Policy Formation and Political Activity Are Not Ideal Rationales

Policy choices are made by going over the issues and deciding who gets what, when and where. Then, decisions are made about implementation and distribution being put into action. Rationality in policy choice is difficult to achieve due to politics, the number of options available in perspective and parameters. The aspects of the policy that are considered important are different depending on the one's that benefit from the policy and depending on the group asked. Viewpoints are not the same (p.232). The aspects that are included or not included for consideration drastically influence the form a policy takes. Finally, political strategies and maneuvering do not rely on rationality as defined in models.

Policy choices are made by using rational methods of decision making to choose the best means to obtain the given goal. This involves a cost benefit analysis, risk benefit analysis and decision analysis. This brings in the concept of rationality and a rational decision making. There is the ideal of making the perfectly rational decision based on perfect information and choosing the best result. However, this is only an ideal that is never actually achieved in policy making. It takes defining goals, analyzing the consequences of different courses of action, choosing the best course of action for attaining a goal and having several alternatives for action to make policy decisions. There are decisions models that have these aspects in them as choices for the actor. The goal is a perfectly rational decision. The aspects that are not included in policy models are the factors sources and the factors that are not included in the policy decision making. Decision models usually emphasize the consequences aspect of action in policy making (p.234). There is an underlying assumption that everything relevant to a decision is part of the consequences of the different action choices. Any considerations outside of the consequences are not part of a model; therefore, a model is not capable of factoring these considerations into the decision process.

There are other parts to making policy that are important to include and analyze. One of these is the process that is used for making decisions. For example, the judicial system uses the process of having a jury of peers make decisions in trials on innocence and or sentencing of guilt. This is an acceptable process to most people as opposed to having a person judged by the media or a jury of people from other areas and socioeconomic standings than the defendant. Cost benefit analysis is the process used the most in public policy. If the costs are larger than the benefits an action is not acceptable. In other terms, the benefits must be larger than zero before an action is taken; and, take the action that results in the largest amount of benefits. Benefits must be converted into an understandable value usually dollar amounts. If the benefit being analyzed does not have monetary value methods are used to put a monetary value on it in order to have it included in the decision making process. This is controversial. Another controversy involving elements that are not easily given a monetary value is that they get left out of the process completely even though they are aspects of the consequences (pp. 236-7). The chance of possible negative consequences in the future due to a course of action is assessed using a risk-benefit analysis technique. Risks are given numerical value based on the probability of occurring and benefits are given a numeric value. They are then put into a calculation to see if the risk is larger than the benefits. Numeric values and calculations help determine the best course of action for making policy. Decision analysis is another method used to asses benefits by giving intangibles numeric values and the possible benefits in the future of decisions. Policy analysts have developed many methods for calculating factors and variables into their decision analyzes equations. However, the models are based on fundamental assumptions that are important to understand (pp.238-241).
There are several assumptions involved in risk benefit, cost benefit and decision analysis. The first assumption is that there is a single mind, in abstract, decision maker not a group, discussion, debate or negotiation. After this, actions are analyzed based on their consequences. Secondly, decisions ought to be made based on specific goals, specific means and the best calculated result. Third, uncertain consequences are factored into the analysis calculations after being converted into numeric values that are treated as certain value (p.241). These decisions analysis calculations are applicable to groups organizations or the polis due to the abstraction of the individual decision maker. However, they are not applicable to group decision making. In this manner, the negotiations in political activity are left out of the decision model and analyzes process.

There are several aspects of the decision making process that are left out of decision models. The political negotiations and maneuvering are assumed out by the abstract individual maker. In this sense, political maneuvering is not part of decision analyzes models. There is no value given to the sources of alternative choices of action in a decision model. Further, there is no value given to the choices of action that are not included as alternatives in the decision making process or models. The consequences are the main emphasis of the models and every other influence is left out such as: morality, values and processes. The fairness or appropriateness of a means or process is not considered (p.234). The things that are left out of decision models and decision making are factors that prevent either from reaching pure rationality. It is not possible to factor in every aspect of a decision and action and get a completely accurate value or calculation for the outcome. It is a natural and human occurrence that goes beyond the ability of mathematics to completely describe.

Political activity in policy choices uses many methods and strategies for making decisions on policy action. Negotiations between politicians based on their constituencies political preferences called log-rolling is part of decision making on policy. This is irrespective of decision making analysis and models. In the public arena statements are used to sway opinion and the language used is influential and important. Vagueness is a strategy used to avoid accusations, potential failures, keep information secret and buy time. Ambiguity about political goals is beneficial and unavoidable since goals are defined and redefined depending on the perspectives of the one's viewing them and the actions being taken to achieve them. Therefore, ambiguity is a form of political activity that shapes decision making by keeping goals flexible. Limiting the choices that are considered as options or issue-framing shapes decision making since the choices that are left out are not given any value . Limiting choices is taken further by making one choice look like the only reasonable choice in the framing of options called a Hobson's choice. Deception, lies, coercion, slander and violence are other unethical strategies that influence policy making and choices (pp.244-8). Further, the course of action that is most beneficial and the least painful to the largest constituency is the most desirable in political activity. Therefore, the desires of the majority influence decision making outside of the values calculated in decision making models (p.256). Political activity is not based on the ideal of pure rationality. In a sense political activity is more rational than just using models and calculated values since the human element of costs, benefits, morality and process appropriateness are included. Yet, other aspects of political activity such as log-rolling, violence, coercion, deception and issue-framing go beyond rationality to achieve goals. Policy decisions and implementation are achieved using these methods at the same time that ideal rationality is not achieved.

References

Stone, Deborah (1997) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making W W Norton & Co Inc (Np). ISBN: (0-393-97625-4)