Choosing the “optimal” solution requires inputs from different disciplines and
quantitative techniques rather than qualitative ones. However, human behaviour
(cf. behavioural economics) is rarely rational, political processes obey their own
idiosyncrasies, while individual decision makers may have their own ideas and
preferences. Therefore, the technocratic approach will, most often, propose solutions
which policy makers might be reluctant to accept, (Biswas 1975) and, even when
accepted, might not be readily implementable due to sociopolitical issues.
In practice, politicians are more interested by the incremental decision making
approach: Being pragmatic, politicians are more interested in getting elected and,
collaterally, their party retaining power during the next government term. They
rarely have the opportunity to consider the long-term objectives of the society,
which they are expected to govern. Probably, very few countries have been able to
think about the type of society they would like see or imagine for their countrymen
during the next decades or century. Thus, if politicians can satisfy a maximum
number of people through short-term results, or at least alienate the smallest number
(cf. NIMTOO – Not in My Term Of Office), they will be very happy to do so.
A typically bureaucratic approach, making step by step (incremental) advances,
this type of decision making has the advantage of rarely being drastic, in terms of
change or orientation of policies. Here, a decision maker has just to take a series of
minor decisions - just as a trial and error method, sometimes without even some
feedback checking whether the short term objectives or results are connected to the
long-term objectives or the Master Plan under preparation. Imagine someone trying
to draw a circle using a series of (say 360) equally small, straight lines. If the small
lines are oriented in the right direction, each time, we’ll certainly get a circle.
Otherwise, with no specific direction or orientation feedback available, we can get
anything else, except a circle!
One of the best ways to avoid taking a (usually unpopular) decision is to have it
taken by a committee – which has often been defined as a group of people who,
individually, can do nothing, but collectively decide that nothing can be done! By
allowing the necessary compromises, revision or change of opinions, trade-offs, the
incremental decision-making completely dilutes the initial recommendations for a
rigorous action into ambiguous possibilities that do not affect power struggles,
institutional rigidity and inefficiency and bureaucratic interests. What could be
more democratic when, in so doing, the method also considers (positively) the
views of external pressure groups?
The methodologies reviewed above represent only a few of many procedures
designed to help the planner define and evaluate multi-objective policies. Each of
these approaches provides, more or less, a mechanism for guesstimating the tradeoffs between conflicting goals or objectives. Some go further to envisage what the
politically optimum trade-offs might be. Most people would approve that, for a
multi-objective solution to be optimum, the choices between conflicting goals must
represent the best interests for society welfare. The persons responsible for
expressing and communicating these interests are precisely the political decision
makers (even if they have been wrongly chosen).
408
14 Multi Sector/Purpose Infrastructure Planning
quantitative techniques rather than qualitative ones. However, human behaviour
(cf. behavioural economics) is rarely rational, political processes obey their own
idiosyncrasies, while individual decision makers may have their own ideas and
preferences. Therefore, the technocratic approach will, most often, propose solutions
which policy makers might be reluctant to accept, (Biswas 1975) and, even when
accepted, might not be readily implementable due to sociopolitical issues.
In practice, politicians are more interested by the incremental decision making
approach: Being pragmatic, politicians are more interested in getting elected and,
collaterally, their party retaining power during the next government term. They
rarely have the opportunity to consider the long-term objectives of the society,
which they are expected to govern. Probably, very few countries have been able to
think about the type of society they would like see or imagine for their countrymen
during the next decades or century. Thus, if politicians can satisfy a maximum
number of people through short-term results, or at least alienate the smallest number
(cf. NIMTOO – Not in My Term Of Office), they will be very happy to do so.
A typically bureaucratic approach, making step by step (incremental) advances,
this type of decision making has the advantage of rarely being drastic, in terms of
change or orientation of policies. Here, a decision maker has just to take a series of
minor decisions - just as a trial and error method, sometimes without even some
feedback checking whether the short term objectives or results are connected to the
long-term objectives or the Master Plan under preparation. Imagine someone trying
to draw a circle using a series of (say 360) equally small, straight lines. If the small
lines are oriented in the right direction, each time, we’ll certainly get a circle.
Otherwise, with no specific direction or orientation feedback available, we can get
anything else, except a circle!
One of the best ways to avoid taking a (usually unpopular) decision is to have it
taken by a committee – which has often been defined as a group of people who,
individually, can do nothing, but collectively decide that nothing can be done! By
allowing the necessary compromises, revision or change of opinions, trade-offs, the
incremental decision-making completely dilutes the initial recommendations for a
rigorous action into ambiguous possibilities that do not affect power struggles,
institutional rigidity and inefficiency and bureaucratic interests. What could be
more democratic when, in so doing, the method also considers (positively) the
views of external pressure groups?
The methodologies reviewed above represent only a few of many procedures
designed to help the planner define and evaluate multi-objective policies. Each of
these approaches provides, more or less, a mechanism for guesstimating the tradeoffs between conflicting goals or objectives. Some go further to envisage what the
politically optimum trade-offs might be. Most people would approve that, for a
multi-objective solution to be optimum, the choices between conflicting goals must
represent the best interests for society welfare. The persons responsible for
expressing and communicating these interests are precisely the political decision
makers (even if they have been wrongly chosen).
408
14 Multi Sector/Purpose Infrastructure Planning