The Construction of Democracy: Lessons From Practice and Research by Jorge I. Domínguez & Anthony Jones

Author:Jorge I. Domínguez & Anthony Jones [Domínguez, Jorge I.]
Language: eng
Format: azw3, mobi
Tags: Political Ideologies, Comparative Politics, Constitutions, Democracy, History & Theory, General, Political Science
ISBN: 9780801885952
Publisher: JHU Press
Published: 2007-07-06T00:00:00+00:00

140

Implementing the Policies of the Democratic State Figure 6.1.

notes: BR, bounded rationality; CE, clarity of ends; CM, clarity of means; GC, garbage can; H, high; HA, heterogeneity of actors; L, low; LR, legal rationality.

to be the four main approaches to decision making—“legal-rational” (LR) (Weber 1944); “bounded rationality” (BR) (Simon 1976); “partisan adjustment” (PA) (Lindblom 1965); and “garbage can” (GC) (Cohen, March, and Olsen 1972)—and, second, with bureaucratic structure types.

In this way, in cell number one at the front and top of the matrix, we find all three aspects with high grades and then we have a situation in which clarity of ends, clarity of means and the heterogeneity of actors is high (e.g., a patient-doctor situation). For this cell, I would suggest the Weberian “ideal type” of rational, technical, and rather top-down decision making.

Although it is very difficult to exactly match a policy with any of the cells, policies tend to be closer to one cell than another. For example, health would be closer to cell one, as it implies comparatively clearer and more stable goals—although debatable, it is still easier to define a person as “healthy” than a social system as “just”— more precise means (one would expect less discussion when applying a vaccine to fight some diseases than when establishing a political system) and more heterogeneity among actors (both patients and doctors tend to acknowledge the latter’s technical superiority in making health-related decisions). Here it would be desirable to use either the

Toward More Balanced Approaches in the Reform of the State 141

rational or the bounded rationality model, not only for those in charge of policy, but also for its recipients, who, recognizing their lack of knowledge on the issue, tend to expect policymakers to identify and make decisions.

For cell 8, where clarity of means and ends are low and all actors have (or are believed to have) similar capacities, I would recommend what Cohen, March, and Olsen (1972) call the “garbage can model” of policy making, where policy is developed in a gradual, decentralized, even fortuitous, manner. The policies of interior ministries would be an example of such a policy. Goals there tend to be more controversial and changeable (between options such as democratization versus governance, centralization versus decentralization, individual versus collective rights, etc.), because they tend to depend on a wide array of ideologies, parties, and specific circumstances. Furthermore, the means employed have a limited effectiveness and are imprecise or insufficient (political negotiations, informal arrangements, speeches) and heterogeneity is less clear. In this policy area, the garbage can model often would be preferable, because it allows authorities to share responsibility, better measure the correlation of forces and the intensity of beliefs, and make constant adjustments.

Between these extreme situations, there are six intermediate cells, for which I argue that various combinations of the bounded rationality and partisan adjustment approaches are best.

As for bureaucratic structures, civil service principles (e.g., technical entry exams, job stability, career development) are increasingly inadequate as we go from cell 1 to cell 8. When

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.