82 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW of whether intensity of feeling should be con- state marginal objectives or values except in sidered as well as the number of persons pre- terms of particular policies.That one value ferring each alternative.By the impossibility is preferred to another in one decision situa- of doing otherwise,administrators often are tion does not mean that it will be preferred reduced to deciding policy without clarifying in another decision situation in which it can objectives first. be had only at great sacrifice of another value. Even when an administrator resolves to fol- Attempts to rank or order values in general low his own values as a criterion for decisions, and abstract terms so that they do not shift he often will not know how to rank them from decision to decision end up by ignoring when they conflict with one another,as they the relevant marginal preferences.The sig- usually do.Suppose,for example,that an ad- nificance of this third point thus goes very ministrator must relocate tenants living in far.Even if all administrators had at hand an tenements scheduled for destruction.One ob- agreed set of values,objectives,and con- jective is to empty the buildings fairly straints,and an agreed ranking of these val- promptly,another is to find suitable accom- ues,objectives,and constraints,their mar- modation for persons displaced,another is to ginal values in actual choice situations would avoid friction with residents in other areas in be impossible to formulate. which a large influx would be unwelcome,an- Unable consequently to formulate the rele- other is to deal with all concerned through vant values first and then choose among poli- persuasion if possible,and so on. cies to achieve them,administrators must How does one state even to himself the choose directly among alternative policies that relative importance of these partially con- offer different marginal combinations of val- flicting values?A simple ranking of them is ues.Somewhat paradoxically,the only practi- not enough;one needs ideally to know how cable way to disclose one's relevant marginal much of one value is worth sacrificing for values even to oneself is to describe the policy some of another value.The answer is that one chooses to achieve them.Except roughly typically the administrator chooses-and must and vaguely,I know of no way to describe- choose-directly among policies in which these or even to understand-what my relative eval- values are combined in different ways.He uations are for,say,freedom and security, cannot first clarify his values and then choose speed and accuracy in governmental decisions, among policies. or low taxes and better schools than to de- A more subtle third point underlies both scribe my preferences among specific policy the first two.Social objectives do not always choices that might be made between the al- have the same relative values.One objective ternatives in each of the pairs. may be highly prized in one circumstance, In summary,two aspects of the process by another in another circumstance.If,for ex- which values are actually handled can be dis- ample,an administrator values highly both tinguished.The first is clear:evaluation and the dispatch with which his agency can carry empirical analysis are intertwined;that is, through its projects and good public relations, one chooses among values and among policies it matters little which of the two possibly con- at one and the same time.Put a little more flicting values he favors in some abstract or elaborately,one simultaneously chooses a pol- general sense.Policy questions arise in forms icy to attain certain objectives and chooses which put to administrators such a question the objectives themselves.The second aspect as:Given the degree to which we are or are is related but distinct:the administrator fo- not already achieving the values of dispatch cuses his attention on marginal or incremen- and the values of good public relations,is it tal values.Whether he is aware of it or not, worth sacrificing a little speed for a happier he does not find general formulations of clientele,or is it better to risk offending the objectives very helpful and in fact makes spe- clientele so that we can get on with our work? cific marginal or incremental comparisons. The answer to such a question varies with Two policies,X and Y,confront him.Both circumstances. promise the same degree of attainment of ob- The value problem is,as the example jectives a,b,c,d,and e.But X promises him shows,always a problem of adjustments at a somewhat more of f than does Y,while Y margin.But there is no practicable way to promises him somewhat more of g than doesPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW of whether intensity of feeling should be con￾sidered as well as the number of persons pre￾ferring each alternative. By the impossibility of doing otherwise, administrators often are reduced to deciding policy without clarifying objectives first. Even when an administrator resolves to fol￾low his own values as a criterion for decisions, he often will not know how to rank them when they conflict with one another, as they usually do. Suppose, for example, that an ad￾ministrator must relocate tenants living in tenements scheduled for destruction. One ob￾jective is to empty the buildings fairly promptly, another is to find suitable accom￾modation for persons displaced, another is to avoid friction with residents in other areas in which a large influx would be unwelcome, an￾other is to deal with all concerned through persuasion if possible, and so on. How does one state even to himself the relative importance of these partially con￾flicting values? A simple ranking of them is not enough; one needs ideally to know how much of one value is worth sacrificing for some of another value. The answer is that typically the administrator chooses-and must choose--directly among policies in which these values are combined in different ways. He cannot first clarify his values and then choose among policies. A more subtle third point underlies both the first two. Social objectives do not always have the same relative values. One objective may be highly prized in one circumstance, another in another circumstance. If, for ex￾ample, an administrator values highly both the dispatch with which his agency can carry through its projects and good public relations, it matters little which of the two possibly con￾flicting values he favors in some abstract or general sense. Policy questions arise in forms which put to administrators such a question as: Given the degree to which we are or are not already achieving the values of dispatch and the values of good public relations, is it worth sacrificing a little speed for a happier clientele, or is it better to risk offending the clientele so that we can get on with our work? The answer to such a question varies with circumstances. The value problem is, as the example shows, always a problem of adjustments at a margin. But there is no practicable way to state marginal objectives or values except in terms of particular policies. That one value is preferred to another in one decision situa￾tion does not mean that it will be preferred in another decision situation in which it can be had only at great sacrifice of another value. Attempts to rank or order values in general and abstract terms so that they do not shift from decision to decision end up by ignoring the relevant marginal preferences. The sig￾nificance of this third point thus goes very far. Even if all administrators had at hand an agreed set of values, objectives, and con￾straints, and an agreed ranking of these val￾ues, objectives, and constraints, their mar￾ginal values in actual choice situations would be impossible to formulate. Unable consequently to formulate the rele￾vant values first and then choose among poli￾cies to achieve them, administrators must choose directly among alternative policies that offer different marginal combinations of val￾ues. Somewhat paradoxically, the only practi￾cable way to disclose one's relevant marginal values even to oneself is to describe the policy one chooses to achieve them. Except roughly and vaguely, I know of no way to describe￾or even to understand-what my relative eval￾uations are for, say, freedom and security, speed and accuracy in governmental decisions, or low taxes and better schools than to de￾scribe my preferences among specific policy choices that might be made between the al￾ternatives in each of the pairs. In summary, two aspects of the process by which values are actually handled can be dis￾tinguished. The first is clear: evaluation and empirical analysis are intertwined; that is, one chooses among values and among policies at one and the same time. Put a little more elaborately, one simultaneously chooses a pol￾icy to attain certain objectives and chooses the objectives themselves. The second aspect is related but distinct: the administrator fo￾cuses his attention on marginal or incremen￾tal values. Whether he is aware of it or not, he does not find general formulations of objectives very helpful and in fact makes spe￾cific marginal or incremental comparisons. Two policies, X and Y, confront him. Both promise the same degree of attainment of ob￾jectives a, b, c, d, and e. But X promises him somewhat more of f than does Y, while Y promises him somewhat more of g than does