RATIONAL MODEL

This model emphasizes that policy-making is a choice among policy alternatives on rational

grounds. Rational policy is one that is correctly designed to maximize ‘net value achievement’.

As an intellectual endeavour, rationalism tries to learn all the preferences existing in a society,

assign each value a relative weight, discover all policy alternatives available, know all

consequences of each alternative, calculate how the selection of any policy will affect the

remaining alternatives in terms of opportunity costs, and ultimately select that policy alternative

which is the most efficient in terms of the costs and benefits of social values equates rationality

with efficiency.

Main Protagonists

Herbert Simon, Yehezkel Dror, Thomas R. Dye and Robert Haveman

Thomas R. Dye

He says that a policy is rational when it is most efficient, that is, if the ratio between the value it

achieves and the value it sacrifices is positive and higher than any other policy alternatives.

Policy Evaluation process and obstacles

The evaluation of policy is made by variety of ways. Sometimes it is highly systemic other times

rather haphazard or sporadic. In some cases it has become institutionalized while in others it is

quite informal and unstructured. A few of the forms of policy evaluation are legislative

oversight, audit organizations, executive commissions and agency action etc. Beside this,

evaluation is also made outside government. The media, university scholars, private research

organizations, civil society, pressure-groups and public interest organization all make evaluation
of policy that have greater or lesser effects on public official. They also provide the public with

information, publicize policy action or inaction and sometimes advocate unpopular causes. It is

often indicated in policy evaluation that intended policy goals or impact is not achieved due to

following factors:

1. Inadequate resources.

2. Limited policy areas.

3. Conflicting goals.

4. Irresponsive people

5. Cost overruns.

6. The changing of policy problem.

7. New problem may arise after implementation.

Cost-benefit analysis of policy evaluation

Cost benefit analysis is the implicit and explicit assessment of the benefits and costs (e.g. pros

and cons, advantages and disadvantages) associated with a particular policy. It is a technique of

comparing all the costs, both visible and invisible, included in a particular policy action with all

the benefits expected. The costs and benefits can be either material or symbolic. Following are

the policy categories that are based on the allocation of costs and benefits.

i. Broad Benefits and Broad Costs

Policies that involve a broad distribution of costs and benefits, such as social security, high way

construction, public education, defense, health, tend to becomes readily accepted, institutional

sized and beyond major challenge.

ii. Board Benefits and Narrow Costs

Some policies provide benefits for larger population while their costs fall primarily upon faintly

distract identifiable group in society. The policies related to environment pollution control,

public utility, regulations, mine safety etc. are example of it.

iii. Narrow Benefits and Broad Costs

Policies are of benefit to indentified groups while their costs do not appeal to fall upon any

particular groups. Aquiculture subsidies, construction of hospital and educational institutions,

cleaning of rivers etc. are the examples of it. The costs of policies related with above are in form

of higher taxes or prices that effect people generally. Those who benefit from their policies have

a clear incentive to organize and act to maintain them.

iv. Narrow Benefit and Narrow Costs

Policies which are benefited to a targeted group but their cost fall on another distinct group tend

to generate organization conflicts among the groups and their partisans.

Rationality in Decision Making

Simon used the term “rationality” with adjectives like “bounded rationality”, “substantive

rationality” and procedural rationality”. He emphasized the necessity of being rational in making

a choice. He defines rationality as one concerned with the selection of preferred behavior

alternatives in terms of some system of values whereby the consequences of behavior can be
evaluated. To him it requires a total knowledge and anticipation of the consequences that will

follow on each choice. It also requires a choice from among all possible alternative behaviors.

Simon explained the term rationality as “the matching of means to ends”. The term ‘means’—

instrument purpose–refers to any state or situation which is earlier in time than some other state

or situation while the term ‘ends’—ultimate purpose—refers to any state or situation which is

later in a purpose chain or set of chains. The same state or situation may always be a means from

one point of view and an ultimate objective from another. According to Simon, if appropriate

means are chosen to achieve designed goals the decision is rational.

Types of Rationality

Simon differentiates between different types of rationality. According to him, a decision is :

1. Objectively rational when it maximizes given value in a given situation;

2. Subjectively rational when it maximizes attainment relative to knowledge of the

subject;

3. Consciously rational where adjustment of means to ends is a conscious process;

4. Deliberatively rational, when the adjustment of means to ends has been

deliberatively sought;

5. Organizationally rational when decision is aimed at the organization’s goal; and

6. Personally rational when the decision if directed to the individual’s goal.

Simon disputes the concept of total rationality in administrative behavior. To him, human

behavior is neither totally rational nor totally irrational. He believes that that the concept of total

rationality is based on certain unrealistic assumptions such as:-

a) The decisions maker’s omniscience regarding all available alternatives and their possible

consequences;

b) his unlimited computational ability; and

c) his complete and persistent preference ordering in the light of all possible implications.

Limitation of Rational Model

There are many barriers to rational policy-making. There are no uniform societal values. We

have only the values of specific groups and individuals which are conflicting. The environment

of policy makers renders it impossible to see many societal values. Due to the cost of

information gathering, the availability of the information and the time involved in its collection

are barriers in collecting all the information required to know all possible policy alternatives and

the consequences of each alternative. Policy-makers have personal needs, inhibitions, and

inadequacies which prevent them from performing in a highly rational manner. That is why even

a rational policy scientist Yehezkel Dror wants a policy analyst to broaden their use of extra

rational information including intuition and exceptional leadership with acute perception of

social reality.