Assignment 1

events. The rectangles with shaved corners represent valued policy outcomes, or objectives. The objectives are to lower fuel consumption, reduce travel time, and avert traffic fatalities and injuries. To the right of the objectives is another shaved rectangle, which designates the net benefits (benefits less costs) of the four objectives. In this case, the surprising result of using the influence diagram was the discovery of causally relevant economic events such as recession and unemployment, which affect miles driven, which in turn affects the achievement of all four objectives. The “root cause” appears to be the OPEC oil embargo.

The decision tree is another way to represent the influence diagram. Whereas the influence diagram shows how policy choices and uncertain events affect the achievement of objectives, the decision tree displays the monetary value of these outcomes. In this abridged and simplified decision tree, there are two branches that not only represent the two alternatives (renew or not renew the NMSL), but also the OPEC oil crisis, the recession, the costs of miles traveled, and the dollar benefits of reducing fatalities. The bolded branches show the events with the greatest likelihood of occurring, or which already have occurred.

Figure C1.2.1 Influence Diagram and Decision Tree

Case 1.3 Mapping International Security and Energy Crises

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

48

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.

49

Figure C1.3.1 Simple Argument Maps Are Static and Uncontested

50

Figure C1.3.2 Complex Argument Maps Are Dynamic and Contested

51