Assignment 1

Another way to represent problems is to use the argument mapping methods introduced earlier in this chapter ( Figure 1.3 ). The role of argument mapping in structuring policy discourses may be illustrated by Graham Allison’s well-known study of foreign policy decision-making during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. 55 Showing how different explanatory models yield different conclusions, Allison argues that government policy analysts use implicit conceptual models to think about and make policy recommendations. These conceptual models explain the behavior of governments in terms that assume the rationality of political choices (rational actor model), the inertia created by organizational processes (organizational process model), and the effects of bureaucratic politics (bureaucratic politics model). Each of these models provides its own explanation of policymaking.

In 1962, the policy alternatives open to the United States in responding to the crisis ranged from no action and diplomatic pressure to secret negotiations, invasion, surgical air strikes, and blockade. Among the several claims made at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, let us consider the policy actually adopted by the United States: “The United States should blockade Cuba.” In this case, the policy-relevant knowledge (I) is “The Soviet Union is placing offensive missiles in Cuba.” The warrant states that “the blockade will force the withdrawal of missiles by showing the Russians that the United States is determined to use force.” In providing reasons to accept the warrant, the backing (B) supports the warrant by stating that “an increase in the cost of an alternative reduces the likelihood of that alternative being chosen.” 56 The backing (B) represents a general theoretical proposition, or law, within the rational policy model. After the objection (O) has successfully challenged the warrant, the qualifier (Q) changes from absolutely to doubtful.

Allison’s account shows how the use of multiple competing explanations can facilitate critical thinking. The use of multiple competing models moves the analysis from a simple uncontested argument ( Figure C1.3.1 ) to a new argument which is complex, contested, and dynamic ( Figure C1.3.2 ). This change occurs because a serious objection has been raised about the warrant and the backing of the claim. The objection states: “But Soviet leaders may fail to convince their naval units to depart from established organizational routines.” The warrant for this objection is: “The bulk of research on organizations shows that major lines of organizational behavior tend to be straight. Behavior at time t + 1 differs little from behavior at time t. 57 The blockade will not work.” The warrant for the objection is again a general proposition or law within the organizational process model, otherwise known as the disjointed incremental theory of policy change.

Simple uncontested maps of arguments about the OPEC oil embargo are presented alongside arguments about the Cuban missile crisis ( Figures C1.3.1[a] and [b] ). The comparisons show that the simple argument maps tend to result in uncritical thinking. By contrast, the complex, dynamic, and contested maps of the same crises ( Figures C1.3.2[a] and [b] ) illustrate what is meant by critical thinking.

Figure C1.3.1 Simple Argument Maps Are Static and Uncontested