Question

What is your interpretation of “muddling through” as a process of public budgeting strategy? What are the pros and cons of using this process? Do you think “muddling through” is a feasible method in today’s fiscal climate? Why or why not?

The Science of Muddling Through By CHARLES E. LINDBLOM Associate Professor of Economics Yale University SUPPOSE an administrator is given respon- sibility for formulating policy with re- spect to inflation. He might start by try- ing to list all related values in order of importance, e.g., full employment, reasonable business profit, protection of small savings, prevention of a stock market crash. Then all possible policy outcomes could be rated as more or less efficient in attaining a maximum of these values. This would of course require a prodigious inquiry into values held by members of society and an equally prodigious set of calculations on how much of each value is equal to how much of each other value. He could then proceed to outline all possible policy alternatives. In a third step, he would undertake systematic comparison of his multi- tude of alternatives to determine which at- tains the greatest amount of values. In comparing policies, he would take ad- vantage of any theory available that general- ized about classes of policies. In considering inflation, for example, he would compare all policies in the light of the theory of prices. Since no alternatives are beyond his investi- gation, he would consider strict central con- trol and the abolition of all prices and mar- kets on the one hand and elimination of all public controls with reliance completely on the free market on the other, both in the light of whatever theoretical generalizations he could find on such hypothetical economies. Finally, he would try to make the choice that would in fact maximize his values. An alternative line of attack would be to set as his principal objective, either explicitly or without conscious thought, the relatively simple goal of keeping prices level. This ob- jective might be compromised or complicated by only a few other goals, such as full em- > Short courses, books, and articles exhort admin- istrators to make decisions more methodically, but there has been little analysis of the decision-making process now used by public administrators. The usual process is investigated here-and generally de- fended against proposals for more "scientific" meth- ods. Decisions of individual administrators, of course, must be integrated with decisions of others to form the mosaic of public policy. This integration of individual decisions has become the major con- cern of organization theory, and the way individuals make decisions necessarily affects the way those de- cisions are best meshed with others'. In addition, decision-making method relates to allocation of de- cision-making responsibility-who should make what decision. More "scientific" decision-making also is dis- cussed in this issue: "Tools for Decision-Making in Resources Planning

Answer 1

Muddling through as process of public budgeting strategy does not carry much potential. It is indicative of lack of will in such a serious matter and exhibits conscious less thinking with an only intent of setting prices.

Answer. Pros and cons of using this Process:

• At the outset objective gets compromised. It just serves the purpose of creating a budget.
• Administrator’s does little analysis on decision making, on the contrary based on short courses books and articles decisions are made.
• Individual decision is made as such there is not much argument for cohesion of other ideas to get a better perspective and comprehensive formation of budgetary policy.
• It eliminates concept of critical investigation, debate and expertise.

Answer. In today’s fiscal climate it is not feasible due to the complexity of its nature. As such this would of course require a prodigious inquiry into values held by members of society and an equally prodigious set of calculations on how much of each value is equal to how much of each other value. Administrator could then proceed to outline all possible policy alternatives. Administrator would undertake systematic comparison of his multitude of alternatives to determine which attains the greatest amount of values. In comparing policies, he would take advantage of any theory available that generalized about classes of policies. In considering inflation, for example, he would compare all policies in the light of the theory of prices. Since no alternatives are beyond his investigation, he would consider strict central control and the abolition of all prices and markets on the one hand and elimination of all public controls with reliance completely on the free market on the other, both in the light of whatever theoretical generalizations he could find on such hypothetical economies. Finally, he would try to make the choice that would in fact maximize his values.