Decision analysis encompasses a range of academic disciplines and frameworks. Inevitably the focus of each of these disciplines and the frameworks which they contain vary. For something as complex as decision-making by individuals and groups no one discipline or framework can possibly explain everything. In highlighting one aspect another is ignoring or underestimated. Strengths are also weaknesses. There can be no one explanation of decision-making, and consequently the aim of policy analysis is to contextualize approaches, and clarify the values and beliefs which frame a given theory; thence, to arrive at an evaluation of what approach or approaches offer the most plausible account of or for a particular decision.
Power models view decision-making as something which is shaped and determined by the structures of power: class, wealth, bureaucratic and political arrangements, pressure groups, and technical knowledge or professionals.
I think decision analysis made in sprawl decisions were based on elitist and neo-elitist models. Elitist models of the policy process hold that the power is concentrated in the hands of a few groups and individuals.
I think when suburban’s started to grow the decisions were on few peoples hands. They didn’t have the knowledge to see in the future how that might affect us. In short-term people just saw profits. Building roads, water pipes, houses, retail stores, and railroads was making money to the communities, but the biggest problem was not seen.
The idea of rationality has been central to the theory and practice of decision making in the post-war era. Models of decision making which focus on rationality ague that, if we wish to understand the real world of decision, we must consider the extent to which a decision has been the outcome of rational process.
Rational decisions made when building suburbans were deficient, because human rationality is limited, in terms of the incomplete and fragmented nature of knowledge,...