ABSTRACTStudy of water resource decision‐making in Massachusetts demonstrates the existence of many institutional constraints such as the established fee system for consulting engineers, the funding of certain agencies, the institutionalization of equity concerns, overrepresentation of interests, and incompatibility of agency goals. These institutional constraints are attributable in part to certain broadly‐based value‐orientations such as the American pragmatic tradition. However, various lines of evidence indicate that these constraints are less important than other factors in the etiology of decisional outcomes. The outcomes of the decision processes were found to be at variance with the decisions studied, a fact leading to the conclusion that choice of decisions for study should be given more attention. The authors conclude that institutional constraints are important if one is interested in studying how decisions are made, but that what actually happens in the long run cannot be easily ascertained by studying either institutions or the decision‐making process. They suggest the need for more research utilizing the incremental theories of Carl Lindblom and the side‐effect theories of Albert O.
展开▼
