Ppt science muddling_critique(joseph)

1,744 views
1,416 views

Published on

Ppt science muddling_critique(joseph)

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,744
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
64
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ppt science muddling_critique(joseph)

  1. 1. GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Public Administration Review ( Approaches to Policy Formulation) Course: DA 820-Public Policy Course Director: Prof. Sombat Thamrongthanyaqong Presented By: Joseph Ato Forson (5510131001) 18th September,2012 .
  2. 2. Presentation Outlook
  3. 3. Case study: InflationOption 1 ? Option 2 Set principal objectivesList all related values inorder of priority explicitlyInquire into values held Outline relatively few policy alternativesby members of the society Compare limited alternativesSystematic comparison e.g. past policies etcof multitude of Rely on a body of past recordalternatives to predict the futureMake choice that Consider the risks with eachmaximizes values policy alternatives. Selection: choice value +
  4. 4. - Emanating from current situation, step- Successive limited by-step and by smallcomparison (branch) degrees. method Which is more ? appropriate for complex problems?Rational comprehensive -Starting from the method (root) fundamentals anew each time -Building on the past only as experience is embodied in a theory -Always prepared to start completely from the ground up.
  5. 5. Characteristics of the 2 approaches in Comparisona. Clarification of values/objectives Clarification a) Selection of values/goalsdistinct, usually a prerequisite intertwinedb. Means-ends approach: Ends are b. Means & ends not distinct so isolated means identified means/ends analysis limitedc. Goodness test = most c. Goodness test = consensus appropriate means to endd. Analysis is comprehensive d. Analysis ltd: neglects important outcomes/ alternatives/valuese. Heavy reliance on theory e. Comparison reduces reliance on theory
  6. 6. Merits and Demerits Advantages •Knowledge about Successive limitedprobable consequence from comparison (branch)past experience method Major Weakness •No need for big jumps togoals Absence past policies •Ability to test previouspredictions hinders effective policy •Ability to remedy past analysiserror fairly quicklyHallmarks Rational Weakness•Clarity of objectives comprehensi•Explicitness of evaluation ve method oUnable to address large-scale•Very comprehensive (root) problem•Quantification of values oMay not be best for policy•Best utilized for more simple analysis because of naturalproblems due to: •Necessitation of massive restrictions on: intellectual capacities oTime •Necessitation of massive oMoney sources of information
  7. 7. Intertwining evaluation & analysis ( 1b)Participants disagree on weight of critical values andeven on sub-objectivesIndividuals may be unable to rank their own valueswhen the are conflictingSocial objectives may have different value weightsin different circumstancesOne chooses among values and policiessimultaneouslyAdministrators focus on incremental objectives
  8. 8. Non-comprehensive analysis (4b) Impossible to take all factors into consideration in any non-simple decision Available information and human capacity are limited Complex problems/decisions must be simplified Simplification is achieved in 2 ways;I. limitation of policy comparisons and alternatives to those differing from the status quoII. ignoring important consequences of possible policies as well as the values attached to neglected consequences
  9. 9. Succession of Comparisons“ Policy is not made once and for all; it is made andremade endlessly.”Successive approximation to a desired objectives wherethe desired objective itself changes and evolves“Making policy is at best a rough process.” Policies willonly achieve part of what you hope for while creatingunintended consequences you would prefer to avoid.By proceeding through a succession of changes a policymaker avoids serious and lasting mistakes
  10. 10. Relevance as Well as RealismIn western democracies policy analysts tend to limittheir analysis to marginal differences in policies thatare chosen to differ incrementally.Democracies tend to change policies incrementally.By simplifying the policy by limiting the focus toslight deviations, the most value is made ofavailable information.Non-incremental policy proposals are thereforetypically not only politically irrelevant, butunpredictable.
  11. 11. ConclusionLindblom’s argument attempts to legitimize thedecision-making processes that were alreadyfrequently in use (1959).He points out a gap between the theory advocatedby policy academics and the real-world problemsfaced by decision-makers.He explains how and why the current work-aroundis legitimate and worthy of acceptance.By defining the Branch method and its attributes,Lindblom opens the door for academia to begintheorizing on this method, as well.
  12. 12. DROR: EXCERPTS FROM LINDBLOM“ Muddling through”,that is throughincremental change…- aims at arriving at agreed-upon policies which areclosely based on pastexperience. Doesn’t the Evaluation of “ incremental change” and “Muddling through” constitute a dangerous overreaction?
  13. 13. Critical Elements Basically, “the science of muddling through” examines;1. Incremental nature of desired changes in policy2. Agreement on policy as the criterion of its quality. Basic strategy of incremental change- To maximize security in making change All knowledge based on the past; - Continue in the same direction to avoid risk - Limiting consideration of policy alternatives to those that differ Only plausible if certain conditions pertains
  14. 14. Inherent Validity of Lindblom’s Article (Critique) Unless 3 interrelated conditions are concurrently met;1. Present policy result must be satisfactory to policy makers/social strata so that marginal changes are enough for achieving acceptable rate of improvements in policy results.2. High degree of continuity in the nature of the problems3. high degree of continuity in the available means to deal with problems. Incremental change is impossible if there are no past policies in respect to a discrete policy-issue. Conditions likely to prevail in high degree of social stability;- Routine is often the best policy- Change is at a slow rate, incremental policy change is at optimal
  15. 15. Contd… Important problems of today are tied up with high speed changes;- levels of aspirations, - available means of action The science of muddling maybe valid for a larger number of policy areas in a relatively stable society e.g. USA Even in the USA, many of the most critical policy problems involve factors changing at a high rate of speed.
  16. 16. The impact of muddling through on actual policy Strategy cannot but serve as an ideological reinforcement of the pro- inertia and anti-innovation forces in all human organization, etc. - It reduces social scientist functions as an innovating social factor Actual tendency is to;- Limit the search for alternatives Doesn’t stimulate administrators to get outside their regular routine A choice between these 2 models is difficult but reliance on a third model
  17. 17. Dror’s proposal Normative Optimum Model …. Is a reprocessing of both the “ comprehensive rationality” and the “successive limited comparison” models for policy making. Basic Assumptions1. Increase rationality content, more explication of goals, extensive search for new alternatives2. Extra rational processes play a significant in optimal policy making on complex issues.3. Extra rational policy making can be improved by various means4. Modern policy making follows precedents, most contemporary policy making practices lag behind and should be improved.
  18. 18. Dror’s proposal cont…. contCharacteristics of Normative optimum modelI. Some clarification of values, obj., and decision criteria.II. Identification of alternatives, through a conscious effort to consider new alternatives.III. Estimation of expected pay-off of various alternatives and decisionIV. Cut-off for considering possible results of alternative policies and expected resultsV. The “test” of this model is based on agreement by various analyst after discussionVI. A conscious effort is made to decide if problem is important to make analysis comprehensiveVII. All theories and experience are relied uponVIII.improve quality of decision by systematic learning, stimulation of initiative and creativity, staff development etc.
  19. 19. ConclusionTo state the problem of policy making as a choice b/n the “root”and “branch” methods of problem solving is misleading anddangerousThere is the need for a model that fits reality while being workedon to improve it.The normative optimum policy model is just one of the manymodels.Policy administrators enjoined to enter into inquiry usingLindbloms theses as a launch-pad to provide alternative models.
  20. 20. Lindblom’s Reaction: “Still Muddling, Not yet Through”Draws the distinction on the concept of Incrementalism: Incremental Politics Incremental Analysis; 1. simple incremental Analysis ( one of the elements in disjointed incremental) 2. Disjointed Incrementalism ( several forms of strategic Analysis) 3. Strategic AnalysisTo some critics, doing well means to shunIncrementalism. Incrementalists: Approach ideal for complex problems. - Practicing it skillfully- Turning away from it only rarely.
  21. 21. Lindblom’s reaction contd…. Analysis limited to any calculated or thoughtfully chosen sets of stratagems to simplify complex problems, that is to short-cut the conventionally comprehensive “scientific” analysis”- Strategic Analysis Analysis marked by mutually supporting set of simplifying and focusing stratagems- Disjointed Incremental Analysis  criticized on grounds of failing to consider distant alternatives Analysis that is limited to consideration of alternative policies all of which are only incrementally different from the status quo- Simple incremental Analysis
  22. 22. Contd… Contd Incremental Politics: a fast moving sequence of small changes that can Politics more speedily accomplish a drastic alteration of the status quo than can an only infrequent major policy change.  capable in authoritarian systems  incapable in democratic dispensation. Benefits of incremental politics; I. Offers the best chance of introducing changes and those change producing intermediate changes II. A way of smuggling changes into the political system Argues that Partisan Mutual Adjustment isn’t quite the same as incremental Politics;  PMA: Takes the form of fragmented or greatly decentralized political decision making in which the various somewhat autonomous participants mutually affect one another, with the result that policy making displays certain interesting characteristics  However, the two are closely linked in all national systems.
  23. 23. Characteristics of PMA Policies are resultants of the mutual adjustment; better described as happening than as decided Policies are influenced by a broad range of participants and interests The connection between a policy and good reason for it is obscure, since many participants will act for diverse reasons. Despite the absence of central coordination of the participants, their mutual adjustments of many kinds will to some degree coordinate them as decision makers.
  24. 24. Criticism : PMA 1. Expressed ordinarily as an objection to pluralism, thus less representation of interests and values of the population. 2. Naivety on the assumption that the inequalities of PMA are so great as more central decision making can be seen as important. 3. Though participant are forbidden to initiate on their own a change, many can veto it.
  25. 25. Comments, Contributions and Questions

×