Introduction
The article by Lindblom (1959) discusses the possible approaches to the decision-making process in the field of public administration. The author focuses on two principal methods – the root method, more commonly known as a rational-comprehensive method, and the branch one, defined in the academic literature as an incremental method (Lindblom, 1959). While the author points to the advantages of both approaches, he ultimately advocates for the use of the second one, which in the context of public administration is less resource- and time-consuming, allows focusing on solutions that do not deviate significantly from the existing direction, and is more realistic in terms of human capabilities.
Main body
It is important to acknowledge that neither of the approaches is an innovation introduced by the author. Both were well-established and recognized in the academic circles and widely used in systems analysis, statistical decision theory, operations research, and other fields that required solutions to complex problems (). Therefore, the author’s accomplishment is not in providing new means of problem-solving, but rather in highlighting the advantages of the less favored approach and outlining a framework that would allow for its successful and effective usage. In addition, the weaknesses of the root method identified by Lindblom (1959) allow us to avoid pitfalls and allocate resources more efficiently in the process of making decisions.
It is also important to point out that the article was written more than half a century ago, which may suggest that the conclusions made by the author are outdated. The introduction of IT-based analysis and the growing calculation capacity of statistical platforms make the rational-comprehensive method more attainable in the field of modern public administration. Nevertheless, it should be understood that at least some issues complicate it even today. For instance, the ambiguity caused by the lack of clear distinction between roots (pursued values and goals) and branches (means of reaching the identified goals) is certainly beyond the capacity of current IT-based solutions. Therefore, the rational-comprehensive method would still rely on the analysis of an expert. In addition, there is no doubt that in many instances the implementation of costly and sophisticated solutions would exceed the reasonable budget. The scarcity of resources was identified by Lindblom (1959) as one of the central problems in the field of public administration, and it can be argued that the situation has not dramatically improved since then. Thus, the incremental approach described in the article is as relevant today as it was at the time of the publication, and most of the advantages remain crucial in the modern setting.
Finally, the framework proposed by the author allows for a consistent and systematic approach to decision-making that compensates for the alleged lack of scientific integrity of the branch method. The incremental method suggests discarding the branches that constitute the greatest departure from the current status quo and largely ignores the process of weighting the means of reaching the goal based on the assumption that identifying all success indicators is unrealistic. These aspects open up the possibility of missing the soundest opportunity since the agreement among stakeholders may not indicate the most rational decision. However, the five-step process described by the author is expected to minimize the possibility of deviations and increase consistency between interventions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article by Lindblom (1959) improves our understanding of decision-making in the public administration sector by addressing the misconceptions about the incremental approach and provides us with an overall framework for consistently implementing the process in practice.
Reference
Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.