…
Part 1 - Muddling Through
An incremental model and process
a small and limited set of options are considered
options are only marginally different from an existing situation
options are considered by comparing actual consequences
try an option increasingly and then observe the consequences
if the consequences are fine, the use a little more of that specific option
if consequences are negative, then back off and try something different
focus is on outcomes and trial ad error
Process of decision making (NEGOTIATED KNOWLEDGE) tithin the framework of complex systems
multi-layer systems. an itnervention at one of these layers will always have an impact on the other layers
socio-technical systems, consider both the social elements (actors, rules, incentive, structures) as the physical elements.
accept redundancies: most well functioning systems are redundant
tolerate variety. A variety of types of sustainable cars, a variety of local and decentral initiatives to generate electricity, a variety of technologies, etc..
give room to the actors involved to organize themselves, to take initiatives, to maneuver. this will always be conductive to initiatives and entrepeneurship
Inevitable and desirable
big steps = risks
small steps = easier to adapt to unforseen deelopments. enables learning processes
the world may change and you may be locked in
complexity relations and connections
Method of successive limited comparisons
= Muddling through
BRANCH METHOD
the idea that values should be clarified is tempting
the problem is that in complex social problems, on many critical values or objectives citizens, congressmen and public administrators disagree
there is a question of whether intensity of feeling should be considered as well as the number of persons prefering each alternative
social objectives do not always have the same relative values
align marginal values
administrator must choose directly among alternative policies that offer different maginal combinations of values
Two pohcies, X and
Y, confront him. Both promise die same degi'ee
of attainment of objectives a, b, c, d, and e. But
X promises him somewhat more of/than does
Y, while Y promises him somewhat more of g
than does X. In choosing between them, he is in
fact offered die alternative of a margmal or incremental amount o f / a t the expense of a marginal or mcremental amount of g. The only
values that are relevant to his choice are these
mcrements by which the two pohcies differ;
and, when he finally chooses between the two
marginal values, he does so by maldng a choice
between policies.^
evaluation and empirical analysis are intertwined, that is, one chooses among values aand among policies at on and the same time
one simultaneously chooses a policy to attain objectives and chooses the objectives themselves
the administrator focuses his attention on marginal or incremental values
rational comprehensive method not feasible for complex problems = ROOT METHOD
Relations between Means and Ends
Root method
means are conceived to be evaluated and chosen in the hght of
ends finaly selected independendy of and prior
to the choice of means.
only possible when values are agreed upon, are reconcilable, and are stable at the margin
Branch Method
means and ends are simultaneously chosen
The test for a Good Policy
Branch
comparison to rival policies
when administratior do not agree on values?
for the root test there is no test. for the branch method the test is agreement on policy itself, which remains possible even when agreement on values is not.
individuals of different ideologies agree on conrete policy
agreement on policy thus becomes the only practicable test of the policy's correcteness
Root
best way to attain the objectives
Hence agreement is the test of "best"
pohcy in both methods. But where the root
mediod requkes agi'eement on what elements
in the decision constitute objectives and on
which of these objectives should be sought, the
branch method falls back on agi'eement wherever it can be found.
Noncomprehensive Analysis
Need for simplification
achieved by two means
limitaiton of policy comparisons to those policies that differ in relatively small degree from policies presently in effect.
look for marginal or incremental differences policies
second, is the practice of ignoring important possible consequences of possible policies, as well as the values attached to the neglected consequences.
the virtue of such hypothetical division of labor is that every important interest or value has its watchdog
redressing damages done by other agencies
anticipating and heading off injury before it occurs
mutual adjustment in complex policies, such as labor, that invole so many actors, every group will have its watchodg and the policie will be adjusted collectively and automatically
the key is to create that encironment
For aU die imperfections and latent dangers in this ubiquitous process of mutual adjustment, it wiU often
accomphsh an adaptation of pohcies to a wider
range of interests than could be done by one
gi'oup centrally.
In the
root method, the inevitable exclusion of factors
is accidental, unsystematic, and not defensible
by any aigument so fai' developed, while in the
branch method the exclusions are dehberate,
systematic, and defensible. IdeaUy, of course,
the root method does not exclude; in practice
it must.
Sucession of Comparison
Possible flaws
P
olicies are as foolish as they are wise:
the method is without a built-in safeguard for all relevant values, an it also may lead the decision maker to overlook excellent policies for no other reason than that they are not suggested by the cahin of successive policy steps leading up to the presente