Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c.mult. Reinhard Meyers, WWU Münster
• Bounded Rationality and Constructed Realities: Main Developments in Decision-Making Theory from the 1950s to today
• Version 2.0
This file can be downloaded from my website
• http://reinhardmeyers.uni-muenster.de There you can also find further material
to accompany our seminars on International Theory and International Politics
Lost in the maze ??? Send email to
[email protected] Only until July 31st, 2014 !!
Recommended Reading
• David Kinsella/Bruce Russett/Harvey Starr: World Politics. The Menu for Choice. 10th internat.ed., Wadsworth 2013, Ch. 6, pp 129 – 155
• Charles W. Kegley, Jr./Shannon L. Blanton: World Politics. Trend and Transformation, 2012 – 2013 ed., Wadsworth 2012, Ch. 3, pp 52 - 82
Why look at theory ?
Premiss I: knowledge of reality depends on our
perception of it
• Our knowledge of reality is once removed from reality.
• Social, political – and also academic or scientific – behavior cannot be understood as an immediate reflex reaction in an actual situation.
• Rather, it is formed by the perception of a real situation and by the interpretation, i.e. the image, we have of a particular situation – independent of whether the actual situation is in reality formed in the same way as we see and interpret it (Thomas Theorem).
Premiss II: all knowledge is theory-laden
• Our knowledge of reality is always theory-laden.
• Theory is "the net which we throw out in order to catch the world – to ratio-nalize, explain, and dominate it.“
• Different theories = different nets = different realities
• Karl Popper. Logik der Forschung, 1935: p.26
(The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Hutchinson, 1959)
Decision Making
„The process of evaluating and choosing among alternative courses of action.“„The process of selecting an option for implementation.“
Decisions are formed by:1.a decision maker (the one who makes the
final choice) and2.a decision unit (all those in a small group,
organization, or government who are involved in the process).
Decisions are formed by:1.a decision maker (the one who makes the
final choice) and2.a decision unit (all those in a small group,
organization, or government who are involved in the process).
Decision Making (2)
• Decision makers react to:
• an identified problem or set of problems
• by analysing information,
• determining objectives,
• formulating options,
• evaluating the options, and
• reaching a conclusion.
Decision Making (3)
• Decisions are affected by:• the nature of the problem• the external setting• the internal dynamics of the decision unit• the personality of the decision maker(s)• speed of events and developments in the
external setting producing stress and leading to incomplete information
Decision making
• A mental process resulting in the selection of a course of action among several alternative scenarios. Every decision making process produces a final choice.The output can be an action or a mental representation of choice.
Explaining decision-makers' behavior (I):Answers from the Social Psychology of I.R.
Herbert C. Kelman (Ed.): International Behavior. A Social Psychological Analysis (1965)
• Premiss: "...environmental factors become related to the attitudes and decisions which comprise a states' foreign policy only by being perceived and taken into account in the policy-forming process. The statesman's psychological environment (that is, his image, or estimate, of the situation, setting, or
milieu) may or may not correspond to the operationalenvironment (in which his decisions are executed).
But in policy-making, as we have stressed before, what matters is how the policy maker imagines the milieu to be, not how it actually is."
(Harold + Magaret Sprout: Environmental Factors in the Study of International Politics, JCR 1957)
Belief System: Images of the past, the present, and the future ("facts")
-------------------------
Images of what should be ("Norms and values")
Operational
Environment
Perceptionof
"Reality"
Decision
ACTION
Change
Psychological Environment
= Information
Operational
Environment
Recommended Reading
• Robert Axelrod (ed.): Structure of Decision. The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton: Princeton UP 1976
• THE classic: Richard C. Snyder & H.W.Bruck & Burton Sapin (eds.): Foreign Policy Decision-Making. An Approach to the Study of International Politics. Glencoe: Free Press 1962
Explaining decision-makers' behaviour (II): Answers from Behaviouralism
Premiss: Only observable phenomena are susceptible to scientific analysis; the aim of science is a logically inter-related system of value-free statements of facts, hypotheses and causal laws allowing for the explanation and prediction of behaviour in if - then terms.
• Herbert A.Simon (1947): Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, - 4th ed. New York 1997, The Free Press
Stimulus – Response – Scheme
MentalProcess
black box
not open toanalysis
observable phenomena
(Operational) Environment
(Operationa) Environment
Stimulus Response
Explanations of behaviour take rationalist
models as their starting point
Self-interested actors behaving rationally• maximize their utility• correctly anticipate the results of their action• are subject to outside constraints.Actors' preferences and causal beliefs are given; attention focuses an the variations of outside constraints and their effects
Ideas, Norms,
Values are unimportan
t or epipheno-
menalExamples: Structural Functionalism, Systems Theory, Rational
Choice Approaches
The Rational Actor model of decision-making
• This model provides an idealised view of how actors make decisions:
• Once a stimulus is received from the envoironment, actors clarify their goals, evaluate their options and determine their preferences, and then make a decision.
• „Rationality“ refers to the instrumental process of decision-making, NOT to the goals or preferences that actors adopt or to their projections of success.
Different views on Rationality
• Rational behavior is purposive behavior – so instrumental rationality is an ability to relate means to ends.
• One view of rationality assumes that decision-makers possess all relevant, i.e. perfect information, which is used to determine the course of action that maximizes benefits relative to costs.
• The other view points to the difficulties inherent in digesting massive amounts of information – information overload leads to a screening out of information, and forces decision-makers to decide what to decide.
Foreign policy decisions – like all others
• ,,,are rarely made by people having all the facts… policy makers have
„ ... to act in the fog of incomplete knowledge without the information that will be available later to the analyst…“
Henry Kissinger
Bounded rationality
idea that in decision making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make decisions
proposed by Herbert Simon as an alternative basis for the mathematical modeling of decision making, as e.g. used in economics; it complements rationality as optimization, which views decision making as a fully rational process of finding an optimal choice given the information available
Another way to look at bounded rationality is that, because decision-makers lack the ability and resources to arrive at the optimal solution, they instead apply their rationality only after having greatly simplified the choices available. Thus the decision-maker is a satisficer, one seeking a satisfactory solution rather than the optimal one
Rationality Paradox
• Information overload forces decision-makers to focus their attention on some problems, situations, crises to the detriment of others.
• The paradox: in order to confront policy problems rationally, decision-makers must distort their view of the real world – a deviation from the rational decision-making model…
IncrementalismIncrementalism, also called disjointed incrementalism, is a policy making process which produces decisions only marginally different from past practice. Some analysts describe incrementalism as muddling through, in contrast to the ideal of the rational-comprehensive model of policy planning. The rational model assumes a great deal of information, clarity of goals and criteria, and the ability to define and analyze all possible alternatives, rendering a single clear solution. The real world is not so obliging.
David Braybrooke/Charles E.Lindblom: A Strategy of Decision. Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. New York 1970, Free Press
Explaining decision-makers' behaviour: (IIIa) Post-Behavioural Perspectives
General characteristic: Shift from explanation to understandingexplanation: generally presumed to deal with causes
causes generally presumed to be external to the actor whose behaviour is to be explained
social world, like the rest of the natural world to which it belongs, is an external environ-ment (of the actor / actors), independent from individual perception and to some extent predictable
understandinq: generally presumed to deal with meaning
meaninq can only be understood from „within"
social world is a (linguistic) construction consisting of a set of rules and meanings structuring social /individual
perception
Thomas-Theorem: „If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences“
Interpretive-Constructive Paradigm
Explaining decision-makers' behaviour (IIIb) The Social Construction of Reality
[or better: the construction of reality by means of language symbols]
Premiss: Social „reality" is only susceptible to our perception / cognition as constructed reality
„Realities" are the outcome of social bargaining processes — i.e. complex interactions resulting from
a) fights for / of the most situation-adequate, fitting, or (only) winning interpretation of a phenomenon or a situation
b) formulation of consensus over jointly shared knowledge
[knowledge: constructs, i.e. a set of abstractions, generalisations, formalisations, and idealisations which structures social perception]
Explaining Decision-Makers‘ Behavior (IIIc): elements & research areas
• Small-group interaction – pressures to conformity – group think: illusion of own invulnerability vs. stereotyped views of the opponent
• Irving L. Janis: Groupthink. 2nd ed. Boston 1982• Individual perceptions and beliefs – images of the
enemy – setup of idiosyncratic belief systems• Robert Jervis: Perception and Misperception in
International Politics. Princeton, N.J.1976• Personal Character and Human physiology• Harvey Starr: Henry Kissinger: Perceptions of
International Politics, Lexington 1984
Cognitive Dissonance
• Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions(ideas, beliefs, values, emotions, reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.
• Assumption: people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.
• Leon Festinger: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford 1957
Cognitive Dissonance (2)
• Cognitive dissonance theory warns that people have a bias to seek consonance among their cognitions. According to Festinger, we engage in a process he calls "dissonance reduction", which could be achieved in one of three ways:
• lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors,
• adding consonant elements,• or changing one of the dissonant factors.• Alternatively, the possible consequences of disso-
nance to your belief system can be overcome by simply ignoring incoming new information…
PERSPECTIVES ON DECISION MAKING
PERSPECTIVES ON DECISION MAKING
THE RATIONAL ACTOR MODELTHE RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL
The Rational Actor ModelDecisions are made by a rational actor responding purposively to an external challenge. The actor is assumed to hold clear objectives, to assess carefully the costs and benefits of each option, to pick the best option fulfilling his objectives, and to fully implement that choice.Variant: the decision maker is assumed to select the first satisfactory option rather than to search until the optimal solution is found („strategy of satisficing“).
The Rational Actor ModelDecisions are made by a rational actor responding purposively to an external challenge. The actor is assumed to hold clear objectives, to assess carefully the costs and benefits of each option, to pick the best option fulfilling his objectives, and to fully implement that choice.Variant: the decision maker is assumed to select the first satisfactory option rather than to search until the optimal solution is found („strategy of satisficing“).
THE ORGANISATIONAL PROCESS MODEL
THE ORGANISATIONAL PROCESS MODEL
Emphasizes the impact of routines on decisions by
organizations, shows how organizational structures and
routines shape choices by limiting the information available
about a problem, the menu of options for responding, and the
implementation of whatever is chosen. Pre-planned routines
are necessary in order to coordinate the behaviour of larger
numbers of people in an organization. Routines influence the
style and content of decision making: being interested in
continuity, organisations tend to fall for an incremental
adaptation strategy rather than for bold individual changes.
Emphasizes the impact of routines on decisions by
organizations, shows how organizational structures and
routines shape choices by limiting the information available
about a problem, the menu of options for responding, and the
implementation of whatever is chosen. Pre-planned routines
are necessary in order to coordinate the behaviour of larger
numbers of people in an organization. Routines influence the
style and content of decision making: being interested in
continuity, organisations tend to fall for an incremental
adaptation strategy rather than for bold individual changes.
THE BUREAUCRATIC POLITICS MODEL
THE BUREAUCRATIC POLITICS MODEL
Decisions result from political struggles in a bureaucracy. Bargaining among
individuals with different interests, status, and power can lead to an eventual
compromise originally preferred by none of the parties („suboptimal solution“).
Decisions are influenced by
► the number of actors involved
► their prestige, responsibilities, values and expertise
► the impact of public opinion, pressure groups, and the media
► individual needs for cognitive consistency (cf. theory of cognitive dissonance)
► group pressure for conformity
► misperception and miscalculation.
Decision making on one issue is also influenced by the presence of competing
problems that distract attention, increase uncertainty, and make the process both
more complex and psychologically more demanding.
Decisions result from political struggles in a bureaucracy. Bargaining among
individuals with different interests, status, and power can lead to an eventual
compromise originally preferred by none of the parties („suboptimal solution“).
Decisions are influenced by
► the number of actors involved
► their prestige, responsibilities, values and expertise
► the impact of public opinion, pressure groups, and the media
► individual needs for cognitive consistency (cf. theory of cognitive dissonance)
► group pressure for conformity
► misperception and miscalculation.
Decision making on one issue is also influenced by the presence of competing
problems that distract attention, increase uncertainty, and make the process both
more complex and psychologically more demanding.
Recommended Reading
Graham Allison/Philip Zelikow; Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2nd ed. New York 1999: Longman [originally 1963, Pb. 1970]
Decision Making as a Two-Level Game
Assumption:Decision making under interdependence; complex patterns of interdependence do not only constrain statesmen, but they also open up new possibilities for creative statecraft
Starting Point:Statesmen are typically trying to do two things at once: they seek to manipulate domestic and international politics simultaneously.
Diplomatic strategies are constrained both by what other states will accept and by what domestic constituencies will ratify. Diplomacy is a process of strategic interaction in which actors simultaneosly try to take account of and influence the expected reactions of other actors, both at home and abroad.
The outcome of international negotiations may depend on the strategy a statesman chooses to influence his own and his counterpart’s domestic polities. By exploiting control over information, resources, and agenda-setting in his own polity, the statesman can open up new possibilities and options for international bargaining.
Conversely, international strategies can be employed to change the character of domestic constraints, to create a policy option that was previously beyond domestic control, or to target policies directly at domestic groups in foreign countries („transnational politics“), who could be turned into allies „behind the back“ of the statesman’s international negotiation partners.
Concept of Double-Edged DiplomacyCf.Peter B.Evans et al.(eds.): Double-Edged Diplomacy. International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley:U.of California Press 1993
DECISION-MAKING AS A TWO LEVEL GAMEDECISION-MAKING AS A TWO LEVEL GAME
Decision making under interdependence; complex patterns of interdependence do not
only constrain statesmen, but they also open up new possibilities for creative statecraft
Decision making under interdependence; complex patterns of interdependence do not
only constrain statesmen, but they also open up new possibilities for creative statecraft
ASSUMPTION
Statesmen are typically trying to do two things at once: they seek to manipulate domestic
and international politics simultaneously.
Statesmen are typically trying to do two things at once: they seek to manipulate domestic
and international politics simultaneously.
STARTING POINT
Diplomatic strategies are constrained both by what other states will accept and by what
domestic constituencies will ratify. Diplomacy is a process of strategic interaction in which
actors simultaneosly try to take account of and influence the expected reactions of other
actors, both at home and abroad.
Diplomatic strategies are constrained both by what other states will accept and by what
domestic constituencies will ratify. Diplomacy is a process of strategic interaction in which
actors simultaneosly try to take account of and influence the expected reactions of other
actors, both at home and abroad.
The outcome of international negotiations may depend on the strategy a statesman
chooses to influence his own and his counterpart’s domestic polities. By exploiting control
over information, resources, and agenda-setting in his own polity, the statesman can open
up new possibilities and options for international bargaining.
The outcome of international negotiations may depend on the strategy a statesman
chooses to influence his own and his counterpart’s domestic polities. By exploiting control
over information, resources, and agenda-setting in his own polity, the statesman can open
up new possibilities and options for international bargaining.
Conversely, international strategies can be employed to change the character of domestic
constraints, to create a policy option that was previously beyond domestic control, or to
target policies directly at domestic groups in foreign countries („transnational politics“),
who could be turned into allies „behind the back“ of the statesman’s international
negotiation partners.
Conversely, international strategies can be employed to change the character of domestic
constraints, to create a policy option that was previously beyond domestic control, or to
target policies directly at domestic groups in foreign countries („transnational politics“),
who could be turned into allies „behind the back“ of the statesman’s international
negotiation partners.
Cf.Peter B.Evans et al.(eds.): Double-Edged Diplomacy. International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley:U.of California Press 1993
Cf.Peter B.Evans et al.(eds.): Double-Edged Diplomacy. International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley:U.of California Press 1993
CONCEPT OF DOUBLE-EDGED DIPLOMACYCONCEPT OF DOUBLE-EDGED DIPLOMACY
Looking at Decision Making from a Recent International Relations Perspective
For some time already, the analysis of International Relations is characterised by a change in perspective
away from the state as a unitary actor acting as a gatekeeper between the domestic and international policy areas up, down, and sideways to supra-state, sub-state, and non-state actors.
From the society of states, our focus of attention has consequently shifted to transnational and transgovernmental societies which take the form of boundary-crossing networks amongst indivi-duals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
In effect, much of decision- making occurs informally within such policy
networks. This poses problems:
loading of decision-making processes inorder to favour someoptions over others
rule of the technocrats ?
democracy and accountability deficit in international politics
multi-level governance approaches to international politics
multi-level governance approaches to international politics
efforts to catch the real existingcomplexity
of its policy processes
efforts to catch the real existingcomplexity
of its policy processes
decision-making approachesto international politics
decision-making approachesto international politics
efforts to catch the process-ness or procedural characteristics of policy processes
efforts to catch the process-ness or procedural characteristics of policy processes
multi-level structure
resulting actual policies
actors’ input:aims, interests, resources
policy-making processes
What is governance?• The term "governance" is a very versatile one. It is
used in connection with several contemporary social sciences, especially economics and political science.
• It originates from the need of economics (as regards corporate governance) and political science (as regards State governance) for an all-embracing concept capable of conveying diverse meanings not covered by the traditional term "government".
• Referring to the exercise of power overall, the term "governance", in both corporate and State contexts, embraces action by executive bodies, assemblies (e.g. national parliaments) and judicial bodies (e.g. national courts and tribunals).
• The term "governance" corresponds to the so-called post-modern form of economic and political organisations.
What is Governance II
• According to the political scientist Roderick Rhodes, the concept of governance is currently used in contemporary social sciences with at least six different meanings: the minimal State, corporate governance, new public management, good governance, social-cybernetic systems and self-organised networks 1.
• 1) R. Rhodes, “The new governance: governing without government” (1996), in Political Studies, Vol. 44, page 652.
Multi-Level GovernanceFlexibly organised common problem solving among different communities from
the local via the regional and state to the international level (and vice versa)
In Domestic Politics:Concept gains importance in contexts in which political institutions and their decision-makers lose part of their autonomy to act; political direction and problem solving has to relyon cooperation of political AND societal actors in networks and negotiation systems (Round Tables etc.)
In International Relations:Concept covers the mechanisms, agreements, and patterns neces-sary to insure, in an anarchical international system* transnational cooperation* balances (of power/influence)* stabilitywithout formalised and insti-tutionalised organisations and treaty systems governance without government
MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE: MAIN ACTORS AND LEVELS OF ANALYSISMULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE: MAIN ACTORS AND LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
GOVERNMENT A
GOVERNMENT B
GOVERNMENT C
International regimes
Supranational and intergovernmental
actorsTARGET STATE
TARGET STATE
Transnational groups
Administration Legislative branch Judiciary system
Central state
Administration Legislative branch Judiciary system
Central state
Administration Legislative branch Judiciary system
Regional/substate unit
Administration Legislative branch Judiciary system
Regional/substate unit
Individual cognition; Belief system;
Personal and national identity
Individual cognition; Belief system;
Personal and national identity
Domestic groups &
issue-specific groups
(commercial, religious,
and environmental)
Domestic groups &
issue-specific groups
(commercial, religious,
and environmental)
International levelInternational level
State levelState level
Regional levelRegional level
Individual levelIndividual level
Agenda setting and decision-making:A procedural basis for interventionists or a case of the
blind leading the lame ?
