After reading Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow’s Essence of Decision the task of trying to make sense of complicated government actions in the international arena appears slightly less daunting. In a scientific method approach the authors create a test in which they present three models (1. Rational Actor Model, 2. Organizational Behavior Model, and 3. Governmental Politics Model) for analyzing a government’s actions and then demonstrate as well as compare their utility using the following three critical questions from the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis, why did the Soviet Union place strategic offensive missiles in Cuba, why did the United States respond with a naval quarantine of Soviet shipments to Cuba, and why did the Soviets withdrawal
…show more content…
A brief description of the rational actor model is that an actor, the head of state and the nation are one and the same in this case, has a goal and is going to select the best action possible from a group of realistic alternatives that are available in order to achieve their goal (Allison and Zelikow p.18). After the description of model one it is easy to see the attractive qualities for an analyst to be able to assume the nation is a single calculating and rational entity that has some strategic goal in mind, this being the driving force behind its actions in the international community. This is where we see Allison and Zelikow’s warning and/or critique of model one in that it creates a simplification which “obscures as well as reveals” and this is what they hope to demonstrate with their first analysis of the three questions (Allison and Zelikow p.3). When the authors used the rational actor model to analyze competing hypotheses from the three critical questions, however, very logical and insightful answers are actually generated. For example, four logical hypotheses are presented on the question of why would Soviets place missiles in Cuba in the first place. After looking at each …show more content…
It is important to this model that each individual and organization has its own multitude of goals interrelated to whatever is going on and that no one entity is going to make the ultimate decision, rather the government will settle on the best compromise (Allison and Zelikow p.255). Model three looks at the individual, such as then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and focuses on their traits, opinions, relationship with the decision maker and position of influence to analyze to what extend decisions were made or could be made based off who has the decision makers ear best, so to say, at that a particular time. This lens can provide a very clear picture but also requires the most information and as such the authors analyze only the imposition of a naval quarantine by the United States and the Soviet decision to withdraw its missiles from Cuba. The U.S. naval quarantine decision proves the best utilization of model three since there is the most available information about the key individuals in the U.S. government at this time. President Kennedy did have rational alternative options before him but the model three analysis demonstrated its importance in showing the effects of influence and pull individuals had
A brief description of the rational actor model is that an actor, the head of state and the nation are one and the same in this case, has a goal and is going to select the best action possible from a group of realistic alternatives that are available in order to achieve their goal (Allison and Zelikow p.18). After the description of model one it is easy to see the attractive qualities for an analyst to be able to assume the nation is a single calculating and rational entity that has some strategic goal in mind, this being the driving force behind its actions in the international community. This is where we see Allison and Zelikow’s warning and/or critique of model one in that it creates a simplification which “obscures as well as reveals” and this is what they hope to demonstrate with their first analysis of the three questions (Allison and Zelikow p.3). When the authors used the rational actor model to analyze competing hypotheses from the three critical questions, however, very logical and insightful answers are actually generated. For example, four logical hypotheses are presented on the question of why would Soviets place missiles in Cuba in the first place. After looking at each …show more content…
It is important to this model that each individual and organization has its own multitude of goals interrelated to whatever is going on and that no one entity is going to make the ultimate decision, rather the government will settle on the best compromise (Allison and Zelikow p.255). Model three looks at the individual, such as then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and focuses on their traits, opinions, relationship with the decision maker and position of influence to analyze to what extend decisions were made or could be made based off who has the decision makers ear best, so to say, at that a particular time. This lens can provide a very clear picture but also requires the most information and as such the authors analyze only the imposition of a naval quarantine by the United States and the Soviet decision to withdraw its missiles from Cuba. The U.S. naval quarantine decision proves the best utilization of model three since there is the most available information about the key individuals in the U.S. government at this time. President Kennedy did have rational alternative options before him but the model three analysis demonstrated its importance in showing the effects of influence and pull individuals had