Advance a theory
выдвинуть теорию склоняться к ч-л склонять к-л к ч-л направить энергию куда-либо пролить свет на что-либо с точки зрения чего-либо преодолеть разногласия; восполнить пробел; сблизить отказаться от/проигнорировать, прогнать мысль в первую очередь придать значение/вес ч-л
Do you think the following statements are The making of decisions and reaching of conclusions are seen as the key feature of policy process. It is easy to establish how and why decisions are made. Economic theories contribute to decision- making models. Politicians are inclined to portray their actions as both goal-oriented and the product of careful thought and deliberation. Organisations may be said to make rational decisions if they are highly centralised. Policy makers have to adjust their position in the light of feedback. Concern with day-to-day problems is more vital than the long-term visionary thinking. Any decisions are influenced by values, assumptions and regular pattern of behaviour. Decisions arise from an arena of contest. All decisions are shaped by organisational pressure and perceptions. Political actors hold views that are based on their own position and on the interests of the organisations in which they work. • Social and political values may act as a powerful filter in decision-making. • Common beliefs provide the 'glue' of politics, binding together people on the basis of shared values and preferences. • Discuss/check your considerations with the rest of t" class. SCAN reading:look through the text to find the answers the true/false statements TEXT 1: THEORIES OF DECISION-MAKING The making of decisions, and specifically of bundles of decisio is clearly central to the policy process. Although policy making a relates to the acts of initiation and implementation, the making decisions and reaching of conclusions is usually seen as its к feature. However, it may be difficult to establish how and w* decisions are made. Decisions are undoubtedly made in different wa by individuals and by groups, within small bodies and within la organisations, and within democratic and authoritarian structu Nevertheless, a number of general theories of political decisio making have been advanced. Rational actor models Decision-making models that emphasise human rationality ha generally been constructed on the basis of economic theories whi have themselves been derived from utilitarianism. At the heart of su theories lies the notion of so-called 'economic man', a model human nature that stresses the self-interested pursuit of mate ' satisfaction, calculated in terms of utility. In this light, decisions be seen to be reached using the following procedures: • The nature of the problem is identified. individual preferences, • The available means of achieving this objective are evaluated terms of their effectiveness, reliability, costs and so on. • A decision is made through the selection of the means m likely to secure the desired end. Hie best example of such an approach to decision-making is !■■' IsioilS. (citainly, politicians and others are inclined to portray their ■i> tiiins as both goal-oriented and the product of careful thought and ili-liberation. When examined more closely, however, rational i.i\ illation may not appear to be a particularly convincing model of tli-i ision-making. In the first place, the model is more easily applied |t> individuals, who may have an ordered set of preferences, than it is I»' jvoiips, within which there are likely to be a number of conflicting p|i|i4'iives. Organisations may therefore only be said to make rational d«'i isions if they are highly centralised and possess a strict command Dim-lure. Л second problem is that, in practice, decisions are often made on In- basis of inadequate and sometimes inaccurate information, and V benefits of various actions may in any case not be comparable. u* final drawback of rational actor models is that they ignore the tie of perception, that is, the degree to which actions are shaped by lict;md assumptions about reality, rather than by reality itself. in ivmental models Incrementalism is usually portrayed as the principal alternative to hoii'il decision-making. This position holds that policy making is a niiinuous, exploratory process; lacking overriding goals and clear- ii rnds, policy makers tend to operate within an existing pattern or iiu'work, adjusting their position in the light of feedback in the mi of information about the impact of earlier decisions. Indeed, taiientalism may suggest a strategy of avoidance or evasion, policy .ikiTs being inclined to move away from problems, rather than w\\\ to solve them. However, the model has also been criticised as profoundly -.uvrvauve, in that it justifies a bias against innovation and in favour inciiia. Policy makers who embrace incrementalism are more likely t 1-е concerned with day-to day problems than with indulging in itif ii'im visionary thinking. Their energy is channeled into keeping rr ship on course, not on reflecting on where that course is leading. luiilier difficulty is that incrementalism sheds little light on those iiiiu-al decisions that are radical, even revolutionary, in character. In W* i>f such difficulties, the idea of 'mixed scanning', which attempts !■> 'nulj-e the gap between the rational approach and incrementalism *.!■■ proposed. Mixed scanning allows for decision-making being »i»:ii<-il out in two distinct phases. First, decision makers broadly »*. iin.tic, or scan, all the available policy options in terms of their
effectiveness in meeting pre-existing objectives. Then, a narrower and more incremental approach is adopted as the details of a selected policy option are reviewed. In this way, for example, a broad decision to cut public spending must be accompanied by a series of more narrowly focused decisions relating to the specific areas or programmes that may be affected. Bureaucratic and organisation models Both rational actor and incremental models are essentially 'black box' theories of decision-making; neither pays attention to the impart that the structure of the policy making process has on the resultinj decisions. Bureaucratic or organisational models, on the other пашЦ try to get inside the black box by highlighting the degree to whic process influences product. Two contrasting, but related, models exist. The first, usually called the 'organisational process' model, highT the impact on decisions of the values, assumptions and regul patterns of behaviour that are found in any large organisation. Rat than corresponding to rational analysis and objective evaluatio decisions are seen to reflect the entrenched culture of the governme departmently or agency that makes them. The second theory, t' 'bureaucratic politics' model, emphasises the impact on decisions bargaining between personnel and agencies, each pursuing differen perceived interests. This approach dismisses the idea of the state as monolith united around a single view or a single interest, and sugge" that decisions arise from an arena of contest in which the balance advantage is constantly shifting. Although these models undoubtedly draw attention to impo: aspects of decision-making, they also have their drawbacks. In t first place, the organisational process model allows little scope political leadership to be imposed from above. It would be foolish, example, to suggest that all decisions are shaped by organisatio pressures and perceptions, for this would be to ignore the perso role played by the leaders. Secondly, it is simplistic to suggest, as bureaucratic politics model does, that political actors simply h views that are based on their own position and on the interests of organisations in which they work, for personal sympathies individual goals cannot be altogether discounted. Finally, to exp decisions entirely in terms of black-box considerations is to fail give any weight to the external pressures that emanate from broader economic, political and ideological context. Belief system models Although decision makers may believe that they are being ratio rigorous and strictly impartial, their social and political values к t as a powerful filter, defining for them what is thinkable, what is possible, and what is desirable. Certain information and particular 1411 ions are therefore not appreciated or even considered, while other pieces of information and other courses of action feature prominently in the calculus of decision-making. Indeed, without a mechanism to I liter information, decision makers would simply be overwhelmed by However, there are different views about the origin and nature of II us filtering process. A policy system may include not only • deep core beliefs (fundamental moral or philosophical principles) • near-core beliefs (policy preferences) • secondary beliefs (views about implementation or application). politics, binding together people on the basis of shared values and preferences. However, while core beliefs are highly resistant to change, a greater measure of disagreement and flexibility is usually found at the near-core and secondary levels. Using this framework, policy change could largely be understood in terms of shifting balance оГ forces within a policy subsystem, in particular through the dominance of one advocacy coalition over others. This process may nevertheless be seen to be rational insofar as debate within a belief astern, and rivalry between belief systems, promotes 'policy oriented learning'.
|
