Complexity and Rationality in Public Life (original) (raw)
Related papers
Political Action, Error and Failure: The Epistemological Limits of Complexityp ost_901 3..19
Political Studies, 2012
The trend in government and public policy towards evidence-based policy making has recently been the subject of criticism from authors such as Ian Sanderson who argue that the insights of complexity theory undermine the claims of evidence that these forms of policy design advocate.While taking on board the primary claim of this critique, this article examines the contribution of complexity theory in more detail to suggest that the epistemological obstacles that complexity science identifies also challenge the kind of pragmatic, deliberative model that Sanderson prefers. Instead, it examines the work of Michael Freeden on failure and Michel Foucault on error to demonstrate the ways in which approaches that are less wedded to epistemological certainty can enable policy makers to think more creatively about the complex terrain they must navigate and develop more innovative and less risk-averse forms of political action. Error is the permanent contingency [aléa] around which the history of life and the development of human beings are coiled (Foucault, 1998, p. 477). In his recent article in Political Studies, Ian Sanderson (2009) provides a much-needed and thought-provoking critique of evidence-based policy making and the 'what works' rationality that was fundamental to the development of Third Way theory, New Labour discourse in the UK and, more recently, the agenda of the Rudd/Gillard Federal Labor government in Australia. Sanderson's argument cogently expresses the limitations of evidence-based policy making on the grounds that 'evidence' is highly contested and that policy design, implementation and evaluation are bound up with a number of other contingent factors. Thus, issues such as the structure of power, the politics of influence and judgements about the contextual constraints in any policy environment have a direct bearing on whether the policies that are actually pursued are grounded in evidence or whether the evidence is manufactured to suit the policy agenda. Sanderson points to the additional constraints that emanate from complexity theory to suggest that, at best, recent policy developments have been 'evidence informed' rather than 'evidence based'. On this foundation he constructs an argument for a much more pragmatic approach to policy processes which relies less heavily on the normative arguments for specific policies and instead concentrates on deliberative processes to justify particular courses of action given the epistemological limits that conditions of complexity impose.
Multiple Rationalities in Public Policymaking: Considerations for Decisionmakers
Academy of Management Proceedings, 1978
From the classical decision model of planning (Friedmann, 1969), logics of four types of decisionmakers-policymakers, program implementors, planners and evaluators-are explored within hypothetical decisionmaking contexts. Issues of high technical and political complexity are predictable arenas for conflict, suggesting the need for diagnostic skills and appropriate group processes.
Complexity: policymakers' divider and possible conqueror
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 1980
It is argued that acknowledgement of complexity is followed by feelings of helplessness which generate three distinct policymaking styles. These three, labelled analytical abdication, analytical alchemy, and analytical addiction, are outlined in terms of their logical bases, strengths, and weaknesses. A natural tendency for the emphasis of fashion to oscillate between all three, in order to speed progress towards greater understanding, is demonstrated, and its inhibition by policymakers' general intolerance towards work based on viewpoints radically different from their own is criticised. More tolerance towards useful features of each approach is thus suggested as the best tactic against the growing complexity problem.
Governing Complexity in World Politics
Complexity, Governance & Networks
Complexity is the new global ontology for world politics. This article summarizes the characteristics of complexity and its implications for informed US state policy making. We conclude with some suggestions about administrative reforms to improve US policy making to address global complexity.
Political Deliberation and the Challenge of Bounded Rationality
Many proponents of deliberative democracy expect reasonable citizens to engage in rational argumentation. But this expectation runs up against findings by behavioral economists and social psychologists revealing the extent to which normal cognitive functions are influenced by bounded rationality. Individuals regularly utilize an array of biases in the process of making decisions, which inhibits our argumentative capacities by adversely affecting our ability and willingness to be self-critical and to give due consideration to others’ interests. Although these biases cannot be overcome, I draw on scientifically corroborated insights offered by Adam Smith to show that they can be kept in check if certain affective and cognitive capacities are cultivated. Smith provides a compelling account of how to foster sympathetic, impartial, and projective role taking in the process of interacting with others, which can greatly enhance our capacity and willingness to critically assess our own interests and fairly consider those of others.
Managing Complexity in the Decision-Making of Local Governments
This interdisciplinary paper analyzes how the theories of complexity provide new insight into the decisionmaking of political/administrative organization. The paper outlines a framework for managing complexity in local governments' decision-making. Based on complexity theories, this paper suggests that more attention should be paid to the invisible dynamics of the decision-making process. Conflicting interests in the decision-making should not be damned as barriers to effective functions. Instead, they should be seen as triggers which activate interactions between the actors of the process. The paper proposes that the more dynamic environment, the more there is a need for communication within the decisionmaking process and between the process and its environment. According to complexity theory, the focus should be on both the parts and the whole of the system. In finding a balance between divergence and convergence, a political organization may also be one step closer to reconciling the values of effectiveness, legitimacy and creativity.
Complexity, Governance & Networks, 2017
In this article, we present a critical discussion of complexity theory. We ask: what does it really offer policy studies? We suggest that its stated advantages-- interdisciplinarity, theoretical novelty, and empirical advance--are generally exaggerated and based more on hope than experience. In that context, we identify a cautiously positive role for complexity theory, primarily as a way to bridge academic and policymaker discussions by identifying the role of pragmatic responses to complexity in policymaking.
Rationalism and public policy: Mode of analysis or symbolic politics?
Policy and Society, 2011
This article takes up the distinction between incremental analysis and incremental politics as elaborated by Lindblom in his 1979 article. We argue that while rationalism as a mode of analysis has lost much of its prominence, rationalism as symbolic politics is still very much alive and might even be more present today than it was back when Lindblom wrote his famous 1959 article. The recent shift to new modes of governance whereby elected officials are increasingly delegating decision-making powers to independent bureaucracies -what Majone calls the ''regulatory state'' or what the British describe as ''agencification'' or quangoisation'' -has created an important legitimacy deficit for those non-majoritarian institutions that exercise political authority without enjoying any direct link to the electoral process. In such a context -and in addition to growing public distrust towards partisan politics -rationalist politics is likely to become more rampant as independent bureaucracies lack the legitimacy to publicly recognize the fundamentally incrementalist -and thus values-laden -nature of their decision-making processes.