Adaptive Rationality, Garbage Cans, and the Policy Process

Scott C. Ganz
{"title":"Adaptive Rationality, Garbage Cans, and the Policy Process","authors":"Scott C. Ganz","doi":"10.1108/s0733-558x20210000076004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The inconsistency between the appearance of incoherence and chaos in the US policymaking process bringing about a historic record of legislative achievements in the 1960s and 1970s, on the one hand, and the emergence of hierarchical order bringing about a prolonged period of legislative impotence in the early 2000s, on the other hand, has led legislative scholars to revisit strongly held prior beliefs about legislative organization. Similar reevaluations of the garbage can model that emphasize the potential for conflict-ridden and chaotic organizations to be adaptively rational are ongoing in organizational theory. This paper adapts recent research on organizational design to explore the conditions under which decentralized, chaotic decision making facilitates more desirable legislative outcomes than centralized decision making controlled by a benevolent dictator. The author demonstrates that normative claims about legislative organization – much like normative claims about organizational design – should vary depending on the task environment faced by the legislature. In the face of rugged uncertainty in the mapping from policies to outcomes, decentralized decision making among modestly polarized legislators with fluid participation in decisions facilitates a functional mix of exploitative and exploratory search.","PeriodicalId":350799,"journal":{"name":"Carnegie goes to California: Advancing and Celebrating the Work of James G. March","volume":"139 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Carnegie goes to California: Advancing and Celebrating the Work of James G. March","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/s0733-558x20210000076004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The inconsistency between the appearance of incoherence and chaos in the US policymaking process bringing about a historic record of legislative achievements in the 1960s and 1970s, on the one hand, and the emergence of hierarchical order bringing about a prolonged period of legislative impotence in the early 2000s, on the other hand, has led legislative scholars to revisit strongly held prior beliefs about legislative organization. Similar reevaluations of the garbage can model that emphasize the potential for conflict-ridden and chaotic organizations to be adaptively rational are ongoing in organizational theory. This paper adapts recent research on organizational design to explore the conditions under which decentralized, chaotic decision making facilitates more desirable legislative outcomes than centralized decision making controlled by a benevolent dictator. The author demonstrates that normative claims about legislative organization – much like normative claims about organizational design – should vary depending on the task environment faced by the legislature. In the face of rugged uncertainty in the mapping from policies to outcomes, decentralized decision making among modestly polarized legislators with fluid participation in decisions facilitates a functional mix of exploitative and exploratory search.
适应性理性、垃圾桶和政策过程
一方面,美国政策制定过程中出现的不连贯和混乱带来了20世纪60年代和70年代立法成就的历史记录,另一方面,等级秩序的出现带来了21世纪初长期的立法无能,这两者之间的不一致性导致立法学者重新审视了对立法组织的强烈先验信念。在组织理论中,类似的对垃圾桶模型的重新评估强调了充满冲突和混乱的组织具有适应性理性的潜力。本文采用最近的组织设计研究来探讨在何种条件下,分散的、混乱的决策比仁慈的独裁者控制的集中决策更能促进理想的立法结果。作者论证了关于立法组织的规范性要求——就像关于组织设计的规范性要求一样——应该根据立法机构面临的任务环境而有所不同。面对从政策到结果的映射中存在的严重不确定性,在适度极化的立法者中分散决策,在决策中流动参与,促进了剥削性和探索性搜索的功能组合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信