1. Interventions – the context, place, function, and political analysis
from the point of view of Inter- national, decision-making, and organisational theory

2. Prof. Dr. Reinhard Meyers, WWU Münster
Bounded Rationality and Constructed Realities: Main Developments in Decision-Making Theory from the 1950s to today

3. Prof.Dr.Markus Bresinsky, UAS Regensburg
Planning and Decision-Making – How do human factors influence the CIMIC process?

4. This file can be downloaded from my website
There you can also find further material to accompany our seminars on International Theory and International Politics
Lost in the maze ??? Send to

5. Decision Making
„The process of selecting an option for implementation.“
Decisions are formed by:
a decision maker (the one who makes the final choice) and
a decision unit (all those in a small group, organization, or government who are involved in the process).
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.
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

6. 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.

7. Explaining decision-makers' behavior (I): Answers from the Social Psychology of I.R.
Herbert C. Kelman (Ed.): International Behavior. A Social­Psychological 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 operational environment (in which his decisions are executed). But in policy-making, as we have stressed before, what matters is how the policy­maker imagines the milieu to be, not how it actually is."
(Harold + Magaret Sprout: Environmental Factors in the Study of International Politics, JCR 1957)

8. Psychological Environment
Belief System: Images of the past, the present, and the future ("facts")
Images of what should be ("Norms and values")
Operational
Decision
Perception of "Reality"
Environment
ACTION
Change
Operational
= Information
Environment

9. Recommended Reading
Robert Axelrod (ed.): Structure of Decision. The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton: Princeton UP 1976

10. 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

11. Stimulus – Response – Scheme
Mental
Process
black box
not open to
analysis
(Operationa) Environment
(Operational) Environment
Stimulus
Response
observable phenomena

12. Ideas, Norms, Values are unimportant or epipheno- menal
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 unimportant or epipheno- menal
Examples: Structural Functionalism, Systems Theory, Rational Choice Approaches

13. 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

14. Incrementalism
Incrementalism, 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

15. Explaining decision-makers' behaviour: (IIIa) Post-Behavioural Perspectives
General characteristic:
Shift from explanation to understanding
explanation: 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

16. Interpretive-Constructive Paradigm
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

17. 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]

18. Premiss I
a) Man acts vis-a-vis things or phenomena on the basis of meanings these things or phenomena have for him
b) The meaning of things/phenomena results from the value or function attributed to them within the process or system of social interaction into which Man enters with his fellow Men
c) These meanings are handled, made use of, changed in a process of interpretation into which Man enters if / when he deals with / takes issue with a thing or phenomenon

19. Premiss II 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).

20. Premiss III 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)

21. PERSPECTIVES ON DECISION MAKING
THE RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL
Decisions 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
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.

22. 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.

23. Recommended Reading
Graham Allison/Philip Zelikow; Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2nd ed. New York 1999: Longman
[originally 1963, Pb. 1970]

24. DECISION-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
ASSUMPTION
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.
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.

25. CONCEPT OF DOUBLE-EDGED DIPLOMACY
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 DIPLOMACY
Cf.Peter B.Evans et al.(eds.): Double-Edged Diplomacy. International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley:U.of California Press 1993

26. 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 Diplomacy
Cf.Peter B.Evans et al.(eds.): Double-Edged Diplomacy. International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley:U.of California Press 1993

27. 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 in
order to favour some
options over others
rule of the technocrats ?
democracy and accountability deficit in international politics

28. multi-level governance approaches to international politics
efforts to catch the real existing
complexity
of its policy processes
decision-making approaches
to international politics
efforts to catch the process-ness or procedural characteristics of policy processes
multi-level structure
resulting actual policies
policy-making processes
actors’ input:
aims, interests, resources

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. Multi-Level Governance
Flexibly organised common problem solving among different communities from the local via the regional and state to the international level (and vice versa)
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)
* stability
without formalised and insti-
tutionalised organisations and
treaty systems
governance without government
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 rely
on cooperation of political AND societal actors in networks and negotiation systems (Round Tables etc.)

32. MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE: MAIN ACTORS AND LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
GOVERNMENT A
GOVERNMENT B
GOVERNMENT C
International regimes
Supranational and intergovernmental actors
TARGET STATE
Transnational groups
International level
Administration Legislative branch Judiciary system Central state
Domestic groups & issue-specific groups (commercial, religious, and environmental)
State level
Administration Legislative branch Judiciary system Regional/substate unit
Regional level
Individual cognition; Belief system; Personal and national identity
Individual level

33. Agenda setting and decision-making:
A procedural basis for interventionists or a case of the blind leading the lame ?