Decision Making Models

Lsn 5

Agenda

• Rational actor• Bureaucratic process• Organizational process• Small group• Elitist• Pluralist• Social constructivism• Prospect• Poliheuristic• Case Study: Cuban Missile Crisis

Decision-making

• Why understanding decision-making is difficult…– No single decision-making process exists– Decisions are seldom final and tend to lack concrete

beginning and ending points– There is an imperfect link between the policy process

and the policy outcome

• Thus any decision-making model is likely to oversimplify the problem

• Still models offer analytical tools which can be combined to provide useful insights

Rational Actor Model

• Foreign policy is viewed as a calculated response to the actions of another actor

• That causes a calculated response from the first actor which leads to reevaluation and readjustment by the second actor

• Throughout this process, the state is seen as unitary and rational– Domestic politics, governmental organization,

and personalities are discounted

Rational Actor Model

• Goals are clearly stated and ranked in order of preference

• All options are considered• The consequences of

each option are assessed• A value-maximizing code

is made• A very useful tool during

the Cold War

Rational Actor Model

Factor Factor Factor Factor Total

COA 1

COA 2

COA 3

COA 4

COA 5

Rational Actor Model

Cost Major Social Life

Close to home

Total

USM

U of M

State

JCJC

PRCC

Rational Actor Model

• In the rational actor model, decisions are based on the pursuit of national interests at reasonable costs or risks

• It’s attractiveness is that it places few informational demands on the observer

• It’s criticism is based on the same fact and the realization that decision-making is much more complicated than just weighing external factors– Domestic, personality, and organizational influences

all have an impact

Rational Actor Model

• The model assumes “important events have important consequences”– Downplays the role of chance, accident, and

coincidence– Clausewitz’s “fog of war”– In reality goals are seldom clearly stated and

rank ordered, and options are often not fully evaluated

Rational Actor Model

• Nonrational factors– Threat perception

• Determining threat capabilities and intents• Dangers of “worst-case analysis” and “wishful

thinking”

– Specific and cumulative historical experiences– Xenophobia– Personal present circumstances

• “Where you stand depends on where you sit”

– Groupthink

Bureaucratic Politics Model

• Bureaucratic politics is the “process by which people inside government bargain with one another on complex public policy questions”

• This model sees decisions as being the product of conflict-resolution rather than problem solving

Bureaucratic Politics Model

• Power is shared• The individuals who share power disagree on

what should be done because they are located at different places in the government and see different aspects of the problem– The Secretary of State may view a problem primarily

from the diplomatic perspective while the Secretary of Defense has a different view because his troops may be used while the President must also concern himself with domestic fallout

Bureaucratic Politics Model

• Rarely do problems enter or leave the policy process in a clearly definable manner

• They get entangled with other issues

• Not everyone participates in every problem

Bureaucratic Politics Model

• Therefore some underlying concept of national interest is not how decisions are made

• How the problem first surfaces and how it interacts with other issues greatly determines how the decision will be made

Organizational Politics Model

• Because time is short to do a lot of bargaining, many decisions are based on existing organizational standard operating procedures (SOPs)

• Governments are complex entities consisting of large organizations among which responsibilities for particular areas are divided

Organizational Politics Model

• Governments are not monolithic– They are merely constellations of loosely

allied organizations on top of which the government leaders sit

– The constellation acts only as component organizations perform routines

• In order to coordinate the behaviors of large numbers of individuals performing these routines, SOPs are used

Organizational Politics Model

• Therefore decisions within the organization are largely determined by routines established by SOPs before the particular instance or problem even occurs

• To ensure predictable performance, the “standards” are often limited, unduly formalized, and sluggish

• They may also be inappropriate

Organizational Politics Model

• The inflexible and blunt nature of these routines and procedures reinforces the tendency to accept change only around the margins

• If the problem is non-standard and an existing SOP is not available, the organization is forced to undergo the painful search for a new SOP

Small Group Model

• Many decisions are made by neither an individual or a large organization

• Advantages over the bureaucratic model might include– Fewer opinions to reconcile and therefore fewer

significant conflicts– A free and open exchange because there will be no

organizational interests to protect– Swift and decisive action– Possible innovation and experimentation– The possibility of maintaining secrecy

Small Group Model

• Types of small groups– Informal group that meets regularly but lacks

a formal institution base– An ad hoc group created to respond to a

specific problem– A permanent group with an institutional base

created to perform a series of specified functions

Small Group Model

• Dangers of the small group model– Groupthink: the “deterioration of mental efficiency,

reality testing, and moral judgment” that increases the likelihood of the group’s making a potentially defective decision

– Tips to avoid groupthink• Encourage impartial and wide-ranging discussions of

alternatives• Establish multiple groups for the same task• Appoint a “devil’s advocate”• Schedule a “second chance” meeting to reconsider decisions

one final time

Elite Model

• Vitally concerned with the identities of those who make foreign policy and the underlying dynamics of national power, social myth, and class interests

Elite Model

• Foreign policy is made as a response to demands generated by the economic and political system– Not all demands receive equal

attention and those that receive the most attention serve the interests of only a small sector of society

– Special interests are transformed into national interests

John Conyers and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus had a significant impact on President Clinton’s decision to intervene in Haiti

Elite Model

• Those outside of the elite are relatively powerless

• Public reactions are often “orchestrated” by the elite rather than being expressions of independent thinking

• Stresses the ties that bind policy makers together rather than the issues that separate them

Pluralism Model

• Power is fragmented and diffused• Many groups in society have power

to participate in policy making• No one group is powerful enough to

dictate policy• An equilibrium among groups is the

natural state of affairs• Policy is the product of bargaining

between groups and reflects the interest of the dominant group(s)

• The government acts as an umpire, supervising the competition and sometimes compelling a settlement.

Pluralism Model

• Power resources are not evenly distributed throughout society and merely possessing the attributes of power does not necessarily equate to actually possessing power itself– Power resources may be substituted for one

another• Numbers can offset wealth• Leadership can offset numbers• Commitment can overcome poor leadership• etc

Social Constructivism

• Seeks to understand how it was possible to imagine certain courses of action and relationships as being possible in the first place

• What social practices enabled people to act, frame policies as they did, and wield power as they did

How did Manuel Noriega become redefined from an anticommunist ally to a drug dealer, thus making the invasion of Panama possible?

Prospect

• Individuals do not weigh all outcomes and select the strategy that will offer the highest expected utility

• Instead they tend to value what they have more than what they do not have– Leads them to value the status quo and be risk

adverse with respect to gains and risk accepting when it comes to losses

• Take more risks to defend the state’s international position than to enhance it

• After a loss, take excessive risks to recover their position

Poliheuristic

• Policy makers adopt more than one decision rule in making foreign policy decisions

• Begin with an “avoid a major loss principle” that stresses the importance of domestic considerations in surveying initial options

• Then evaluate the remaining options in terms of what offers the best net gain in terms of values they hold to be most important

Integration

• As an analytical tool, models can be combined by:– Shifting from model to model as the focus of

the analysis changes• Pluralist and bureaucratic models help explain why

policy makers act as they do once they are “in place,” but tell us little about how they got there

• Elitist and rational actor would offer better insights on how the actors arrived at the values they bring to bear in addressing a problem

Integration (cont)

• As an analytical tool, models can be combined by:– Recognizing that some models are more

appropriate for analyzing some problems or issue areas than others

• The more open the policy process and the longer the agenda is on the policy agenda, the more useful will be the bureaucratic and pluralistic models

• The more closed the process and quicker the response, the more useful will be the rational actor, elite, and small group models

Integration (cont)

• As an analytical tool, models can be combined by:– Shifting from one model to another as the policy

develops over time• Rational actor to analyze US entry into Vietnam• Bureaucratic to analyze key decisions during the course of

the war• Pluralist to analyze the decision to withdraw

– Picking the model based on the values that guide one’s analysis

• Be careful about assumptions though

Case Study

Cuban Missile Crisis

Fidel Castro

• In 1959 Fidel Castro was able to mobilize the disaffected rural peasants in Cuba and topple Fulgencio Batista’s US-supported and anticommunist regime

• Castro assumed dictatorial powers and announced his goal was to create a society based on Marxist principles

A Cuban crowd listens to Castro after his takeover

Bay of Pigs

• The US could not accept the presence of a revolutionary Marxist government so close to its borders and President Eisenhower authorized planning for a force of anti-Castro Cubans to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro

• When Kennedy became president he authorized the invasion but stipulated that the US not be involved in the landing itself

Bay of Pigs

• The invasion took place at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961 and proved to be a disaster

• Instead of rallying to the invaders, the local population supported the Castro government

• The failure embarrassed the US and weakened President Kennedy in the eyes of the Soviet Union– However, it strengthened

Kennedy’s personal resolve to act more vigorously in any future crisis

Castro helping to repel the invasion

Cuban Missile Crisis• Castro feared the US would

try again to overthrow him and he called for additional support from the Soviet Union

• Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev responded by sending medium-range bombers and missiles to Cuba to help defend Castro and threaten the US

• In Oct 1962, US spy planes discovered missile sites under construction in Cuba

Map used to brief the range of missiles and bombers being deployed to Cuba.

Kennedy’s Response

• Kennedy responded decisively, demanding that the Soviets remove the missiles and bombers or face their destruction by air strikes or invasion

• He also imposed a naval “quarantine” of Cuba

Quarantine

The US destroyer Joseph P. Kennedy stops, boards, and inspects a dry-cargo ship of Lebanese registry under Soviet charter to Cuba on Oct 26, 1962

US Victory

• On Oct 28, Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles

• “Eyeball to eyeball, they blinked first.”– Dean Rusk, US

Secretary of State

• It was a major Cold War victory for the US and a major loss of face for the Soviet Union and Khrushchev

1962 British cartoon showing Kennedy and Khrushchev arm wrestling on top of nuclear

weapons

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

• The Rational Actor Model– Kennedy considered six

options• Do nothing• Diplomatic pressures• A secret approach to

Castro• Invasion• Surgical air strike• Blockade

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

• After considering the pros and cons of each action, Kennedy chose the blockade because it had the comparative advantages of:– Being a middle course between inaction and

attack– aggressive enough to communicate firmness of intention, but not so precipitous as a strike

– It placed the burden of choice as to the next step squarely on Khrushchev

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

– No possible military confrontation could be more acceptable to the US than a naval confrontation in the Caribbean

– By flexing its conventional muscle, the US could exploit the threat of subsequent non-nuclear steps in each of which the US would have significant superiority

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

• The Organizational Process Model– Many describe the Soviet placement of

missiles on Cuba as an “intelligence failure” for the US

– The available intelligence was the product of established routines and procedures of the organizations that constitute the US intelligence community

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

– On Sept 19 the US Intelligence Board (USIB) concluded that the Soviet Union would not introduce offensive missiles to Cuba

– In fact, on Sept 12 a CIA agent had observed the rear profile of a strategic missile, but transmission time to Washington of such information routinely took 9 to 12 days and was not available for the USIB to consider

• Decreasing the transmission time would impose severe cost in terms of danger to subagents, agents, and communication networks

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

– On Oct 4, the decision was made to conduct a special flight over west Cuba

• The USAF and the CIA squabbled over who should perform the flight

• The USAF argued that the increased danger of the U-2 being shot down necessitated a uniformed rather than a CIA pilot

• The CIA countered that as an intelligence flight, the operation lay within its jurisdiction and its U-2s had been modified in ways the USAF’s planes had not been in order to decrease their likelihood of being shot down

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

– The State Dept joined the argument suggesting less risky alternatives such as drones

– After 10 days it was finally decided that USAF pilots would be trained to fly the CIA planes and conduct the mission

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

• The Organizational Process Model also impacted the discussion of options– The Navy saw issue as implementing the

blockade without meddling and interference from political leaders

– The President wanted to manage the pace of operations in order to give the Soviets time to see, think, and blink

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

– Trying to slow the Navy down in response to President Kennedy’s concerns, Secretary of Defense McNamara asked Chief of Naval Operations Admiral George Anderson a series of “what if?’ questions

– Anderson picked up the Manual of Navy Regulations, waved it in McNamara’s face, and shouted, “It’s all in there.”

– McNamara replied, “I don’t give a damn what John Paul Jones would have done; I want to know what you are going to do, now.”

– The argument concluded with Anderson saying, “Now, Mr. Secretary, if you and your Deputy will go back to your office the Navy will run the blockade.”

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

• The Elite Model– Cuba was Kennedy’s “political Achilles heel”– The Bay of Pigs had left Kennedy looking weak– Khrushchev had directly challenged Kennedy where

he knew the President was most vulnerable after assuring him he wouldn’t

• “He can’t do that to me!”– Republican Congressional leaders had already

announced that Cuba would be “the dominant issue of the 1962 campaign”

– All these factors made the “do nothing” option personally unpalatable for Kennedy

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

• Small Group Model– President Kennedy

convened the Executive Committee of the National Security Council (EXCOM) to advise him on the Cuban Missile Crisis

– The EXCOMM was formally established by National Security Action Memorandum 196 on Oct 22, 1962

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

• National Security Council Members– John Kennedy President– Lyndon Johnson, Vice President– Dean Rusk, Secretary of State– C. Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury– Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense– Robert Kennedy, Attorney General– McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor– John McCone, Director of Central Intelligence– Maxwell Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

• Other members– George Ball, Under Secretary of State for

Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs– Llewellyn Thompson, Ambassadior to the

Soviet Union– Roswell Gilpatric, Deputy Secretary of

Defense– Ted Sorensen, Special Counsel to the

President

Cuban Missile Crisis Decision Making

– Robert Kennedy recalled, “The fourteen people involved were very significant… If six of them had been President of the US, I think that the world might have been blown up.”

Next

• Traditional Actors and Other Actors