It is, therefore, inevitable that responsible politicians get involved in the process
of choosing the optimal trade-offs among multiple objectives or goals. During the
planning process, the relative weightage coefficients that express these trade-offs are
taken as unknown variables. The exact values of these relative weightages can only
be known after the political process has chosen its final solution. The relative
weights of different goals, as well as the mechanisms that contribute to satisfying
these objectives, should correspond to conscious political decisions concerning
those political questions when those decisions are taken. They comprise political
preferences related to the future and should, therefore, be updated as frequently as
new investments or new policies are made. Allowing project formulators or evaluators to choose the final values of these relative weight coefficients is to hand over
political decisions to technical people.
However, the political decision-making process often emboldens technicians to
allocate values to the relative weight coefficients, because
(1) the decision maker is often reluctant to acquire the procedure of policy analysis
and assessment or to devote the time answering apparently “academic” queries
that would ultimately entail a set of precise relative weights
(2) as political leaders depend on the support of different, often conflicting, interest
groups, they prefer not to quantify too explicitly their political value judgments
concerning trade-offs among conflicting objectives
(3) sometimes, technicians get the opportunity to discourage politicians from making value judgments on themes where they feel themselves (more) competent,
but where, unfortunately, the technical people themselves have special interests
or are biased.
It becomes apparent that a methodology, not explicit intervention by the political
decision makers, yet using value judgments defined by the political decision making
process, is definitely necessary. However, policy makers should accept that they are
responsible and accountable for the allocation of values to the comparative weight
coefficients of various objectives, and that they need to spend more time to learning
the necessary skills to communicate those values prior to particular decision-making.
Furthermore, policy makers are likely to find it more difficult to communicate the
future changes in the relative weights values, in comparison with the static allocation
of relative weights values. These future changes also have to be assessed. The
horizon of each goal as well as its relative weightage is unknown to the planner.
Even if the decision makers could point towards a practical range of suitable values
for the relative weights of each goal, planners could then propose different policy
alternatives, to the decision makers, and their trade-offs that mirror only these series
of politically assigned weights.
Until then, probably planners should
(1) consider the relative weight coefficients as unknown,
(2) identify the weights values which bring significant differences in the goal values
(3) explain the policies that are efficient for different series of weights
14.8 Summary
409
of choosing the optimal trade-offs among multiple objectives or goals. During the
planning process, the relative weightage coefficients that express these trade-offs are
taken as unknown variables. The exact values of these relative weightages can only
be known after the political process has chosen its final solution. The relative
weights of different goals, as well as the mechanisms that contribute to satisfying
these objectives, should correspond to conscious political decisions concerning
those political questions when those decisions are taken. They comprise political
preferences related to the future and should, therefore, be updated as frequently as
new investments or new policies are made. Allowing project formulators or evaluators to choose the final values of these relative weight coefficients is to hand over
political decisions to technical people.
However, the political decision-making process often emboldens technicians to
allocate values to the relative weight coefficients, because
(1) the decision maker is often reluctant to acquire the procedure of policy analysis
and assessment or to devote the time answering apparently “academic” queries
that would ultimately entail a set of precise relative weights
(2) as political leaders depend on the support of different, often conflicting, interest
groups, they prefer not to quantify too explicitly their political value judgments
concerning trade-offs among conflicting objectives
(3) sometimes, technicians get the opportunity to discourage politicians from making value judgments on themes where they feel themselves (more) competent,
but where, unfortunately, the technical people themselves have special interests
or are biased.
It becomes apparent that a methodology, not explicit intervention by the political
decision makers, yet using value judgments defined by the political decision making
process, is definitely necessary. However, policy makers should accept that they are
responsible and accountable for the allocation of values to the comparative weight
coefficients of various objectives, and that they need to spend more time to learning
the necessary skills to communicate those values prior to particular decision-making.
Furthermore, policy makers are likely to find it more difficult to communicate the
future changes in the relative weights values, in comparison with the static allocation
of relative weights values. These future changes also have to be assessed. The
horizon of each goal as well as its relative weightage is unknown to the planner.
Even if the decision makers could point towards a practical range of suitable values
for the relative weights of each goal, planners could then propose different policy
alternatives, to the decision makers, and their trade-offs that mirror only these series
of politically assigned weights.
Until then, probably planners should
(1) consider the relative weight coefficients as unknown,
(2) identify the weights values which bring significant differences in the goal values
(3) explain the policies that are efficient for different series of weights
14.8 Summary
409