Decision-making models

All people need to make decisions from time to time. Given limited time in formulating policies and addressing public problems, public administrators must enjoy a certain degree of discretion in planning, revising and implementing public policies. In other words, they must engage in decision-making (Gianakis, 2004). Over the years, many scholars tried to devise decision-making models to account for the policy making process.

Rationality

For a very long time since the discipline of public administration has developed, scholars assume that people make decisions rationally. By rationality, Herbert Simon (1976) means ”a style of behaviour that is appropriate to the achievement of given goals, within the limits imposed by given conditions and constraints” (P. 405). Max Weber, in the early part of the 20th century, suggested distinguishing two types of economic rationality: formal rationality and substantive rationality. The "formal rationality of economic action" referred to "the extent of quantitative calculation or accounting which is technically possible and . . . actually applied." "Substantive rationality" referred to the degree to which economic action serves "ultimate values no matter what they may be." (Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Parsons, ed., 1947, pp. 184-186) Weber noted that "the requirements of formal and of substantive rationality are always in principle in conflict." (Ibid., p. 212) Decades later, Simon used a similar terminology to distinct two meanings of "rationality", which have developed separately in economic and psychology. He defined substantive rationality, stemming from the concept of rationality within economics, as behavior that "is appropriate to the achievement of given goals within the limits imposed by given conditions and constraints". Procedural rationality, based in psychology, refers to behavior that "is the outcome of appropriate deliberation". ^[1]

Facts

According to Gortner (2001), facts are the information and knowledge that the public administrators possess in formulating policies. Facts are important in deciding the appropriate means to take to achieve higher ends. They may not be readily known by administrators but need to be acquired through extensive research and analysis.

Values

Values are internal perceptions on the desirability and priority of one’s actions and choices. (Van Wart, 2004) Besides setting goals for their plans, decision makers make priorities, interpret facts and act upon objective situations according to their values. Besides balancing conflicting values within an individual, government has to weight and balance values embodied in different departments (Van Wart, 1996, 1998).

Means

Means are the instruments to satisfy a higher end (Simon, 1997). Although they are used to achieve a higher end, they are not neutral in value. When policy makers devise their strategies, they choose their means according to their internal values and consequences.

Ends

Ends are the intermediate goals to a more final objective. In a means-end hierarchy, the concept of means and ends is relative.^[2] An action can be a mean relative to the higher levels in the hierarchy but an end relative to the lower levels. However, in this hierarchy, an action is more value-based when moving upwards in the hierarchy but more fact-based when moving downwards.

References

1. ^ Simon, H. A. (1976). From Substantive to Procedural Rationality. In S. J. Latsis (Ed.), Method and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: pp. 130-131
2. ^ Simon, H. A. (1964). On the Concept of Organizational Goal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(1), 1-22.