Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis
The major argument of the book created by Graham Allison and his colleague Philip Zelikow is the possibility of several variants, or scenarios, according to which the political events are being developed in the world. The focus of the book is the so called Cuba Missiles Crisis used by Allison and Zelikow (1999) as the case study to test their three fold model of policy analysis. The three aspects that the authors consider are the so called “Rational Actor”, the “Organizational Behavior”, and the “Governmental Politics” models. According to the first model, the governmental decisions made by the USSR and the USA were conditioned by rational thinking and the pursuit of utility. The second model suggests that the imperfection of the state run construction process results in the inability of the government to act freely and makes the government commit political mistakes. The final model, concerned mainly with “court politics”, states that the personal benefit pursued by each of the situation players conditioned their actions during this crisis.
As for the evidence presented in the book, and its credibility, the work considered can be called a well-documented and reliable source of the political, historical, and social information. To support this statement, the history of the publishing of Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis can be considered. The first edition of the book was carried out in 1971, but in 1999 the authors saw the necessity of the revised edition as far as the new information about the governmental negotiations and other proceedings was revealed in the late 1990s. Therefore, the argument of the book and its major ideas are supported by the specific governmental materials, including the tapes of the governmental hearings of the issue, the correspondence of certain politicians including Kennedy, Khrushchev, etc. What also adds credibility to the evidence presented by Allison and Zelikow (1999) is that their own hypotheses about the reasons and the outcomes of the political proceedings are supported by specific research data.
Drawing from these facts, the book under consideration teaches a lot about the general principles according to which the public policy making is carried out. Although these principles are not made public, as a rule, it is evident for a number of scholars including Allison and Zelikow (1999) that intriguing and personal benefit are the driving forces of the political changes in the local and the global scope. Accordingly, the major revelation this book presents is that the political events are not planned and carried out for the sake of nations, whose leaders conduct them. Vice versa, the statesmen are involved in their special game in which the political parties and personalities, usually funded by certain mighty corporations like EXCOMM, pursue the interests of these companies and of their own. Moreover, if the personal interests are under a certain threat, as the Soviet ones in case if the USA undertook the air attack on Cuba, the decisions claimed to be for the universal good are easy to change for the opposite.
Finally, the book under consideration has taught me a lot in respect of policy analysis process. First of all, the ideas presented by Allison and Zelikow (1999) demonstrate that no political event can be analyzed in a single way, mostly because any approach is biased to some extent and to see the objective picture of a situation the comprehensive analysis is needed. For example, the analysis of the Cuba Missiles Crisis would be incomplete if carried out through only one of the models offered by Allison and Zelikow (1999). The “Rational Actor” model would examine all the occurrences from the rational point of view, regardless of any underlying reasons that might condition the launching of the Soviet missile base in Cuba or the US decision to implement a blockade. On the other hand, the “Organizational Behavior” and the “Governmental Politics” models would also provide the reader with an incomplete analysis by applying to hidden messages and leaving the rational thought behind. Thus, the book by Allison and Zelikow (1999) teaches that policy analysis process is multifaceted and applies to a lot of approaches to obtain the objective picture of a political event or a decision.
Policy Design for Democracy
Policy Design for Democracy is a perfect book for those busy with the study of the policy making procedures and the basic political systems that can be implemented in the modern society. The authors of this book, Schneider and Ingram (1997) offer the comprehensive overview of the main principles of democracy as well as the four basic theories of the political study used by scholars nowadays. These theories include pluralism, public choice, critical theory, and the policy sciences. In more detail, pluralism presupposes both the variety of political views and movements and the variety of the opportunities to study and examine them. Although the main democratic values are pluralism and the personal freedom, such an approach leads to anarchy rather than a structured society using its freedom properly. Public choice theory is close to the pluralist one as it states the innate right of any person to choose his or her political preferences, but this theory is undermined by the fact that choice is traditionally presented to those having power while those powerless have to accept decisions of the latter. The other two theories does not allow the comprehensive overview of democracy as such either, and in their book Schneider and Ingram (1997) stress the need of the combined study of politics.
Therefore, the credibility of the evidence presented in the book under consideration cannot be doubted. The ideas expressed by the authors are supported by the complexity of theoretical considerations related to the study of politics and major political systems of the past and present. Moreover, the positions that the authors take in the scholarly world also do not allow us doubt the reliability of the ideas they offer. Thus, Anne Larson Schneider occupies the position of the dean of the College of Public Programs which is the part of the Arizona State University. It is evident that the person holding such a position is a well-educated and proficient specialist in the area of public policy making, and the ideas expressed by such a person can be relied upon. The same can be said about Helen Ingram whose position of the Warmington Endowed Chair taken in the School of Social Ecology and the degree of professor obtained in the University of California, Irvine allow her to currently work for the Department of Society and Politics in the same University. Therefore, the credibility of the source considered is undoubted.
So are the ideas presented in this book by Schneider and Ingram (1997) who manage to teach the readers the basics of the democratic society. In its relation to the political system implemented, democracy can often be misunderstood and misinterpreted by politicians and other statesmen. The result of this misinterpretation is the distorted essence of democracy as applied to a particular society. On one hand, democracy allowing too much freedom can evolve to anarchy on a certain stage of its development, especially in the societies of a transitional period. The examples of such societies include the countries of the former USSR, which could not control their political forces on the initial stages of their formation. On the other hand, democracy can be a mere cover to the totalitarian regime under which the democratic freedoms are enjoyed by a selected group of powerful people, while others are deprived of freedoms.
In accordance with this, the means of the political analysis, as Schneider and Ingram (1997) argue, should also be a combination of different approach allowing the examination of various aspects of democracy. For example, pluralism is the means of studying the variety of public minds as for this or that political phenomenon, while public choice theory provides the opportunity to monitor the social opinions with the highest degree of objectivity. Critical theory strives at finding out the disadvantageous of the political system which is currently in force in a country, while political sciences theory ensures the comprehensive overview of the possible political systems and social structures. Thus, none of the above mentioned theories presents a comprehensive means of the policy studies, and to ensure the latter an analyst of policy process should apply all four approaches.
In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam
The main argument of the book by Brian Van Demark and Robert S. McNamara is the acknowledgement of the mistakes that the American government headed by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson failed to recognize at once when they had been made. Vietnam War is viewed as the major failure of the US Government and Robert S. McNamara as the Secretary of Defense in the years 1961 – 1967. In In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam Robert S. McNamara tries to present his views on the issue driven by the best reasons including the wish to help the American nation with the understanding of the fact that their 1960s leaders committed their mistakes not intentionally but only in trying to benefit the USA. Moreover, the author of the book explains his quite delayed reaction to the Vietnam War events by the reluctance to present his book as trying to publicly apologize. Having published his book over three decades, Robert S. McNamara has managed to make the hindsight to the past events, while Brian Van Demark has served as a critical assessor of the argument from the viewpoint of the younger generation.
Accordingly, the question about the credibility of the facts and evidence presented in the book under analysis comes next. But this question is of little value in relation to this book as the facts presented in it are taken by the very participants of the events depicted from the original sources, from talks with the highest ranking politicians of the time and from the personal judgements of the former Secretary of Defense of the United States. Therefore, the account on the Vietnam War and on the political events that surrounded it is rather full and credible. Moreover, the help of the second author, Brian Van Demark, is hard to underestimate in adding credibility to this book’s evidence. Being a critic of the arguments presented, Brian Van Demark assures the absence of biases or subjectivity in the book, as well as interprets the facts presented in it from the modern point of view, i. e. three decades after the horrors of the war are in the past.
As a result, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam presents a specific and credible data on the Vietnam War but also provides a huge amount of information about public policy making and its basic principles. Considered as the historical document, the book under analysis displays a wide range of data beginning from the exact timeline of the key events in the 1960s American politics and Vietnam War as one of its major failures. The accounts of the author about his communication with the American presidents and their reaction to his arguments against the War are also presented in the book. But the major value of this source for the public policy study is that it reveals the principles according to which the American policies were developed at that period. The idea of stopping Communism expansion to Asia made all other considerations minor and led to 58, 000 of killed American soldiers in Vietnam, thus demonstrating that the public policy is mainly concerned with the global goals but not with the lives of ordinary people as such.
Therefore, this book has changed considerably my view on the traditional procedure of policy analysis. The facts revealed by the authors, especially by Robert S. McNamara, show that the traditional approaches used by scholars are not always effective or applicable at all. For example, using one of the traditional methods of policy analysis one might consider the decision to start the war in Vietnam as a politically conditioned one, as the US Government wanted to stop the Communist expansion to other countries. However, the person who is well informed about the underlying facts of the policy making in Washington, like Robert S. McNamara, is able to present another view of the problem. This fact shows that apart from using the purely scholarly methods of analysis, to understand politics it is necessary to be ready to assume and try to prove everything, even the most incredible scenario. For example, in Vietnam War such a scenario could be the interest of corporations that funded the Government in the Asian markets and their desire to keep the Soviet interests out of that area. Thus, policy analysis should be a combination of science and creative thought able to predict any possible scenarios.
Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why they Do It
The main argument of Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why they Do It by James Wilson is that the publicly understood goals of bureaucracies at different levels usually do not match with the actual, legislatively dictated, duties that these agencies are to fulfill. The analysis of the bureaucratic apparatus of every country is started at the lowest level, i. e. private organizations and businesses, and is developed up to the highest levels of the state authority including the Government, the Congress, and the very office of President. This is achieved by dividing the book into six major sections that include Organizations, Operators, Managers, Executives, Context, and Change. The latter are in their turn subdivided further into chapters dealing with such aspects as people, their beliefs, and needs of people in bureaucracies, etc. Finally, the difference between the private, i. e. profit-oriented, and the governmental, i. e. non-profit, bureaucracies is clarified in the fact that the former pursue their goals while the latter act according to the governmental and legislative restrictions.
Accordingly, the evidence presented in Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why they Do It is rather credible because the author does both – he manages to provide a substantial body of theoretical information on bureaucracies, their types and development principles; at the same time, this argument is supported by a number of specific examples. For instance, Wilson (2000) considers the institution of the US Army Procurement and the duties of the main official of the latter as an example of the non-correspondence of the officially presented duties with those assumed for this institution by the public. Thus, the US Army Procurement official is supposed to be in charge of purchasing the weapons for the military, but the government imposes other functions on this person, including support to the American business and the native producers of goods and services, providing the employment opportunities for mentally disabled people, monitoring and regulating the wage rates in the countries, and many other minor functions.
As a result, Wilson (2000) presents a lot of information about the public policy making of today. Using bureaucracy as the specific, and at the same time generic, example, the author manages to depict the very structure of the political system of the United States of America. For example, the author refers to the multiple nature of subordination of the local bureaucracies to the central authorities saying that the Congress might decide a matter in one way, the President might keep to another point of view, while the Supreme Court might rule the matter in a third way. This ambiguity of bureaucratic subordination makes its work difficult and, rather often, inefficient. However, positive examples are also present, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the FBI, etc. The success of this bureaucracies is, according to Wilson (2000), is conditioned by their proper organizational structure and management.
Finally, this book contributes greatly to my understanding of the basics of the policy analysis process. Bureaucracies, as a substantial part of the political system of every country, should be considered for their efficiency and possible improvements, and the book under analysis classifies them for the easier study. Moreover, the specific examples presented for any type of bureaucracy help in understanding the essence of their operation. Thus, the complex of data that Wilson (2000) presents in his book constitutes the valuable tool for any person dealing with the public policy analysis. The ability to distinguish between the types of bureaucracies and see their specific reflections in the real world politics is difficult to overestimate for the purposes of the public policy analysis.
Works Cited
Allison, Graham T. and Philip Zelikow. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (2nd Edition). New York: Longman, 1999.
Schneider, Anne L. and Helen M. Ingram. Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1997.
Van Demark, Brian and Robert S. McNamara. In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1996.
Wilson, James. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why they Do It (Second edition). New York: Basic Books, 2000.