Introduction
This article is authored by Charles Lindblom, a distinguished professor of political science, who has mainly been attached to Yale University. In this classic article, Lindblom argues that the decision-making process in the United States has several limitations in the form of policy analysis, overrun rationality, and lack of adequate theoretical frameworks. Consequently, the article points out that streamlined decision-making does not have to be a slow bureaucratic process.
The article is titled “The Science of Muddling Through” and its hypothesis disputes the notion that all public policy decisions have to be rationally comprehensive. The author is of the view that there are several alternative solutions to the traditional public policy formulation. This article has managed to remain relevant since its publication in 1959. Public administration scholars are still trying to further the research that was started by Lindblom. This essay is a critique of Lindblom’s article “The Science of Muddling Through”.
Critique of Subject Matter
Although this article is several decades old, its core subject matter still resonates with the current situation. Lindblom takes issue with how public administrators assign prominence to rational and comprehensive decision-making. According to the article, the most practical approach to a decision is the “method of successive limited comparisons” (Lindblom, 1959, p. 81). The mechanics of this approach allow policymakers to base their actions on the underlying objectives and values within any public policy.
The next step in Lindblom’s process gives policymakers the chance to consider other alternatives whilst accounting for all outside influences. The final activity for decision-makers as outlined in Lindblom’s method involves choosing the most effective decision. Lindblom’s rational-comprehensive approach has had outstanding relevance in the course of the last five decades. Therefore, this resilience is an indication of how relevant this article is about public administration policies.
Shortcomings in Argument
The article contrasts what is termed as the “root method” with the “branch approach” (Lindblom, 1959). The author out rightly favors the branch approach and a thorough analysis of this method indicates that it has withstood the test of time. First, the root method suggests a methodology of decision-making, which involves a consideration of values and objectives. It would be difficult for any decision-maker to define values and objectives accurately. For example, the governor might find it difficult to define the decision that is more valuable among these two; constructing more roads or increasing the gasoline tax. Furthermore, the root approach fails to account for the need to separate ends from means. For example, some policies are goals in their own right and this makes them ends as opposed to being means.
Critique of Structure
The general structure of this article is a bit complex for an average reader mostly because the author shuns the traditional scholarly approach. The article’s introduction is presented as a hypothetical scenario for a public administration decision-making process. Consequently, the subject of the article and its hypothesis are introduced crudely and it might take the reader some time before he/she makes the connection. The same case applies to the article’s body, which randomly presents information. Nevertheless, the article can deliver all the necessary information amid this clutter.
Conclusion
This article can be recommended to a wide range of viewers but its most suitable audience would be public administration scholars. In this article, the author presents a timeless approach to public policy decision-making. However, his approach is not a one-size-fits-all regimen because it is subject to several weaknesses. This article has also continued to provide scholars with new avenues for research since the time of its publication.
Reference
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2): 79-88.