How Realistic is the Rational Approach to Real World Policy Making? Discuss Using Relevant Empirical Evidence.
by
jpetterson (student)
How Realistic is the “Rational Approach” to Real World Policy Making? Discuss Using Relevant Empirical Evidence.
The ‘Rational approach’ to policy making requires the decision maker to ensure that during the policy formulation process all of the relevant alternatives are generated and analysed rationally. Under this approach, a wealth of conceivable options is devised and the relative value of each option is offset by the consequences related to each individual outcome. In ‘The Art of the Game: Understanding Public Policy’, Theodoulou and Kofinis define the approach by arguing:
“Rational choice models provide analysis of the policy process based on models and theories focused on assumptions of rationality, the impact of context on rationality, and the consequences that result from the rational pursuits.”[1]
Theodoulou and Kofinis’ definition clearly identifies the emphasis on the creation and analysis of a number of options assessing their impact and consequences based on a regime of strict rationality. This essay will argue that, pragmatically, in the real world the ‘Rational Approach’ is an unrealistic method employed for the formulation of policy. This will be achieved by careful analysis of a number of critiques of the ‘Rational Approach’; firstly, the approach over simplifies both the problem and the system that the policy is applied in, which could lead to a number of difficulties upon implementation and ultimately a loss of sight of the intended goal or the creation of more problems. Secondly, the level of rationality required by this approach is unobtainable and the knowledge required to form all options may not be available. This means that the best option may be missing, the consequences of each option could be impossible to define in advance of implementation or what was relevant at the time of deciding may not apply to the time in which it is applied. Thirdly, a problem between individual versus organisational rationality exists, meaning the utility to one area of policy may be counter productive for another area covered by public policy. Also, due to the increasing nature of global supranational organisations a policy may conflict on a global scale. Thus, the approach can cause a disharmony between a number of policy areas. To conclude, the critiques of this policy will be drawn together to support the previous statement that the rational approach is not realistic for use in real world policy making.
The four defining steps of the “Rational approach”, according to Wiktorowicz and Deber[2] are: 1) The statement and clarification of the intended objectives. 2) The identification of each of the means by which the objectives can be achieved. 3) The analysis of each of the means to determine the consequences. 4) A cost/benefit analysis of the consequences and the outcomes to locate the best possible method.[3] In pragmatic terms, decision making cannot always be a logical process. The benefits of one outcome are not directly comparable to the benefits of another outcome (if the benefits are based on the value to society rather than the economic value of the policy). The simplification of the outcome and means to achieve this outcome is the most common method of creating inadequate policy. In the U.S.A., 26 states have enacted habitual offender laws or ‘Three Strikes’ laws[4]. The aim of such a policy is to protect the citizens from violent, habitual offenders. The policy was to give higher sentencing upon the third crime committed that falls in this category, often a disproportionate sentence to the crime committed of 25 years to life imprisonment. The policy fails in so much as it has the ability to imprison a habitual offender for a vastly disproportionate amount of time, which is ethically questionable on the ground of restriction of human rights. In California it is possible to receive a ‘third strike’ for a misdemeanour crime. In the case of Lockyer, Attorney General of California v. Andrade, it was held that this his imprisonment of 50 years to life for the shoplifting of goods to the amount of $150 was not a cruel and unusual punishment[5]. From this evidence it is arguable that the simplification of the aim of the policy, the protection of the population, compared with the simplification of the means, the long term imprisonment of habitual offenders, shows a disregard for the consequences of the means as the aim is achieved and the consequence does not necessarily outweigh this. An example of the oversimplification of the system is the policy of awarding £21 million in 2001 to the ambulance service for improving their Category A performance. This was distributed mainly to areas outside of London as they required more improvement than the areas inside of London. As a consequence of this most of the staff were recruited from the London ambulance service. This forced the London service to retrain 75 more recruits at a cost of £20,000 each, totaling around £1.5 million[6]. The rational approach has caused an oversimplification of the complex system in this case, something that occurs due to the strictly rational considerations the approach relies upon. Thus the rational approach is shown as underperforming in its use as a viable option in real world policy making.
