Introduction to Public Administration and Organisations

Anamaria Pejkovi

Coursework 5

1.

Thomas Dye defines public policy as anything a governemnt decides to do or not to do (2009:
4). First, this definiton implies that public policy is only a policy indorsed by the government.
So, government is a primary agent in decision making. Only government can make authoritative
decisions upon their citizens. Second, this definition highlights the fact that the government can
make a decision of doing something or not doin anything about a problem. Both decisions make
a public policy. Third, public policy is a conscious choice of a government (2009: 5). So, every
unintended conequence of governments acts cannot be seen as public policy. It's just a by-
product which can be positive or negative. Furthermore, Jenkinks gives a more specific
definition of public policy. For him, public policy is a set of interrelated decisions taken ya
political actor or a group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achievinf
them within a specified situation where those decisions should, in principle, be within the power
of those actors to achieve (2009: 6) Jenkins definition specifies the content of policy as
composed of means and goals. Also, policy making is a dynamic process which includes a
number of interrelated decisions, made by different political actors. This definition accentuates
that the implementation of public policy depends on the governements capacity. Last but not
least, for Jenkins internal and external structures complicate the analysis and implementation
of a policy. To conclude, public policy is goal-oriented behaviour of a government that defines
the goal and means to achieve it.

Dwight Waldo in his article writes about public administration as a governmental process of
taking action to solve policy problems. So, public policies are the tool to resolve these problems.
That is the central connection between Waldo's article and these chapters.

2.

The rational model of decision making focuses onmaximizing the outcomes of your own
decisions. This process is structured in different sequences: first, they set the goal of solving a
problem. Then, different strategies of achieving the goal are are compared. The next step is to
predict every possible consequence of every possible strategy. Last, they pick the best strategy
for solving the problem (taking into consideration the costs, time etc.) This rational model

1
always leads to choosing the most effective strategy to achieve policy goals. On the other side,
Charles Lindblom developed incremental model of decision making which focuses on choosing
the optimal rather than maximal decision. In his theory, Lindblom highlights the fact that there
are a lot of limitations of the analysis. Also, goals and means mix through the whole process.
Furthermore, decision makers can predict only the limited number of consequences for a
limited number of strategies. Finally, they make a lot of errors and their analytical work is often
fragmentated. The result of this process are marginal, incremental changes from the status quo.

Both models were criticized for its implications, and the weaknesses and strengths of these
theories made the basis for development of three new models of decision making: mixed-
scanning model, the garbage-can model and the decision accretion model. Mixed-scanning
model combines the rational and incremental decision making model. In the first sequence, the
problem is assessed and framed and in the other one, policy makers look for a solution following
the rational model. So, first, they decide on the limited number of strategies but, then, analyze
them very carefully. In the garbage-can model, both rational and incremental model, are
criticized. Policy making is unpredictable process with unknown goals and, combinating these
goals to the means. The problem can be solved only when problems, possible solutions and
political circumstances meet. Then, the window of opportunity is opened and, the problem is
solved. The last, decision accretion model accentuates the structures and contexts for decision
making. So, it depends on the nature of the decison and the structure of organization if the
decision will be made. Individals are not even aware of the decision. Everyone makes just small
decisions, but these decisions combined result in a big change. This means that there are many
different actors and simultaneous procedures that are involved in decision making.

3.

In the introduction of his book, Stone critizices the rational model of decision making. He gives
a very simple example from which we can conclude that this model does not work in the real
world. People are often limitated by their resources (time, money) which means that they cannot
maximize their decision making. Because of the cognitive constraints, it is impossible to
analyze every aspect of every possible strategy. Also, they are often unaware of problems,
goals, solutions or means to solve these problems. I think that, in the introduction, Stone leans
toward garbage-can model of decision making. He writes about unknown goals and problems
that is often connected with this model. The decision is made only when problems, solutions
and circumstances meet. Furthermore, he gives different examples of paradoxes which show us
that people have different opinions just depending on the words that you use when analyzing
2
their opinion. This fits in to his categorisation because he highlights the political reasoning and
political community when talking about decision making. In political reasoning, it is not
important what is rational and what is irational. The only thing that matters is to get others to
see a situation as one thing rather than another (2012: 11).

4.

In the introduction, Stone identifies the model of society with the model of market. Society is
a congregation of autonomous people who meet only when they want to exchange something.
They have their own objectives and preferences, and just want to get the most satisfaction they
can. His model of policy making is a model of production where the problem is defined and
placed on agenda. Then, it follows a rational procedure in different branches of government.
Possible solutions are analyzed, compared, legitimized and selected. Then, the selected solution
is implemented by the executive power and evaluated. But, if we look from a more political
point of view, the decision making is not so rational. Sometimes, people first see the solution
and then start to search for a policy problem. Also, there are many abstract goals common to
everyone. Different parties in political spectrum fight with different conceptions on how to
attain these abstract goals. In the political community, there are many different interpretations
of these abstract ideas. Concerning the problems, there are many different modes of defining
problems in policy discourse, and each mode is like a language people use to express and defend
their interpretations(2012: 14) Also, from this political point of view, every solution is made
to change people's behaviour. Last but not least, policy instruments are games within which
people play their political conflicts.

LIST OF REFERENCES:

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., Pearl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles & policy
subsystems. Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York & London:
Norton and Company.