Open Collections

The analysis of complex decision-making : negotiation of the Saint John River Basin Agreement (Canada-U.S.A.)

University of British Columbia

Three conceptually distinct analytical paradigms have been identified, developed and applied to the explanation of the decision-making processes which led to the 1972 Canada-United States Agreement on the Saint John River Basin (SJRB). These three' analytical paradigms are labelled respectively AP1 (motivation analysis), AP2 (information-processing analysis) and AP3 (strategy analysis). They are applicable not only to international rivers situations but to any type of public decision-making, at any level of analysis. They are conceptually distinct because motivation, information, and strategy are indeed the essence of collective decision-making. The choice of analytical paradigms is dependent much more on the objectives of the analysis than on the amount of information which can potentially be made available. In turn, the information required by each analytical paradigm is more a function of the level and unit of analysis chosen (from the sociological to the psychological), than related to their conceptual differences. AP1, AP2 and AP3 analysis should be done sequentially, rather than simultaneously, and should proceed from higher to lower levels of analysis. The application of AP1, AP2 and AP3 to three issues identified in the case study have provided some important insights into the nature of public decision-making. The analysis carried out under AP1 has shown that in the decision-making process concerning the SJRB Agreement, non-economic domestic political factors were relatively more important than certain international relations factors, such as international law and a country's image. The AP2 analysis has shown that, in the issues examined, technical-economic information had very limited influence on the most important decisions made. There was a tendency for comprehensive water quality plans to follow rather than precede important decisions. In contrast, great use was made of non-hierarchical information processing approaches, such as group meetings and workshops. There was a tendency among players to "satisfice" and to favour incremental decisions, although they did not give up easily on their synoptic ideal. Individual players relied more often on intuition and creativity than on synoptic analysis, and did not seem to make use of any clear form of marginal analysis. They also showed a tendency to rationalize their decisions and actions after they had taken them. AP3 analysis highlighted the important role that individual and group manipulative strategies played in many collective decisions taken. The choice of strategies by players was primarily a function of the rules of the game and certain characteristics of the players. The Agreement does not provide a solution to the basin's pollution problem. Rather, it institutionalizes a bilateral mechanism for the exchange of information, coordination of water quality plans, and, most importantly, for continuous negotiation regarding water quality objectives between relevant government departments in both countries. Whether the Agreement represents a policy shift in Canada-United States environmental relations, and if so, what the origins of such a shift are remain questions which could not be answered satisfactorily by the application of AP1, AP2 and AP3 to the case study. Therefore, a fourth analytical paradigm (AP4) has been tentatively suggested to deal with this aspect of public decision-making. While the paradigm has not been as fully developed as the other three, a preliminary analysis has indicated its great potential to provide some interesting insights in this direction.

Text

2010-03-31

For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.

http://hdl.handle.net/2429/23187

Planning

University of British Columbia

Graduate