University of Port Harcourt Journal of Management Volume 3, No.

1, March 2018

Rationalist Approach to Planning in Public Management

Ben Asuelimen Ijie & Michael Omohimi Iyoriobhe

Department of Public Administration
Faculty of Management Sciences
Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma

Abstract

This paper examines the rationalist approach to planning with a focus on improving or redefining
performance to meet new challenges. Planning is an organization's process of defining its strategy,
or direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy. It may also
extend to control mechanisms for guiding the implementation of the strategy. This paper is
important to provide a direction in the decision-making process as well as address the issue of
planning with a focus on the rational planning model. It recognizes planning as an essential bridge
between the present and the future. Adopting the descriptive research methodology, the paper
examined the various perceptions of scholars on the rationalist planning model. The paper observed
that the rationalist planning approach and its closely knit rational decision-making model are used
in developing actionable and result-in-oriented plans. The paper concludes that the rational
planning model is the process of understanding a problem followed by establishing and evaluating
planning criteria, formulation of alternatives, selection of the best alternatives and implementing
them and, finally monitoring the progress of the chosen alternatives as feedback into the planning
process. This multi-step model aims to be logical and follow the orderly path from problem
identification through the solution. It is therefore recommended that in decision making credence
should be given to logical steps in the decision-making process that can achieve a rational decision.

Keywords: Rationality, decision process, policymaking, policy alternatives strategic planning

1.0 Introduction

The rational model of decision-making is a process for making sound decisions in policy
making. Rationality is defined as “a style of behaviour that is appropriate to the achievement of
given goals, within the limits imposed by given conditions and constraints” (Simon, 1976).
According to Ikelegbe (2006), the rational model focuses on the means of attaining rational
decision-making. It believes that the decision maker is a rational actor who wants to make rational
decisions or net benefit policies.
To understand decision-making in organisations or nations, scholars like Simon (1950);
Lindblown (1959); Etzioni (1967); Hall (1982); Adamolekun (1983); Okoli and Okoli (1990);
Edigin and Otoghile (1994); Onah (2005); Ikelegbe (2006); and Henry (2009), have advanced
several models in the field of social and management sciences to include: Rational Model;

UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOLUME 3, NO. MARCH 1, 2018 | ISSN: 2536-7048
Incremental Model, Mixed Scanning Model; advocacy model; systems model; and the satisficing
Model.
The main focus in planning according to Leoveanu (2013) is finding an answer to the question
of how the organisation is going to achieve the previously determined goals. The rational planning
model is a process for making sound decisions in policymaking in the public sector or the
development and implementation of business strategy in the private sector. The rational decision-
making model is a structured and sequential approach to decision-making, aimed at seeking precise
solutions to well-defined problems using precise methods. The decision maker derives the necessary
information by observation, statistical analysis, or modelling, and makes a systematic analysis of
such 'hard' quantitative data to choose from the various alternative courses of action (Simon, 1976).
Hence, Leoveanu (2013) believes that public decisions are decisions that represent a conscious
choice, a voluntary act, and the final result of the deliberation of decision-making activities in public
business.
In the same vein, Igbinosa (2002) stated that the rational model of decision-making is the
fundamental base of the majority of currently practised planning methodologies. Even other
planning methods and models which are not based on the rational paradigm are in one way or the
other associated with it. The ultimate of the rational model relates to the fact that a man who is goal
seeking is faced with the problem of choice of means, or instrument in order to realize his goals or
aims and a rational decision was seen to be forthcoming when the choice is made in a certain way
(Sandercock, 1998).
The rational planning model is closely knit to the "Basic" Strategic Planning model (Leoveanu,
2013). This model is often effective for new organizations that do not have much prior experience
doing strategic planning. These are typically smaller organizations that often don't have too much
time to spend on the strategic planning process. As its name states, this is the most basic type of
strategic planning that organizations can use to become familiar with the process and then expound
on it in the future as they become more comfortable with the process and more established as an
organization. Components of the basic strategic planning model include the following:
▪ Identifying the purpose of the organization and developing a mission statement.
▪ Creating general goals for the organization to accomplish the mission.
▪ Identifying specific action steps to implement each goal.
▪ Evaluating and updating the plan over time.

1.1 Evolution of Different Planning Models

The conception of the concepts of rationality is attributable to the works of Herbert Simon.
Herbert A. Simon's conception of rationality is contained in two of its principal general definitions:
bounded rationality and procedural rationality. It argues that the latter is the one that better
synthesizes the author's view about rational behaviour and that the former fills mainly a critical
function. They are complementarily used by Simon in this sense. Despite this, it is argued that it is
the low degree of specificity of the concept of bounded rationality is one of the reasons for its
relatively greater success.

2
 Different authors and scholars coined different planning theories which evolved over time.
Different theories were attempted to refine the planning process so as to produce better plans. With
more and more people working on some of the well-known planning concepts like the rational
planning model, advocacy planning concept, collaborative planning theory, political economic
model in urban planning, critical minimum efforts theory emerged. Among these, the rational
planning model is considered to be the most successful and even used today (Sandercock, 1998).
The rational planning model is the process of understanding a problem followed by
establishing and evaluating planning criteria, formulation of alternatives and implementing
them and finally monitoring the progress of the chosen alternatives. The rational planning model is
central to the development of transport planning & modern planning (Sandercock, 1998).
Similarly, the rational decision-making model is a process of making logically sound decisions.
This multi-step model aims to be logical and follow the orderly path from problem identification
through the solution.
The rationalist model for planning owes its origins to Enlightenment epistemology
(Sandercock, 1998; Allmendinger, 2002), as it is centred on decisions and principles that are based
on reason, logic and scientific facts with little or no emphasis on values and emotions. Due to its
tendency towards the scientific method and its decision-making process, Faludi (1978) has termed
it ‘procedural planning theory. He sees planning as a procedure and declares that “the planning
theorist depends on the first-hand experience, reflects upon it, and puts it into context”. Therefore,
the planner learns from experience and can define the correct method or procedure to follow to get
the correct result.
Meanwhile, Sandercock (1998) refers to the rational model as ‘technocratic planning’ due
to its emphasis on technical expertise and skills and its steadfast belief that technology and social
science can be used to solve our problems

1.2 Types of Rationality in Planning

Influenced by the Max Weber tradition, Alexander (1986) cited in Leoveanu (2013)
distinguishes between two types of rationality in planning; ‘formal rationality’ and ‘substantive
rationality’. Formal rationality “involves separating means from ‘given’ ends and systematically
identifying, evaluating, and choosing means in a technical and apolitical way” (Breheny and
Hooper, 1985). It focuses on the means rather than the ends, favours facts over values, and is often
used in bureaucracies. A major problem with formal rationality is that it cannot show us what goals
we ought to prefer. In using the example of robbing a bank, Faludi (1978) proposes that there is a
rational way to rob a bank but the goal itself is wrong. Rationality is thus contextual.
Substantive rationality is more concerned with ends and their evaluation rather than the
means themselves (Allmendinger, 2002). It is less scientific than formal rationality and it considers
more than simply efficiency and effectiveness. It involves values which are not based on ‘blind
faith’ but are built up from the experience and the information available to the decision-maker.

3
2.0 Decisional Process – Rationalist Model

In his examination of the rationalist model in public decision-making, Leoveanu (2013) stated
that the basis for the rationalist approach to planning is to promote and sustain ways of achieving a
better human society through the application of scientific knowledge in setting objectives, study the
problem, gather information, search for alternatives, adopt criteria of choice as objectively as
possible, to allow him to identify the best balance between the advantages and disadvantages of
each possible alternative. The set of alternatives will then be sorted using these criteria, yielding the
solution considered most appropriate to resolve the matter.
Robbins and Timothy (2007) assert that the rational planning model is very similar to the
rational decision-making model, as it is called in organizational behaviour, and described it as a
process for making logically sound decisions. Rational decision-making is a multi-step process for
making logically sound decisions that aim to follow the orderly path from problem identification
through the solution.
Herbert Simon in his 1976 essay on the rational model of decision-making, avers that the
rational model of decision-making is a process for making sound decisions in policymaking in the
public sector. According to him, rationality is defined as “a style of behaviour that is appropriate to
the achievement of given goals, within the limits imposed by given conditions and constraints”
Supporting this view, Taylor (1998) maintained that the rational planning model is a model of
the planning process involving a number of rational actions or steps outlined as follows:
▪ Definition of the problems and/or goals;
▪ Identification of alternative plans/policies;
▪ Evaluation of alternative plans/policies;
▪ Implementation of plans/policies;
▪ Monitoring of effects of plans/policies.

This argument is in agreement with Ikelegbe (2006) and Egonmwan (2009), who maintained
that there are three steps which are necessary for realizing a rationally calculated decision. These,
they summarized as problem identification, solution identification and solution implementation.
Similarly, Igbinosa (2002) summarized the rationalist approach to planning thus: First, the decision
maker considers all of the alternative courses of action open to him or her. Second, he identifies and
evaluates all of the consequences which would follow from the adoption of each alternative. Third,
he selects that alternative, the probable consequence of which will be preferable in terms of his most
valuable ends.
As Alden and Morgan (1974) pointed out first, planning is a technical exercise which provides
a base on political decision making second, planning is characterized by comprehensiveness
because the planner requires to consider all of the alternatives and all of the consequences of each
of the alternatives. Third, planning is the essential and allocative mechanism through which
resources are allocated most efficiently with a comprehensive framework.
The rational actor model has many qualities as a decision maker should focus essentially on the
problem, the contents of alternatives and preferences, as well as choosing good criteria suitable to

4
the content. Several analysts have adhered to this model and tried to improve it by examining all
possible options and their costs. The improved model is called the rational-comprehensive model
(Profiroiu, 2006).
The procedures or requirements for such rational decisions according to Ikelegbe (2006) are
specified as follows:

• The isolation and study of the problem.

• The provision of a complete set of goals and objectives, and the weighing and scaling of
them to manageable proportions.
• An inventory and weighing of all available resources towards the attainment of stated
objectives.
• The provision of all available alternative policies.
• The evaluation of the cost and benefits of each alternative policy.
• The computation of the net expectation of each alternative policy.
• The comparison of the net expectations of the alternative policies
• The choice of the alternative policy with the highest or maximum net expectation.
The emphasis is on efficient, optimal or most appropriate policy choices. It, therefore, involves
the calculation and quantification of all costs and benefits or sacrifices and value achievements and
the choice of the alternative with the most net benefit. The test of a good policy here is that that can
be shown to be the most efficient and appropriate means to desired ends. The analysis is
comprehensive.
In his view, Brooks (2002) adumbrated the following stages to be followed in applying the
rational planning model
2.1 Verify, define and detail the problem

Verifying, defining & detailing the problem (problem definition, goal definition,
information gathering). This step includes recognizing the problem, defining an initial solution, and
starting the primary analysis. Examples of this are creative devising, creative ideas, inspirations,
breakthroughs, and brainstorms. The very first step which is normally overlooked by the top level of
management is defining the exact problem. Though we think that the problem identification is
obvious, many times it is not. The rational decision-making model is a group-based decision-
making process. If the problem is not identified properly then we may face a problem as every
member of the group might have a different definition of the problem. Hence, the definition of the
problem must be the same among all group members. Only then is it possible for the group members
to find alternate sources or problem-solving in an effective manner.
2.2 Generate all possible solutions

This step encloses two to three final solutions to the problem and preliminary
implementation to the site. In planning, examples of this are Planned Units of Development and
downtown revitalizations. This activity is best done in groups, as different people may contribute
different ideas or alternative solutions to the problem. Without alternative solutions, there is a

5
chance of arriving at a non-optimal or rational decision. For exploring the alternatives, it is
necessary to gather information. Technology may help with gathering this information.
2.3 Generate objective assessment criteria

Evaluative criteria are measurements to determine the success and failure of alternatives.
This step contains the secondary and final analysis along with secondary solutions to the problem.
Examples of this are site suitability and site sensitivity analysis. After going thoroughly through the
process of defining the problem, exploring all the possible alternatives for that problem and
gathering information this step says to evaluate the information and the possible options to
anticipate the consequences of each and every possible alternative that is thought of. At this point,
the optional criteria for measuring the success or failure of the decision taken need to be considered.
2.4 Choose the best solution generated

This step comprises a final solution and a secondary implementation of the site. At this point,
the process has developed into different strategies for how to apply the solutions to the site.
Based on the criteria of assessment and the analysis done in previous steps, choose the best
solution generated. These four steps form the core of the rational decision-making model.
2.5 Implement the preferred alternative

This step includes the final implementation of the site and preliminary monitoring of the
outcome and results of the site. This step is the building/renovation part of the process.
2.6 Monitor and evaluate outcomes and results

This step contains the secondary and final monitoring of the outcomes and results of the site.
This step takes place over a long period of time.
2.7 Feedback

Modify future decisions and actions taken based on the above evaluation of outcomes. To
Egonmwan (2009), the rational model focuses on how decisions reached at any point in time in an
organisation can be truly rational. The model according to him, assumes that the decision maker is
a rational actor who is out to make rational decisions for the purpose of achieving higher benefits,
which would be at the level of the individual or an organisation. This model of decision-making is
considered important because of its emphasis on reasoning whereby decision-makers face a wide
space of an open system of variables in which all alternatives and consequences must be noted with
the aim of achieving the most efficient and effective outcome of maximum net value (Egonmwan,
2009; Onah, 2005).
On his part, Gberevbe (2017) discoursed that the rational model of decision-making is so styled
because of its heavy emphasis on reasoning whereby decision-makers face a wide world of an open
system of variables in which all alternatives and consequences must be surveyed to attain the most
efficient result of maximum net value. It is to be noted that “a policy is rational when it is most
efficient, that is if the ratio between the values it achieves and the values it sacrifices is positive and

6
higher than any other policy alternative” This according to Gberevbe (2017) can be expressed as
follow:
Efficiency € = Output/ Input greater than 1
The idea of efficiency here transcends mere calculation of naira, dollar or sterling. The
calculation of all social, political and economic values sacrificed or achieved by a public policy is
what is involved here.
Gberevbe (2017) further avers that to attain maximum net benefits in policy-making, the
following steps must be taken in line with the rationalist tradition:
a) Faced with a given problem,
b) A rational man first clarifies his goals, values or objectives and then ranks or otherwise
organises them in his mind;
c) He then lists all important possible ways or policies for achieving his goals;
d) And investigates all important consequences that would follow from each of the alternative
policies
e) At which point he is in a position to compare the consequences of each policy with goals;
f) And so, chooses the policy with the consequences most closely matching the goal,
g) In the tradition of the rationalist school, the above steps must be taken in order to make the
best decision possible in terms of goals. While this logical approach represents pure
efficiency (i.e. doing things the right way), it excludes traditional, emotional, and political
considerations as they interfere with the maximization of goals.
However, the Chartered Institute of Management Accounting (CIMA), situated the rational
planning model as an example of a planned strategy of an organisation (both public and private)
that is put in place by the directors to achieve the goals of the organisation. It involves a detailed
analysis of the alternation to arrive at dependable ways of achieving an organisation’s objectives.
CIMA listed the following as ways of accomplishing this analysis:
▪ Strategic Analysis – can use PESTEL (political, economic, social, technological,
environmental and legal) or Porter's 5 forces model to analyse the external environment
while SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity and threat) analysis can be used for corporate
appraisal.
▪ Strategic Choice – models like NPV (net present value), IRR (internal rate of return) and
payback evaluation can be used to choose which strategic option to take.
▪ Strategic Implementation – need to consider policies and strategies to implement for ALL
areas of the business.
▪ Strategy Evaluation and Control – measuring the performance against the objectives.
From the review of the various work of an expert, figure1 below outlined the stages of a rational
planning decision process.

Figure 1: Stages of the rational planning decision model

7
 Source: https://planningtank.com/planning-theory/rational-planning-model

The rational planning model is considered to be the most practical and apt for the needs of
the planning process. It’s based on scientific reasoning which takes into account the use of modern
technology and increased data collection. The data collected helps in establishing the rationale and
thus helps in making a claim. Another characteristic is the preparation of alternatives and then
choosing the best among the alternatives. Moreover, as the process completes the last step for the
first time, the feedback and monitoring provide much-needed flexibility in the whole process so that
timely modifications can be made to the plan.

3.0 Assumptions of the Rational Approach

While rational decisions strive to remove subjectivity, assumptions, and uncertainty from the
decision-making process, the method itself is based on many assumptions. According to Simon
(2011) and Drake (2002), it is important to note the rationalist planning model makes a series of
assumptions for it to work, these assumptions include inter alia:
• the model must be applied in a stable system;
• the government is a rational and unitary actor and its actions are perceived as rational
choices;
• the policy problem is unambiguous;
• there are no limitations of time or cost.
The rational model assumes that the decision maker has accurate information and knowledge of
the situation, the underlying cause-and-effect relationships to evaluate various situations, and the
8
necessary tools and competence. This is not always the case. Very often the quantity, quality,
accuracy, and integrity of information may be found wanting. Moreover, the reliance on scientific
data to generate the most optimal choice works well in theory, but the human ability has limits to
gather, process, and understand all the information needed to optimize a decision outcome. Such
defects in information directly translate to a defect in the decision.
This model also assumes that conditions remain stable. The real world always remains in a
constant state of flux and, very often, the information needed to make a decision either remains
incomplete or keeps constantly changing, forcing the decision makers to improvise.
Ultimately, how people make decisions depends on their culture, conventions, experience,
education, and many more factors. The pros and cons of the rational decision-making approach
suggest that it finds use as a facilitating tool to aid decision-making and supplement the existing
system in certain situations. Imposing it as a decision-making system by uprooting the existing
system may become counterproductive.
According to Ikelegbe (2006), The rational model of decision-making assumes the following:

• That perfect information can be obtained, for example, to objectively assess policy
alternatives.
• That there is a commonality of values and preferences, particularly in the setting of goals
and objectives.
• That the rational actor thinks of the greatest good to the greatest number as a guide to
decision-making.
• Objectives and alternatives can be qualified and compared on a single monetary measure.
• That the conditions and parameters for the decisions are static within the decision-making
period
Concurring with the views of other scholars on the wide assumption of the rationalist
approach to decision-making, Gberevbe (2017) contend that in order to achieve the aims of
the rational theory, the following unlikely conditions must be fulfilled;
a) Goals and sub-goals can be clearly specified and translated into evaluation criteria;
b) All possible alternative is examined;
c) All alternatives can be measured on the evaluation criteria;
d) All relevant information is available;
e) The evaluation criteria can be properly weighted relative to each other so that the decision
procedure maximizes the attainment of the goals
These assumptions most writer agrees are however not tenable in a real-world situation. All the
required information cannot be obtained because of lack or paucity and the difficulties of doing so.
Decision actors often have differing and conflicting values and preferences. Most societal values
do not reach the decision agenda because of the inequitable influence and power of elites and
groups. Values cannot be easily weighted. All alternatives cannot possibly be obtained and the
consequences of each cannot be possibly predicted and cost in monetary terms.

9
 Even if all these were possible, the time it could consume could render decisions useless given
the fluidity of real-world situations. Besides, there are so many barriers to the choice of net value
or net benefit decisions or decisions of the greatest good to society. These barriers include sunk cost
or investments on previous policies, the uncertainty of the consequence of alternatives, the
difference in the value status and expectations of the policymakers and the long time, large resources
and considerable skills required to compute net value decisions.

4.0 Criticism of Rational Planning Model

The rationalist model of planning has been the subject of numerous criticisms. Thomas (1982) cited
in Leoveanu (2013) criticised the rationalist model of planning as too focused on means rather than
ends and claimed that the model is “essentially ‘contentless’ in that it specifies thinking and acting
procedures but does not investigate what is the content of these”.
The model is accused of being abstract “offering merely an extended definition of planning
and not saying anything about how planning in practically operated or what its effects were”
(Taylor, 1998).
Advocate planners argued that what was portrayed as the ‘Public interest’ in the rationalist
model of planning represented merely the interests of the privileged. They maintain that no common
social interest exists and that the rationalist model of planning neglects the interests of both the poor
and nature (Campbell and Fainstein 2003).
The comprehensiveness of the model has also come under question by such critics as
Lindblom (1959); Campbell and Fainstein (2003) and Altshuler (1965), who argue that due to
limited time and resources available for making a decision and exploring all alternative options it is
practically impossible to be thoroughly comprehensive (Taylor 1998; Campbell and Fainstein
2003).
It also requires an exceptional level of knowledge, analysis and organisational coordination
to absorb and make sense of all the relevant information; planners may end up being more confused
and thus less rational (Campbell and Fainstein 2003; Taylor 1998). Forester (1999) contends that
even if planners are “quite alone” in making a rational decision, they will still do so in anticipation
of certain other people’s opinions whom “they know they must finally come to some form of
agreement”, and so the decision is neither fully comprehensive or rational in this sense.
Sandercock (1998) points out that in this model “the planner is indisputably ‘The knower’,
relying strictly on ‘his’ professional expertise and objectivity to do what is best for an
undifferentiated public”. Sandercock also highlights the point that the rationalist model of planning
“privileges scientific and technical knowledge over an array of equally important alternatives –
experiential, intuitive, local knowledge” (Sandercock 1998). Knowledge gained from these
practical and analytical modes by definition excludes those without professional training. This
knowledge is based on technical jargon and is preferred to knowledge gained through other practices
such as talking, listening, seeing, contemplating, and sharing.
Adding to the above limitations, there are a lot of assumptions, and requirements without which
the rational decision model is a failure. Therefore, they all have to be considered. The model

10
assumes that we have or should or can obtain adequate information, both in terms of quality,
quantity and accuracy. It further assumes that you have or should or can obtain substantive
knowledge of the cause-and-effect relationships relevant to the evaluation of the alternatives. In
other words, it assumes that you have a thorough knowledge of all the alternatives and the
consequences of the alternatives chosen. It further assumes that you can rank the alternatives and
choose the best of them.
The following are the limitations of the rational decision-making model as summarised by
Sandercock (1998):
▪ requires a great deal of time
▪ requires a great deal of information
▪ assumes rational, measurable criteria are available and agreed upon
▪ assumes accurate, stable and complete knowledge of all the alternatives, preferences, goals
and consequences
▪ assumes a rational, reasonable, non–political world

On his part, Egonmwan (2009) observed that one of the major criticisms against the rationalist
model is that its assumptions are difficult to achieve in a real-world situation. This is because all the
information about a problem cannot be obtained before a decision is taken. This concurs with the
finding of Ikelegbe (2006), who avers that most societal values do not reach the decision agenda
because of the inequitable influence and power of the elites and groups. Values cannot be easily
weighted.
All alternatives cannot be possibly obtained and the consequences of each cannot be possibly
predicted and cost in monetary terms to arrive at a rational decision as demanded by the rationalist.
As a result, the model is criticised as being theoretical rather than real to address true life situations.
However, some scholars, see the rationalist model as a framework to inspire decision-makers for
higher performance (Ediigin and Otoghile, 1994; Onah, 2000; Ikelegbe, 2006).
The rational decision-making process requires careful consideration and deliberation of
data; this takes time, making this method unsuitable for quick decisions. In the age of fast-paced
changes, seizing the opportunity at the spur of the moment plays a big part in success, and the
rational model does not live up to this task. Moreover, delay in making and implementing a decision
may result in dilution of the perceived benefit of such an alternative, for the benefits may accrue
only when taken at that time. As such, this model finds use mostly in making long-term and policy
decisions rather than short-term or floor-level operational decisions.
In addition, Gberevbe (2017) opined that the rational model is an ideal to work towards both
in planning efforts including corporate planning as well as in the way policy decisions should be
made. The concept of objective rationality has actively influenced a wide range of attempts by
modern governments to improve the quality of the policymaking system. It has made policymakers
in many countries to become aware of the weakness of their policy machinery and has made them
look for ways and means of improving the processes and institution of policy-making beyond these,
objective rationality as a prescription for policy formulation may have had little or no impact on
how policies have been made. It is important to note that in approach.

11
 Rational decision-making is steeped in conservatism and errs on the side of caution. Many
a time, the company makes it big when managers or leaders follow their gut instincts to take a
gamble and seize an opportunity. Similarly, many times success depends on being the pioneer in
the field, or the first to launch a new and untested product, which may find wide acceptance.
Limiting decisions to the analysis of available data may impede such approaches. The unavailability
of past trends or information about such new products or opportunities causes rational decision-
makers to opt for more secure and conventional options.
Rational decisions are more structured and informed, but people making such decisions
usually become unpopular, with the rank and file perceiving them as insensitive autocratic leaders.
The basis of rationality is profit maximization or bottom-line orientation, and interpersonal relations
or emotions have no place in what constitutes “rationality." Reliance on cold facts requires ignoring
or paying secondary importance to sensitive human relationships. Over-reliance on the bottom line,
with scant regard for human values, slowly but surely erodes the organization of its intellectual
capital and resilience, sowing the seeds for its eventual destruction.
The fruits of rational decisions become apparent only in the long run, and the rank and file
usually do not get to see immediate or tangible returns or benefits of the decision. This combined
with the insensitivity to human emotions causes a negative perception.
METHODOLOGY
This study adopted a descriptive research methodology for the analysis, review and examination of
the various perceptions of scholars on the rationalist planning model with a view to establishing a
better understanding of the rationalist model

The paper observed that the rationalist planning approach and its closely knit rational decision-
making model are used in developing actionable and result-in-oriented plans.

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The rational planning approach to decisions is based on scientifically obtained data that
allow informed decision-making, reducing the chances of errors, distortions, assumptions,
guesswork, subjectivity, and all major causes for poor or inequitable judgments. Such an
information and knowledge-based approach promotes consistent and high-quality decisions and
reduces the risk and uncertainties associated with decisions. The rational method infuses the
decision-making process with discipline, consistency, and logic. It is a step-by-step approach that
requires defining the problem, identifying the weighing and decision criteria, listing out the various
alternatives, deliberating the present and future consequences of each alternative, and rating each
alternative on each criterion. Such a sequential approach allows the decision-maker to arrive at the
optimal decision.
The methodology caters to addressing complex issues by breaking them down into simple
steps and considering all aspects of the problem with all possible solutions before making a final
decision.

12
 From the literature reviewed, this paper can show that the decision is the focus of all
management activities of an institution or public authority, as it is found in any public function of
management. The public decision should not be seen only as a mere activity of rational choice of
the best of several possible options but a complex act, whose implementation can have irreversible
consequences on the lives of administrators (individuals and businesses). Referring to public
decision characteristics, we can say that it is a more delicate one than a personal decision. Since the
decision maker must be held accountable, and explain himself to the citizens or the electorate. The
right to mistake is rarely acknowledged, he must prove endlessly extreme rigour in the manner of
deciding. The public decision must be legal: the judge checks due process and penalizes violations
of any kind committed by public authorities.
Even though literature says that implementing a rational model, may encounter many
barriers and that in practice we cannot speak of absolute rationality but only a limited one, this paper
recommends that if we start from the premise that decision-making is a process of logical steps
(stages to be followed to derive one from the other), rationality can be achieved in the decision-
making process. The steps are shown in figure 2 and the infographic in figure 3 below details the
logical scheme of the rational type of decision-making process:

Figure 2: Logical scheme of the rational type of decision-making process

13
 Adapted from Leoveanu (2013).

6.0 References

Adamolekun, L., (1983) Public Administration: A Nigerian and Comparative Perspective. New
York: Longman Inc.
Alden, J. and Morgan, R., (1974). Regional Planning: A Comprehensive view. New York. John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Allmendinger, P., (2002). Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning
Theory, 1(1), 77-99.
Altshuler, A., (1965). The goals of comprehensive planning. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 31(3), 186-195.
Breheny, M. J., Hooper, A., & Regional Science Association. (1985). Rationality in Planning
Critical Essays on the Role of Rationality in Urban & Regional Planning

Brooks, M. P., (2002). Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago: American Planning
Association. pp. 175–6.

14
Campbell, S. and Feinstein, S. S., (eds) (2003). Readings in Planning Theory, 2nd ed. Blackwell.
Oxford.

Carey, W. P., (2011). "Rational versus Holistic: Two Very Different Approaches to Executive
Decision Making." Retrieved from
http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1281 on July 18, 2011.

Drake, H. A., ed. (2002). Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dye, T. R., (1975). Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs; New Jersey. Prentice Hall
Inc.
Edigin, L.U. and Otoghile, A. (1994) A Theoretical Approach to Public Administration. Benin
City: Nationwide Publication Bureau.

Egonmwan, J. A. (2009). Public Policy Analysis, Concepts and Application. Benin City, Resyin
Nig. Company.
Etzioni, A., (1961) Comparative Analysis of Complex Organisation. New York: Free Press.
Faludi, A., (1979). Towards a combined paradigm of planning theory? Planning Outlook, 22(2),
77-80.
Forester, J., (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes.
MIT Press.

Gberevbie, D. E., (2017). Public Administration: A Conceptual Perspective. Ibadan, Cardinal

Publishers.
Hall, P., (1982) “Approaching the Problem.” In G. McGrew and Wilson, M.J. (eds) Decision
Making: Approaches and Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 23-24.
Henry, N., (2009) Public Administration and Public Affairs (11th edition). Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Igbinosa A. S., (2002). Essentials of Planning. Benin City. Sylva Publishing Inc.

Ikelegbe, A. O., (2006). Public Policy Analysis: Concept, Issues and Cases. Lagos: Imprint
Services.

Leoveanu, A.C., (2013). Rationalist Model in Public Decision Making. Journal of Public
Administration, Finance and Law. Issue 4/2013
Lindblown, C., (1959) “The Science of Muddling Through. “Public Administration Review. 19.
pp. 135-148.
Okoli, E.F. and Okoli, F.C., (1990) Foundations of Government and Politics. Ibadan: Africa-FEP
Publishers Limited.

15
Onah, R.C., (2005) Public Administration. Nsukka: Great AP Express Publishers Limited.
Profiroiu, M., (2006). Public Policies. Theory. Analysis, Practice, Bucharest. The Economic
Publishing.

Robbins, S. P. and Timothy A. J., (2007). Organizational Behavior (12th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Sandercock, L., (Ed.). (1998). Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history (Vol.
2). Univ of California Press.
Simon, H. A., (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Simon, H. A., (1976). Administrative Behavior. (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Simon, H. A., (2011). “Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations”. Nobel Memorial
Lecture of 8 December 1978. Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.7589&rep=rep1&type=pdf
on July 18, 2011.
Taylor, N., (1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. London: Sage Publication

16