Reading comment on The Science of “Muddling Through”
The journal written by Charles Lindbrom aims to prove that the “Muddling through” or Successive limited comparisons” or “The Branch”, instead of the popular rational comprehensive model or “the Root”, should be aware by modern policy makers. He thinks that the Muddling Through can help solve any complicated problems while confirms that the rational model can’t do that. Lindrom provides two scales representing the rational comprehensive method s and the successive limited comparisons – rational model aims to achieve perfect policy while the root targets to relative policy - , and then to protect his argument, he refutes a model of the root with step-by-step revelation of five main problems of the root and proves five main points of the branch can solve in a very good way. First, the root method cannot help administrators make clear values or targets. Usually in the root method, administrators define their targets by gaining public opinions, the fact is that opinions vary which is impossible for them to make best selection, and thus they risk choosing a policy without appropriate targets selection. On the other hands, values are also various. One may be important in this case but not in other, in reality, administrators can even ignore or neglect important values and choose their own important values. Under a particular circumstance, the values or objects they selected expose the inappropriate characters; however, policies are still issued to obtain them. The branch sees the values and policy selection should occur simultaneoulsy. By doing this, administrators can compare policies containing values and objects they need necessary for his policy selection. Second, the root model believes ends can be pursued by means, in other words, means are created after ends are defined. Lindrom rebuts with his question that whether the relationship is true if an administrator makes a bad decision. Lindrom confirmes the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document