The difference between rational decision-making and bounded rationality model

Rational decision-making model, referred to as rational modal for short, originated from the theory of traditional economics. It is based on the hypothesis of "economic man" and abandons some minor variables, thus simplifying the analysis of problems and forming an effective analytical framework, which can be used to explain many phenomena in the economy. \x0d\ 1。 Policymakers are faced with an established problem. \x0d\ 2。 The various purposes, values or goals decided by decision makers are clear and can be sorted according to the importance of different goals. \x0d\ 3。 Policymakers have more than two choices. Faced with these options, they usually choose one of them on a case-by-case basis. If the plans are basically the same, the same decision will usually be made. \x0d\ 4。 For the same problem, decision makers will face one or more natural states. They are uncontrollable factors that are independent of human will. Or it can be said that the preference of decision makers will change with the change of time and space. \x0d\ 5。 The decision-maker will calculate (estimate) the profit value (degree) or loss value (degree) of each scheme under different natural conditions, and after comparison, choose the best one according to the value preference of the decision-maker. \x0d\ Rational decision-making must meet the following basic conditions in practice: \x0d\ 1. All valid information must be obtained in the decision-making process. \x0d\ 2。 Find out all the decision-making schemes related to achieving the goal \x0d\ 3. It can accurately predict the results that each scheme can produce under different objective conditions. \x0d\ 4。 I am well aware of the social value bias and its relative proportion of people who directly or indirectly participate in the formulation of public policies. \x0d\ 5。 You can choose the optimal decision-making scheme \x0d\ From a theoretical point of view, optimal decision-making is not infeasible, but social reality does not mean theoretical assumptions. The assumptions of rational decision-making model encounter many obstacles, and people gradually find that many phenomena in policy practice are difficult to explain. The reason lies not in its logical system, but in its premise explanation. So it has been strongly criticized by many scholars. The most prominent are Charles Lindblom and herbert simon. \x0d\ Linde blom pointed out that the decision-maker is not facing a given problem, but must first find out and explain it. The problem is that different people will have different understandings and opinions. For example, the rapid rise in prices needs to respond to inflation. \x0d\ First of all, it is often difficult to find out the crux of this problem. Because different interest representatives will look at these issues from their own interests, people will have different answers around whether inflation exists, if so, what is its degree and influence, and what is the reason for inflation. \x0d\ Secondly, influenced by values, decision makers often have value conflicts when choosing schemes. It is extremely difficult to compare, measure and judge right and wrong in value conflicts. The contradiction of values cannot be solved by analysis, because analysis cannot prove people's values, and it is impossible to unify people's values by administrative orders. \x0d\ Thirdly, some people think that "public interests" can be used as a decision-making standard. Linde blom criticized this understanding, arguing that there is no general consensus on what constitutes public interests, and public interests do not mean agreed interests. \x0d\ Fourthly, correlation analysis in decision-making is not omnipotent. Decision-making is limited by time and resources. For complex decisions, we will not make endless or even long-term analysis, nor will we spend too much money on analysis, or wait until all the analysis is done before making a decision, otherwise we will delay the opportunity. \x0d\ Simon further added that it is impossible to collect all the information related to the decision-making situation during the decision-making process. Decision-makers' ability to process information is very limited, so they can't process and analyze information optimally, so they can't get the best decision of 100%. \x0d\ Although rationalism is utopian to some extent, we welcome to criticize it, but it is not advisable to be too simple and absolutely negative. Just because it can't be realized doesn't mean it's meaningless. People always become better and more beautiful in the pursuit of perfection. Because of this, the ideological value of the traditional rational decision-making model has been affirmed by the theoretical circle. \ x0d \ x0d \ After 1950s, people realized that the theory of completely rational decision-making based on the hypothesis of "economic man" was only an ideal model, which could not guide actual decision-making. Hepburn Simon put forward satisfaction standard and bounded rationality standard, and replaced "economic man" with "social man", which greatly expanded the research field of decision theory and produced a new theory-bounded rationality decision theory. \x0d\ bounded rationality model is also called Simon model or Simon's most satisfactory model. This is a realistic model, which holds that human rationality is a kind of bounded rationality between complete rationality and complete irrationality. \x0d\ bounded rationality model's main points are as follows: \x0d\ (1) The connotation of the means-target chain is somewhat contradictory, and simple means-target chain analysis will lead to inaccurate conclusions. \x0d\ Simon thinks that the sequential system of means-goal chain is rarely a systematic and comprehensive chain, and the relationship between organizational activities and basic goals is often vague, and these basic goals are also an incomplete system. There are also conflicts and contradictions between these basic goals and the various means chosen to achieve them. \x0d\ (2) Policymakers pursue rationality, but they don't pursue maximum rationality, but only require limited rationality. \x0d\ This is because people's knowledge is limited, and it is impossible for decision makers to grasp all the information and know the detailed rules of decision-making. For example, people's computing power is limited, and even with the help of computers, there is no way to deal with a large number of variable equations; People's imagination and design ability are limited, and it is impossible to list all the alternatives; People's value orientation is not static, and their purposes often change; People's purposes are often diverse and contradictory, and there is no unified standard. Therefore, as an individual decision-maker, his bounded rationality restricts him from making completely rational decisions, and he can only try his best to pursue bounded rationality within his ability. \x0d\ (3) Decision-makers pursue the "satisfaction" standard in their decision-making, not the optimal standard. \x0d\ In the decision-making process, the decision-maker sets a basic requirement and then examines the existing alternatives. If there is an alternative that can better meet the most basic requirements, the decision-maker will reach the satisfaction standard, and he will not want to study or find a better alternative. \x0d\ This is because, on the one hand, people are often unwilling to give full play to the enthusiasm of continuing research and are only satisfied with the existing alternatives; \x0d\ On the other hand, due to various constraints, the decision-makers themselves lack the ability in this respect. In real life, you often get a satisfactory solution, not an optimal one. \x0d\ According to the above points, decision makers admit that the world they feel is only an extreme simplification of the complex real world, and their satisfaction standard is not the greatest, so they don't have to determine all possible alternatives. Because they feel that the real world can't be grasped, they are often satisfied with using simple methods and doing things by experience, habits and conventions. So the decision-making results are different.