BOUNDED RATIONALITY 303 had to be defined(Rochefort Cobb 1994).Solutions did not automatically follow problems;sometimes actors had set solutions ready to apply to prob- lems that could occur (Cohen et al 1972,Kingdon 1996,Jones Bachelor 1994).Choice was based on incommensurate goals,which were ill-integrated (March 1978;Simon 1983,1995;Jones 1994).Organizations seemed to have limited attention spans and,at least in major policy changes,serial processing capacity (Simon 1983,Jones 1994,Cobb Elder 1972,Kingdon 1996). The three most important strands of research stemming from behavioral or- asn ganizational theory in political science focused on incremental budgeting,on the impacts oforganizational routine on policy outputs,and on policy agendas. JO'SMOl euosjad 2 Incremental Budgeting Incremental decision making was developed not only as a descriptive model of decisions by bounded actors but as a normative mechanism for use in an uncer- ueunoeo popeojuo 9008.6000 tain world (Lindblom 1959).If people are handicapped by limited cognition, and if the world is fundamentally complex and ambiguous,then it made sense for a decision maker to (a)move away from problems,rather than toward solu- tions;(b)make only small moves away from the problem;and (c)be willing to reverse direction based on feedback from the environment.Wildavsky (1964; see also Fenno 1966,Meltsner 1971),in his classic observational studies of federal budgeting,noted that such incremental budgeting was governed by de- cision rules based on two norms:base and fair share.What was the agency's base,and what was a fair share given changes in the agency's environment since last year's budget meeting?Incrementalism was even criticized as too N rational a characterization of budget processes,because of the adoption of roles by budget decision makers(Anton 1966,Crecine 1969).Incrementalism, 6l in effect a small-step hill-climbing algorithm,implied adjustment to local op- tima rather than global ones. Incrementalism in decision making implied incrementalism in organiza- tional outcomes-so long as one also modeled exogenous"shocks"(Davis et al 1966,1974).Students of the budgetary process concluded that incremental- 台 ism did not fit even endogenous decision processes(Wanat 1974,Gist 1982). Pure incrementalism did not seem to characterize governing organizations.In essence,there were too many large changes in budget processes.But it was realized that attentional processes are selective (as the incremental model rec- ognized)and subject to occasional radical shifts.Incorporating this aspect of 3 attentional processes better accounts for the distribution of budget outcomes Padgett1980,1981;Jones et al1996,1997,1998). Organizational Habits and Routines Cognitive limits of human decision makers imposed limits on the ability of the organization to adjust to its environment.Rather than maximizing,organiza-had to be defined (Rochefort & Cobb 1994). Solutions did not automatically follow problems; sometimes actors had set solutions ready to apply to prob￾lems that could occur (Cohen et al 1972, Kingdon 1996, Jones & Bachelor 1994). Choice was based on incommensurate goals, which were ill-integrated (March 1978; Simon 1983, 1995; Jones 1994). Organizations seemed to have limited attention spans and, at least in major policy changes, serial processing capacity (Simon 1983, Jones 1994, Cobb & Elder 1972, Kingdon 1996). The three most important strands of research stemming from behavioral or￾ganizational theory in political science focused on incremental budgeting, on the impacts of organizational routine on policy outputs, and on policy agendas. Incremental Budgeting Incremental decision making was developed not only as a descriptive model of decisions by bounded actors but as a normative mechanism for use in an uncer￾tain world (Lindblom 1959). If people are handicapped by limited cognition, and if the world is fundamentally complex and ambiguous, then it made sense for a decision maker to (a) move away from problems, rather than toward solu￾tions; (b) make only small moves away from the problem; and (c) be willing to reverse direction based on feedback from the environment. Wildavsky (1964; see also Fenno 1966, Meltsner 1971), in his classic observational studies of federal budgeting, noted that such incremental budgeting was governed by de￾cision rules based on two norms: base and fair share. What was the agency’s base, and what was a fair share given changes in the agency’s environment since last year’s budget meeting? Incrementalism was even criticized as too rational a characterization of budget processes, because of the adoption of roles by budget decision makers (Anton 1966, Crecine 1969). Incrementalism, in effect a small-step hill-climbing algorithm, implied adjustment to local op￾tima rather than global ones. Incrementalism in decision making implied incrementalism in organiza￾tional outcomes—so long as one also modeled exogenous “shocks” (Davis et al 1966, 1974). Students of the budgetary process concluded that incremental￾ism did not fit even endogenous decision processes (Wanat 1974, Gist 1982). Pure incrementalism did not seem to characterize governing organizations. In essence, there were too many large changes in budget processes. But it was realized that attentional processes are selective (as the incremental model rec￾ognized) and subject to occasional radical shifts. Incorporating this aspect of attentional processes better accounts for the distribution of budget outcomes (Padgett 1980, 1981; Jones et al 1996, 1997, 1998). Organizational Habits and Routines Cognitive limits of human decision makers imposed limits on the ability of the organization to adjust to its environment. Rather than maximizing, organiza￾BOUNDED RATIONALITY 303 Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1999.2:297-321. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON - HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARIES on 09/25/06. For personal use only