Root and Branched Decision Making
Root and Branch Methods of Decision-Making
Introduction
Decision-making is central toward the functioning of public administration; however, the challenge entails the choice of the appropriate model for policy choices. There are numerous differences between the root and branch decision-making methods for policymaking; root (rational) decision-making starts from basic issues on every occasion and builds from the ground up, whereas branch (successive limited comparison) begins with the current situation and changes incrementally (Henry, 56). The divergence between root and branch decision-making models can be viewed in light of two primary concerns associated with policymaking: power and policymaking, and rationality and policymaking. Power and policymaking entails the groups that control public policy making and the beneficiaries of a policy-making methodology (Milakovich & Gordon, 67). On the other hand, rationality and policy making defines the extent to which public policy making is a rational process. Using this framework, this paper defines the key differences between root and branch methods of decision-making and summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each method. In addition, the paper analyzes the Katrina disaster case to illustrate what is meant by the methods and their advantages and disadvantages to understand how decision-making for the disaster proved so faxed.
Key Differences between Root and Branch Decision-Making Methods
By definition, root decision-making entails the selection of alternatives that aim at maximizing the values of decision-makers and usually follows a comprehensive analysis of the alternatives and their outcomes (Stillman, 32). This means that root decision-making embarks on the specification of all ends that are distinct from means. Ends refer to the values or goals to be pursued and not the particular outcomes. Therefore, in root decision-making model, there is a clarification of objectives prior to the empirical evaluation of alternative policies. On the other hand, the branch decision-making model embarks on successive limited comparisons whereby the clarification of value goals and empirical evaluation are closely entwined, rather than being distinct as in the case of root decision-making model (Henry, 45).
The second difference is that policy formulation in the root decision-making model uses a means-end analysis that entails the isolation ends and then formulating the means to achieve them (Stillman, 56). This is in contrary with the branch decision-making method whereby there is no isolation of means and ends, implying that there is a limited use of means-ends analyses. The third difference entails the means used for testing a favourable policy. Under root decision-making, a suitable policy is one that has the most appropriate means to achieve the desired ends meaning the efficiency is the test of an appropriate decision or policy. On the contrary, a good policy under the branch decision-making model is one agreed by various policy analysts (Milakovich & Gordon, 56).
Another difference is that root decision-making entails a comprehensive analysis of policies with every relevant factor taken into consideration, whereas branch decision-making entails a limited analysis (Stillman, 78). Branch decision-making involves ignoring significant potential outcomes, alternative possible outcomes and affected values. In addition, root decision-making relies heavily on theory, whereas branch decision-making has limited reliance on theory because of successive comparisons. The above differences also point out the scope of application of decision-making models, with root decision-making being useful for small problems having limited variables, whereas branch decision making being preferable for complex issues.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Root Decision-Making
The strengths of root decision-making are that it entails a comprehensive analysis of alternatives and focuses on measuring the appropriateness of the decision basing on its efficiency (Henry, 67). Some of the disadvantages of the root decision-making method are that it is not adapted to limited problem-solving capabilities of human beings, not adapted to the sufficiency of information and costliness of analysis. In addition, the emphasis on comprehensive analysis can lead to either inaction or ignorance of pertinent information. Another disadvantage is that root decision-making has a centralizing bias because it does not favor community contribution in policymaking (Henry, 56).
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Branch Decision-Making Method
There are various advantages of branch decision-making including the use of realistic best guess of human, intellectual capabilities and possession of information (Stillman, 65). Another advantage is that the model corresponds to the realm of democratic politics, which include relevance and realism. The third advantage is that the model avoids a colossal mistake. In addition, comprehensiveness is attained with each interest group safeguarding its interests. Branch decision-making also favors pluralist and representative decision-making and increased participation. Other advantages of branch decision-making include the use of past sequences to provide knowledge of potential outcomes, previous predictions can be tested as one move ahead, and appropriate adjustments implemented. The disadvantages of branch decision making include fragmentation, fragmentation and may underestimate excellent policies not proposed by the chain of successive policy phases (Stillman, 67). In addition, this method of decision-making lacks innovativeness in finding solutions to problems.
Analysis of the Katrina Disaster Case
During Hurricane Katrina disaster case, the local, federal and state governments received a large portion of the blame on grounds that the response from the government towards disaster was extremely slow (Henry, 65). In addition, there were no adequate disaster preparedness strategies prior to the occurrence of the disaster. The policy decisions during the disaster were mostly politically motivated, instead of need (Henry, 77). For instance, the higher rate of disaster declaration was politically beneficial, leading to many states to be overlooked in the wake of legitimate disasters. Disaster declarations are prevalent in states that are politically significant, especially during reelection years. In addition, research has affirmed that disaster declarations are high in states having congressional representation in FEMA oversight committees (Milakovich & Gordon, 91). Fundamentally, policy failures in terms of disaster response and preparedness during Katrina disaster can be attributed towards federalism, whereby the decision-making framework was the root method. This method led to a faxed policy response because the adopted decision-making framework allows the actors in the system to embark on pursuing their immediate interests instead of taking into consideration the institutional and collective outcomes, as in the case of branch decision-making model. Disasters are event driven, implying that policy decisions are made rapidly and usually implemented without taking into consideration the long term outcomes.
In conclusion, the challenge in decision-making entails the choice of the appropriate model for policy choices. There are differences between the root and branch decision-making methods for policymaking. Root decision-making starts from basic issues on every occurrence and proceeds from the ground up while branch begins with the current situation and changes incrementally. The advantage of root decision-making is that it entails a comprehensive breakdown of alternatives and focuses on measuring the suitability of the decision basing on its efficiency. The advantage of branched decision-making model is that it corresponds to the realm of democratic politics, which include relevance and realism. Policy failures in terms of disaster response and preparedness during Katrina disaster can be attributed towards federalism, whereby the decision-making framework was the root method.
Works cited
Henry, Nicholas. Public Administration and Public Affairs. New York: Pearson Education Canada, 2009.
Milakovich, Michael and George Gordon. Public Administration in America. New York: Cengage Learning, 2012.
Stillman, Richard. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. New York: Cengage Learning, 2009.
Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!
