principal means of accomplishing this end is to influence the choices of the
policy makers.
Thus, a political system attempts to resolve the conflicting objectives of members
of a society. Policy makers are agents of the society and decide which political goals
are to be achieved. Supporters of the various political goals try to influence their
agents’ choices, and association is an important mechanism for such influence.
Inasmuch as political goals exist, then “interests” will exist which support these
goals. Whether such interests are represented in a policy maker’s decision depends
largely on their influence and on his estimate of their potential influence. Organized
groups will certainly have their effect, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that the
goals of large unorganized segments of society will also be considered. The policy
maker’s choice will be influenced by interest groups, potential groups, his personal
values, and the opinions of friends and political leaders.
A policy maker’s decision process can be ideally envisioned as a logical, welldefined process in which he surveys as many possible alternatives as time permits,
predicts the consequences of each, and selects the alternative which most closely
corresponds to his perception of the best. This synoptic ideal ignores some of the
realities of political decision-making. The first of these is the uncertainty that is
present in policy-making. The political decision maker is beset with uncertainty as to
the facts and the consequent difficulty in arriving at correct factual judgments.
Furthermore, the essential bargaining aspects of policy making are not included in
the above description. If decisions are (Schultze 1968) “by mutual adjustment
among partisan advocates, each possessing different, or at least differently weighted,
ends and values,” the decision maker must trade off some goals for others. His
choice is more compromise than evaluation. Social cooperation among interests and
among policy makers who represent these interests is thus a distinctive feature of the
policy-making process.
14.3 Planning Strategies
Numerous strategies have been used by planners to deal with realities of policymaking. These strategies are usually modifications and combinations of three basic
planning philosophies:
(1) target
(2) optimization
(3) compromise planning.
In the target planning approach, various feasible plans are first established before
one of them is chosen because it is deemed to be the best meeting the set of objective
values or targets, predetermined by the political leadership. Target planning seeks to
find those policies and instruments that will achieve the targets of the decision
maker. This planning method is logical and acceptable if:
386
14 Multi Sector/Purpose Infrastructure Planning
policy makers.
Thus, a political system attempts to resolve the conflicting objectives of members
of a society. Policy makers are agents of the society and decide which political goals
are to be achieved. Supporters of the various political goals try to influence their
agents’ choices, and association is an important mechanism for such influence.
Inasmuch as political goals exist, then “interests” will exist which support these
goals. Whether such interests are represented in a policy maker’s decision depends
largely on their influence and on his estimate of their potential influence. Organized
groups will certainly have their effect, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that the
goals of large unorganized segments of society will also be considered. The policy
maker’s choice will be influenced by interest groups, potential groups, his personal
values, and the opinions of friends and political leaders.
A policy maker’s decision process can be ideally envisioned as a logical, welldefined process in which he surveys as many possible alternatives as time permits,
predicts the consequences of each, and selects the alternative which most closely
corresponds to his perception of the best. This synoptic ideal ignores some of the
realities of political decision-making. The first of these is the uncertainty that is
present in policy-making. The political decision maker is beset with uncertainty as to
the facts and the consequent difficulty in arriving at correct factual judgments.
Furthermore, the essential bargaining aspects of policy making are not included in
the above description. If decisions are (Schultze 1968) “by mutual adjustment
among partisan advocates, each possessing different, or at least differently weighted,
ends and values,” the decision maker must trade off some goals for others. His
choice is more compromise than evaluation. Social cooperation among interests and
among policy makers who represent these interests is thus a distinctive feature of the
policy-making process.
14.3 Planning Strategies
Numerous strategies have been used by planners to deal with realities of policymaking. These strategies are usually modifications and combinations of three basic
planning philosophies:
(1) target
(2) optimization
(3) compromise planning.
In the target planning approach, various feasible plans are first established before
one of them is chosen because it is deemed to be the best meeting the set of objective
values or targets, predetermined by the political leadership. Target planning seeks to
find those policies and instruments that will achieve the targets of the decision
maker. This planning method is logical and acceptable if:
386
14 Multi Sector/Purpose Infrastructure Planning