The rational and non-rational approaches are both important in the process of public policy analysis. They are methodologies for conducting reasoned inquiries to come up with sustainable solutions to practical challenges (Anyebe, 2018). Precisely, they help policymakers to combine their intricate technical knowledge with sophisticated political and social realities. The rational approach seeks to maximize decisions depending on the resources at its disposal (Constantin, 2013). From the preferences of policymakers, goals are established. The utility and value of each goal are then established after which alternative solutions to the solution are sought. Subsequently, a criterion of choice is adopted objectively so that the best balance between the pros and cons of each alternative is determined. the alternatives are then sorted out to yield the most appropriate solution. One advantage of this approach is that it uses scientifically obtained data. As such decision-making is informed and the chances of skewed outcomes are low. It is also consistent and logical. It is thus best suited for addressing complex problems that need to be analyzed critically before coming up with a decision. However, the rational approach is time-consuming and thus inappropriate for issues that require quick decisions. Additionally, it overly emphasizes conservativism and caution. Accordingly, it is best suited for making long-term policy decisions. The non-rational approach, on the other hand, is descriptive and more realistic. It adopts a probabilistic approach under the pretext that there is a real situation that requires prompt decision-making (Clemons & Mcbeth, 2017). It is thus based on the assumption that policymakers can come up with appropriate decisions. It typically relies on less comprehensive data from environmental factors. Moreover, the range of alternatives to choose the best option is limited. As such, the non-rational approach advocates bounded prudence in decision-making. One of the advantages of non-rational methods is that they are fast and can thus be used during crises. Additionally, they enable policymakers and leaders to seize opportunities that arise at the moment. The main disadvantage of this approach is that decisions are based on the judgment, personal biases, and intuitions of leaders. Thus, they could potentially result in errors or subjective outcomes. Appropriately, they are best suited for floor-level or short-term operational decisions. Policies on opioid prevention are multifactorial. The operationalization of the goals of such a policy would require the involvement of various stakeholders including healthcare workers, pharmaceutical companies, the police, and many other relevant agencies. Additionally, the policies would have to incorporate aspects of rehabilitation for persons who become dependent on opioids. Accordingly, the operationalization of an opioid prevention policy would require a stepwise approach. As such, the rational approach would be the most appropriate to use to solve this issue. The first step would thus be to identify the goals of the policy and values of the state. Based on this analysis, policymakers should come up with potential solutions to better control the trade-in and use of opioids. Subsequently, thorough research would have to be conducted and all relevant data on opioid use, addiction, trade, and other aspects collected. The data should then be used to determine the best approaches to bringing the opioid scourge under control. Extensive deliberations should be made to make comparisons between all the potential solutions as well as the consequences of adopting each of them. Finally, the alternative with maximal utility and the best risk-benefit ratio that optimizes the objectives and values of the state should be selected. This should then be followed at the implementation stage. After a period of the new policy in operation, its outcomes will be perceptible and policymakers would have to receive feedback from the stakeholders (Simon, 2017). Such feedback would then be used to come up with necessary amendments to ensure that the policy is acceptable to the majority of stakeholders. While the rational approach would be the most effective for the operationalization of the goals of the opioid prevention policy, the non-rational approach would also be necessary, especially in the making of subsidiary laws. Accordingly, the secretaries of relevant departments would be at liberty to come up with policies to address emergent issues that require prompt action.
References
Anyebe, A. (2018). An Overview of Approaches to the Study of Public Policy. International Journal of Political Science, 4 (1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.20431/2454-9452.0401002
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Clemons, R. S., & Mcbeth, M. K. (2017). Public policy praxis: a case approach for understanding policy and analysis. London; New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Constantin, A. (2013). Rationalist Model in Public Decision Making. Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law, (4), 43–54.
Simon, C. A. (2017). Public policy: preferences and outcomes. New York, NY: Routledge.
