Allison presents three models of governmental (and bureaucratic) action, each of which can adequately explain what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. A key problem is the difficulty of proving exactly why a government is pursuing a particular course of action.
Main plot
The following quote provides a quick overview of Allison's three conceptual models:
A central metaphor illuminates the differences between these models. Foreign policy has often been compared to moves, move orders and chess. As the pieces were moved, I would assume, like Model 1, that a single chess player moved the pieces with reference to plans and maneuvers to win the game. But one can imagine a pattern of moves that would lead the serious observer, after matching several games, to consider the hypothesis [Model 2] that the chess player was not a single individual, but rather a loose association of 'semi-independent organizations, each each whose group moved their group of pieces according to standard procedures. For example, the movement of separate groups of pieces could occur in sequence, each following a routine, with the king's rook, bishop, and their pawns repeatedly attacking the opponent in a fixed plan. Moreover, it is conceivable that the game model [Model 3] suggests to an observer that several different players with different goals but shared power over the pieces determine the moves as a result of peer negotiations. For example, the black rook's move may contribute to the loss of a black knight with no comparable gain for the black team, but the black rook becomes the primary guardian of the "palace" on that side of the board. » Allison presents three models that produce decisions, products or outcomes.
Model 1
The state acts as a unified rational actor to make 'decisions'.
Model 2
State sub-units operate according to established procedures to produce a "product". The state is still essentially a unified player, but the analogy is now a quarterback, not a chess player. Much like a quarterback announces certain (pre-planned) plays, the government can only dictate policy options already written into standard operating procedures (SOPs).
Model 3
In this model, "where you stand depends on where you sit". Officials of various government functions (Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) make predictable arguments based on their current position. The "results" of the policy are the result of negotiations between these leaders. This model completely abandons the idea of a "single" government. “Government decisions and actions are essentially intra-national political outcomes: outcomes in the sense that what happens is not chosen as a solution to a problem, but is the result of a compromise, a coalition , competition and confusion between government officials who face different faces. a problem; political in the sense that the activity from which the results emerge can be described as negotiation.
Application
Allison talks about the Cuban Missile Crisis. He is less concerned with explaining what happened than with showing that alternative conceptual models (2 and 3) may also be important. We need to be aware of our underlying assumptions.
Read Also : Is Selita Ebanks related to Shari Headley?
Answered one year ago
Wolski Kala
Allison presents three models of governmental (and bureaucratic) action, each of which can adequately explain what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. A key problem is the difficulty of proving exactly why a government is pursuing a particular course of action.
Read Also : Is Selita Ebanks related to Shari Headley?Main plot
The following quote provides a quick overview of Allison's three conceptual models:
A central metaphor illuminates the differences between these models. Foreign policy has often been compared to moves, move orders and chess. As the pieces were moved, I would assume, like Model 1, that a single chess player moved the pieces with reference to plans and maneuvers to win the game. But one can imagine a pattern of moves that would lead the serious observer, after matching several games, to consider the hypothesis [Model 2] that the chess player was not a single individual, but rather a loose association of 'semi-independent organizations, each each whose group moved their group of pieces according to standard procedures. For example, the movement of separate groups of pieces could occur in sequence, each following a routine, with the king's rook, bishop, and their pawns repeatedly attacking the opponent in a fixed plan. Moreover, it is conceivable that the game model [Model 3] suggests to an observer that several different players with different goals but shared power over the pieces determine the moves as a result of peer negotiations. For example, the black rook's move may contribute to the loss of a black knight with no comparable gain for the black team, but the black rook becomes the primary guardian of the "palace" on that side of the board. » Allison presents three models that produce decisions, products or outcomes.
Model 1
The state acts as a unified rational actor to make 'decisions'.
Model 2
State sub-units operate according to established procedures to produce a "product". The state is still essentially a unified player, but the analogy is now a quarterback, not a chess player. Much like a quarterback announces certain (pre-planned) plays, the government can only dictate policy options already written into standard operating procedures (SOPs).
Model 3
In this model, "where you stand depends on where you sit". Officials of various government functions (Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) make predictable arguments based on their current position. The "results" of the policy are the result of negotiations between these leaders. This model completely abandons the idea of a "single" government. “Government decisions and actions are essentially intra-national political outcomes: outcomes in the sense that what happens is not chosen as a solution to a problem, but is the result of a compromise, a coalition , competition and confusion between government officials who face different faces. a problem; political in the sense that the activity from which the results emerge can be described as negotiation.
Application
Allison talks about the Cuban Missile Crisis. He is less concerned with explaining what happened than with showing that alternative conceptual models (2 and 3) may also be important. We need to be aware of our underlying assumptions.