Just to clarify this for me: You consider Rational Choice based decision making evidence-based? Interesting take...
Good point, let me clarify.
Rational choice based decision is the theory that people pursue ends that will make them better off (increase utility). Models based on rational choice theory are often supported by examination of the evidence, i.e. does our data support the theory that people are acting in the way we claim?
Therefore, no, I do not believe they are the same thing, though I do believe they are linked in this fashion.
Not ot start a fight or anything, but...
Are we talking about the same Pentagon? My experience has been, if anything, an over-reliance on numerical analysis. Note I didn't say _good_ analysis. Instead, general policy/strategic choices are generated by reasons that have more to do with domestic and internal politics, and the math (or model) is adjusted to fit the desired outcome.
For that matter, I doubt that Detroit was ever as orderly or rational as you suggest. Or, more to the point, what was rational for individuals and sections were not necessarily rational for the industry as a whole. How else can we explain an industry that threw away its market dominance to the point where much of it now survives only on the generosity of government?
During my time working in the defense community analysis VERY rarely went beyond the "PowerPoint deep" level because the O4+ and SES level decision makers either didn't care or didn't want any more substantive analysis.
And, or course, the Detroit of McNamara's time was an entirely different place than now, though your point is well taken.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
