By José Tulio Gálvez Contreras
Ph.D. Student in Public and Urban Policy
Fellow Scholar Bart Orr sheds light on important theories of public policy and governance. Orr states that while the rational actor model of international relations provides a compelling and useful explanation of governmental decision-making, its simplicity obscures the complexity behind the actions. Orr believes it is not easy to change how organizations work. Contrary to what Orr states, it is possible to take advantage of the simplistic rational actor model and change how institutions work as long as new habitable spaces are developed with climate justice values. In this commentary, therefore, a new concept called civic rationality is proposed.
Civic rationality combines civic, which stands for the duties or activities of people in relation to their town, city, or local area and the concept of rationality, which follows the premise of rational actor theory – aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making their individual sensible decisions. This framework proposes that rational behavior can be encouraged among social groups when public policies with climate justice values are created and implemented whenever new social spaces are designed. Climate justice values essentially work at the intersections of environmental degradation and the racial, social, and economic inequities climate change perpetuates. Climate justice promotes peace across groups of people. The application of civic rationality is then a shared responsibility by individual actors in charge of various government institutions at all levels and the public as overseer. It will take leadership to make this concept work and will take courage from enlightened individuals who are eager to challenge the status quo. In order to make sense of civic rationality, it is important to understand how the idea of governmental decision-making has already been interpreted thus far and how it can change. The argument made in this commentary is that the concept of civic rationality can work as long as new communities are given the opportunity to have a fresh start in becoming rational with each other.
As Orr writes in Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow used the Cuban Missile Crisis as a case study for future studies into governmental institutions decision-making. These authors offer three windows to look at and analyze government institutions’ decisions through the lens of foreign policy. First, Allison and Zelikow state that most analysts explain national governmental behavior using the Rational Actor Model (RAM or Model I), which justifies the Missile Crisis as rational. Then, they propose two alternative models, the Organizational Behavior (Model II) and a Governmental Politics Model (Model III) because they found Model I to be limiting. Model II claims that central coordination and control is key to governmental action that “requires decentralization of responsibility and power” and that “decisions of government leaders sit atop conglomerate of organization.” Model III is proposed to explain why a particular formal governmental decision was made, or why one pattern of governmental behavior emerged. It is necessary to identify the games and players, to display the coalitions, bargains and compromises, and to convey some feel for the confusion. While the RAM model is simple, it should not be dismissed altogether. When combined with what Paul Romer states and the need to challenge our capacity of being creative and using what works, it can be applied it to new spaces.
Paul Romer argues the principal constraint to raising living standards will come from our capacity to discover and implement new rules – new ideas about how to structure interactions among people, such as land titles, patents, and social norms. However, a better understanding of how rules change could lead to breakthrough thinking about development policy. Just as there are many more technologies to discover, there are many more prosperity-inducing rules to discover and many existing rules worth copying. The key is to find meta-rules that encourage productive changes in systems of rule – the types of changes that will allow relatively poor countries to catch up with or surpass the rest of the world. The chartering of new cities is an example of meta-rule that can help a country quickly adopt new rules in new cities – the growth of which can drive economic progress for the country overall. Romer concludes that a new type of development policy would be to voluntarily charter new cities for the purpose of changing rules, using a range of new legal and political structure analogous to the examples he provides when looking at the cities of Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
The concept of civic rationality is to think more in a more innovative way that can help scholars, social scientist, politicians, and activist to challenge the status quo of our current social constructions. The polices written under this framework must take into consideration best practices from communities that have worked hard to bring about better living conditions for people and use them in new spaces. The policies are meant to be designed to ensure institutional actors work together so that the values embedded in such policies are actively promulgated among societies. They must look at examples of grassroots work that have been prominent in their effort in creating climate and social justice. Climate Justice Alliance communities are great case studies across the country as they embody this alternative framework for building better communities. These communities work with local citizens to increase political engagement, draw attention to climate justice issues, and help implement strategies to mitigate the effects of climate change on their communities. With the application of the civic rationality concept, it can be possible to cause regenerative thinking through public policy to influence institutions for more inclusive democratic practices.
When properly applied, the civic rationality framework has the potential to influence institutional actors by fostering values that allow them to operate in the best interest of themselves and their constituents. In order to get the most benefits from the use of civic rationality, the newly crafted policies should be designed to recognize that humans are part of a larger population unit that extends beyond their neighborhoods, states, and countries and that the actions of some can impact the actions of others. In the implementation of these policies, the institutional actors should take actions that are mindful of the fact that ecological spaces in where people live, work, pray, and play should be designed to be safe, healthy, clean, peaceful, and fun environments. These places must be granted economic, social, and environmentally resilient viable opportunities for people. Moreover, the people who live in these areas will learn to share values that respect and honor the land. Policies that take the application of the concept civic rationality framework seriously, will reflect in the betterment of lives and environments of the 767 million people around the world who live on less than $1.90 a day (2013).[1]
[1] The World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
Ph.D. Student in Public and Urban Policy
Fellow Scholar Bart Orr sheds light on important theories of public policy and governance. Orr states that while the rational actor model of international relations provides a compelling and useful explanation of governmental decision-making, its simplicity obscures the complexity behind the actions. Orr believes it is not easy to change how organizations work. Contrary to what Orr states, it is possible to take advantage of the simplistic rational actor model and change how institutions work as long as new habitable spaces are developed with climate justice values. In this commentary, therefore, a new concept called civic rationality is proposed.
Civic rationality combines civic, which stands for the duties or activities of people in relation to their town, city, or local area and the concept of rationality, which follows the premise of rational actor theory – aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making their individual sensible decisions. This framework proposes that rational behavior can be encouraged among social groups when public policies with climate justice values are created and implemented whenever new social spaces are designed. Climate justice values essentially work at the intersections of environmental degradation and the racial, social, and economic inequities climate change perpetuates. Climate justice promotes peace across groups of people. The application of civic rationality is then a shared responsibility by individual actors in charge of various government institutions at all levels and the public as overseer. It will take leadership to make this concept work and will take courage from enlightened individuals who are eager to challenge the status quo. In order to make sense of civic rationality, it is important to understand how the idea of governmental decision-making has already been interpreted thus far and how it can change. The argument made in this commentary is that the concept of civic rationality can work as long as new communities are given the opportunity to have a fresh start in becoming rational with each other.
As Orr writes in Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow used the Cuban Missile Crisis as a case study for future studies into governmental institutions decision-making. These authors offer three windows to look at and analyze government institutions’ decisions through the lens of foreign policy. First, Allison and Zelikow state that most analysts explain national governmental behavior using the Rational Actor Model (RAM or Model I), which justifies the Missile Crisis as rational. Then, they propose two alternative models, the Organizational Behavior (Model II) and a Governmental Politics Model (Model III) because they found Model I to be limiting. Model II claims that central coordination and control is key to governmental action that “requires decentralization of responsibility and power” and that “decisions of government leaders sit atop conglomerate of organization.” Model III is proposed to explain why a particular formal governmental decision was made, or why one pattern of governmental behavior emerged. It is necessary to identify the games and players, to display the coalitions, bargains and compromises, and to convey some feel for the confusion. While the RAM model is simple, it should not be dismissed altogether. When combined with what Paul Romer states and the need to challenge our capacity of being creative and using what works, it can be applied it to new spaces.
Paul Romer argues the principal constraint to raising living standards will come from our capacity to discover and implement new rules – new ideas about how to structure interactions among people, such as land titles, patents, and social norms. However, a better understanding of how rules change could lead to breakthrough thinking about development policy. Just as there are many more technologies to discover, there are many more prosperity-inducing rules to discover and many existing rules worth copying. The key is to find meta-rules that encourage productive changes in systems of rule – the types of changes that will allow relatively poor countries to catch up with or surpass the rest of the world. The chartering of new cities is an example of meta-rule that can help a country quickly adopt new rules in new cities – the growth of which can drive economic progress for the country overall. Romer concludes that a new type of development policy would be to voluntarily charter new cities for the purpose of changing rules, using a range of new legal and political structure analogous to the examples he provides when looking at the cities of Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
The concept of civic rationality is to think more in a more innovative way that can help scholars, social scientist, politicians, and activist to challenge the status quo of our current social constructions. The polices written under this framework must take into consideration best practices from communities that have worked hard to bring about better living conditions for people and use them in new spaces. The policies are meant to be designed to ensure institutional actors work together so that the values embedded in such policies are actively promulgated among societies. They must look at examples of grassroots work that have been prominent in their effort in creating climate and social justice. Climate Justice Alliance communities are great case studies across the country as they embody this alternative framework for building better communities. These communities work with local citizens to increase political engagement, draw attention to climate justice issues, and help implement strategies to mitigate the effects of climate change on their communities. With the application of the civic rationality concept, it can be possible to cause regenerative thinking through public policy to influence institutions for more inclusive democratic practices.
When properly applied, the civic rationality framework has the potential to influence institutional actors by fostering values that allow them to operate in the best interest of themselves and their constituents. In order to get the most benefits from the use of civic rationality, the newly crafted policies should be designed to recognize that humans are part of a larger population unit that extends beyond their neighborhoods, states, and countries and that the actions of some can impact the actions of others. In the implementation of these policies, the institutional actors should take actions that are mindful of the fact that ecological spaces in where people live, work, pray, and play should be designed to be safe, healthy, clean, peaceful, and fun environments. These places must be granted economic, social, and environmentally resilient viable opportunities for people. Moreover, the people who live in these areas will learn to share values that respect and honor the land. Policies that take the application of the concept civic rationality framework seriously, will reflect in the betterment of lives and environments of the 767 million people around the world who live on less than $1.90 a day (2013).[1]
[1] The World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview