Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Policymaking rationality: A reformulation

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes a reformulation of the concept of rationality in public policymaking. Following Lindblom's critique, it accepts that “comprehensive rationality” is unfeasible as a practical policymaking strategy, but suggests that a slightly recast concept could provide a suitable “ideal criterion” for the assessment of policymaking strategies. Adopting this “limited rationality” criterion, a variant of the “mixed scanning strategy” emerges as a basic prescription for the conduct of public policymaking, the paper provides a pair of case studies (in the field of transportation) to illustrate the need for mixed scanning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albrow, M. (1970). Bureaucracy, London: Pall Mall Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values, New York, Wiley (1st ed.); (1954, 2nd ed. revised).

    Google Scholar 

  • [Bendixson, T. (1974). Instead of Cars, London: Temple Smith.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beneveniste, G. (1973). The Politics of Expertise, London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braybrooke, D. and Lindblom, C. E. (1963). A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process, Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, J. (1973). in New Scientist, 24 May, p. 466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, J. (1975). “Technology Assessment at the NSF,” in S. R. Arushin and A. Christakis, eds., Perspectives in Technology Assessment, Jerusalem: Science and Technology Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. and Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, Economics and Welfare, New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dror, Y. (1964). “Muddling Through—‘Science’ or Inertia?”, Public Administration Review, 24; 153–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dror, Y. (1968). Public Policymaking Reexamined, Scranton, N.J.: Chandler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dror, Y. (1971). Decision for Policy Sciences, New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1968). The Active Society, New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, T. (1973). “Nottingham as a Working Class City,” Lecture given at Strathclyde University, Glasgow, 9th February (mimeo).

  • Francis, R. G. and Stone, R. C. (1956). Service and Procedure in Bureaucracy, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerth, H. H. and Wright Mills, C. (1948). (trans. and eds.) From Max Weber, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1955). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. F. (1974). Impact of Future Use of the Electric Car in the Los Angeles Region, Santa Barbara: General Research Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. C. and Menchen, W. R. (1974). The Automobile—Energy and the Environment, Columbia, Maryland: Hittman Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, M., Henderson, I. and Whalley, A. (1973). Personal Mobility and Transport Policy, London: P.E.P.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, M., Henderson, I. and Whalley, A. (1976). Transport Realities and Planning Policy, London: P.E.P.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, G. (1969). “Future Electric Automobiles,” Technological Forecasting, 1: 173–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoos, I. (1971). Systems Analysis in Public Policy, London: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). “The Science of Muddling Through,” Public Administration Review, pp. 79.

  • Lindblom, C. D. (1965). The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision-Making Through Mutual Adjustment. Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, A. D. (1968). Prospects for Electric Vehicles, U.S. National Centre for Air Pollution Control, May.

  • March, J. G. and Simon, H. E. (1958). Organizations, New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1940). “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality,” Social Forces, XVII: 560–568; also in Merton, (1952), pp. 361–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. P. (1969). Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War Against Poverty, New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podgorecki, A. (1976). “Social Technology and Decision Making,” in A. Cherns, (ed.), Sociotechnics, London: Malaby Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, C. L. (1968). The Politics and Economics of Public Spending, Washington: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Self, P. (1972). Administrative Theories and Politics, London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the Grassroots, Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sills, D. L. (1957). The Volunteers, New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. E. (1947). Administrative Behavior, New York: Macmillan, (1st ed.); (1957, 2nd ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Trench, S. and Slack J. A. (1974). “Nottingham's New Transport Policy,” Traffic Engineering and Control, December.

  • Wilensky, H. L. (1967). Organizational Intelligence, New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gershuny, J.I. Policymaking rationality: A reformulation. Policy Sci 9, 295–316 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136832

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136832

Keywords

Navigation