The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Bounded Rationality and the Politics of Muddling Through
Abstract
What is rational for administrators to do depends on the situations in which they work. Pressed for quick recommendations, they cannot begin long studies. Faced with organizational rivalries, competition, and turf struggles, they may justifiably be less than wholly candid about their own plans. What is sensible to do depends on the context one is in, in ordinary life no less than in public administration. The situation is a bit like that of the recent immigrant who kept stuffing a vending machine with quarters and getting pieces of pie from the tray below. To his friend, who found him doing this and yelled for him to stop immediately, he said, What's it to if I keep winning? The situation in public administration, planning, and policy studies more generally is a little less funny. The vending machines are erratic. They cost more. And the advice of friends has generally been unsatisfactory, falling into two broad clusters of commentaries. The long familiar position promises that you get what pay for: to solve problems must define the problem carefully, collect all relevant information, rank values, evaluate alternatives, and select the best strategy. The other old friend, one day a satisficer, the next day an incrementalist, suggests that you get what can see: to cross an intersection, do not look all the way across town. Neither of these commentaries helps much in practice. The rational-comprehensive formulation can be a recipe for failure; the incrementalist formulation could have us cross and recross intersections without knowing where we were going. This essay proposes a resolution to this quandary that lies at the very heart of administrative theory and practice. By assessing degrees of complexity in decision situations, decision makers may be better able to adopt a strategy to fit the situation at hand, thus avoiding impossible information-processing demands, on the one hand, and unsatisfactory, making do, settling-for-less strategies, on the other hand. In particular. this essay seeks to refine the practical
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Hoppmann, J., Huenteler, J., & Girod, B. (2014) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.014 · Cited by 311
Kim, M., & Mason, D. P. (2020) · Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management · doi:10.1108/jpbafm-12-2019-0179 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Forester, J.
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1984-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2329547906
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bounded Rationality and the Politics of Muddling Through. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/975658
- The paper
- Forester, J. (1984). Bounded Rationality and the Politics of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/975658
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.