Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The process of urban government decision-making : the Winnipeg experiment Kent, R.H. (Robert Howard) 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A1 K45_7.pdf [ 26.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093693.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093693-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093693-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093693-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093693-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093693-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093693-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093693-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093693.ris

Full Text

THE PROCESS OF URBAN GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING: THE WINNIPEG EXPERIMENT Robert Howard Kent B.Sc. The University of Manitoba 1967 M.B.A. The University of Manitoba 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F1JLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1975 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Commerce and BUH-JTIPSS ArinHwfgtrw-HnTi The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date June 9. 1975 - ABSTRACT -THE PROCESS OF URBAN GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING: THE WINNIPEG EXPERIMENT by Robert H. Kent T h i s research repor ts a study of urban government d e c i s i o n -making i n the newly s t ruc tured (1972) C i t y of Winnipeg, u s i n g the m u l t i p l e model methodology int roduced by Graham A l l i s o n i n h i s Essence  of D e c i s i o n . The three decis ion-making models wi th which A l l i s o n s tudied f o r e i g n p o l i c y were expanded and t a i l o r e d to s u i t an a n a l y s i s of decis ion-making i n a c i t y government. Supplemented by d e t a i l e d reviews of decis ion-making l i t e r a t u r e from v a r i o u s d i s c i p l i n e s , two models or conceptual lenses were developed f o r t h i s study; Model A , the P o l i t i c a l Process Paradigm and Model B , the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Process Paradigm. Drawing upon the wealth of "Power" l i t e r a t u r e generated by the urban p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s , and a l s o the b a r g a i n i n g and c o a l i t i o n t h e o r i e s of the b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n t i s t s , Model A portrays decis ion-making at C i t y H a l l as the r e s u l t of a b a r g a i n i n g or compromise process between c o u n c i l l o r s of d i v e r s e i n t e r e s t s and unequal i n f l u e n c e i n order that d e s i r e d ends may be achieved. Both the i s s u e s which the c o u n c i l l o r debates and h i s b a r g a i n i n g behavior are s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by the many d i f f e r e n t pressure groups or i n d i v i d u a l s e x t e r n a l to the C o u n c i l , as w e l l as the C i t y ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the other c i t y c o u n c i l l o r s themselves. (i) Model B was developed from the research of many authors including Richard Cyert, James March, John Crecine, and Aaron Wildavsky. Recognizing the pervasive influence that the organization has upon the behavior of individuals, and the intellectual limitations of man, this Model considers urban government decision-making as more of an internally determined event than accepted i n Model A, with the systems and procedures of the bureaucratic machinery being significantly influential i n the decision-making process. In addition, two sets of propositions were developed from the two models to guide the subsequent analyses. Since the policy classification or decision issue could predetermine the decision-making process, this present study investigates two different decision issues i n the City of Winnipeg and avoids becoming issue bound as was Allison's analysis of the Cuban Missile C r i s i s . Issue I, "Unicity Mall", was a land development (shopping centre) problem, with medium-term implications and l i t t l e to moderate financial commitment by the decision-makers; and the decision process lasted for l i t t l e more than a year. Issue I I , the "Winnipeg Railway Relocation Study", was an intergovernmental planning problem, with long-term implications and extensive financial commitments for the decision-makers; and the decision process continued for a number of years. As a result, this decision-making analysis not only compares and contrasts the differing interpretations of the decision process which the two models offer, but also analyzes the influence of the issue-scope (type of issue, importance, time-span, etc.) upon the decision process. ( i i ) The specific method of inquiry involved examining the City of Winnipeg's administrative and p o l i t i c a l structure, interviewing the relevant o f f i c i a l s and politicians, scrutinizing statutes and government practices, studying manuals, hearings and reports — a l l focusing around the two specific issues. The interviews, although of an informal nature, were framed around a questionnaire developed from the two decision-making models and their propositions. The resulting interpretations which the models gave to the two issues were, found to be complementary rather than contradictory or unrelated. Generally, Model A explained the decision behavior of the actors most directly involved i n an issue, while Model B more satisfactorily interpreted the behavior of those at the periphery of the issue and provided insight into the profound influence of the administration upon government's decision-making processes. More specifically, i t was discovered that both the councillor's role behavior and his uncertainty avoidance reduced the Council's a b i l i t y to develop policy and to establish the necessary coordinating inner c i r c l e . Depending whether one favours the Model A or Model B perspective, Council appeared to be either unwilling or incapable of satisfactorily processing major decisions with long-term or city-wide implications. In addition, the results of the Model B analyses underlined the danger of drawing generalizations, especially about the administration, from superficial or cursory studies of city government. ( i i i ) When the two issues were compared i t was found that certain decision-making phenomena would have been excluded had only one issue been studied. These include intergovernmental interdependencies, bargaining and trade-offs among councillors and abrupt changes i n counci l lors ' goals. However, common conclusions from studying both issues included pressure groups being issue related, lack of p o l i t i c a l leadership and a lack of responsibi l i ty for city-wide interests,, F ina l ly , the study compared different sets of leverage points which were suggested by the two models. As an i l l u s t ra t i on , these leverages were subsequently used to identify different strategies for influencing the C i ty ' s decision-making process; strategies which could improve the provincial government's effort to achieve the policy objectives or ig ina l ly set for the City of Winnipeg's new structure. (iv) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES x PREFACE ' xiv I THE URBAN PROBLEM 1 The Urban Meta-Problem 10 II RESEARCH IN URBAN DECISION-MAKING 19 Approaches to Urban Decision-Making Research 20 Discussion 24 Canadian Research into Urban Decision-Making 30 III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 36 Two Conceptual Lenses 41 Case Study Methodology 44 Decision-Making versus Policy-Making 49 Policy Classification 54 Two Issues 56 Summary 58 (v) TABLE OF CONTENTS continued IV MODEL A POLITICAL PROCESS 60 A POLITICAL PROCESS PARADIGM 6l I Basic Unit of Analysis 62 I I Organizing Concepts 63 I I I Dominant Inference Pattern 72 IV General Propositions 73 V Evidence 76 V MODEL B ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS ! 77 AN ORGANIZATIONAL 1 PROCESS PARADIGM ' 79 I Basic Unit of Analysis 79 I I Organizing Concepts 80 I I I Dominant Inference Pattern 89 IV General Propositions 90 V . Flowchart Representation 94 VI Evidence 98 VI UNICITY MALL CASE STUDY 99 MODEL A: THE POLITICAL PROCESS LENS 104 A. Decision of the St. James-Assiniboia Community Committee 106 B. Decision of the Committee on Environment 131 (vi) TABLE OF CONTENTS continued C. Decis ion of C i t y Counci l 147 D. Subsequent Lawsuit 160 MODEL A: CONCLUSION 165 MODEL B: THE ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS LENS 177 MODEL B: CONCLUSION 223 VII RAIL RELOCATION CASE STUDY 246 MODEL A: THE POLITICAL PROCESS LENS 254 MODEL A: CONCLUSION 271 MODEL B: THE ORGANIZATION PROCESS LENS 285 A. I n i t i a t i o n of the R a i l Study 285 B. Prel iminary Stages 299 C. Completion of the R a i l Study 313 D. Release of the R a i l Study 329 MODEL B: CONCLUSION 352 VIII CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 368 TWO MODELS 368 TWO ISSUES 373 Differences 373 S i m i l a r i t i e s • 374 ( v i i ) TABLE OF CONTENTS continued POLICY IMPLICATIONS 378 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS 38? APPENDICES 390 I WINNIPEG AND THE CANADIAN URBAN ENVIRONMENT 391 A. Urban Government Legal-Constitutional Environment 391 B. Canadian Urban P o l i t i c a l Culture 394 C. Winnipeg-Historical Overview 396 D. The Winnipeg P o l i t i c a l Structure 405 E. Organization Charts and Maps 412 I I MODEL A BACKGROUND LITERATURE 418 A. Public Concept 418 B. Academic Perspective 423 The E l i t e / P l u r a l Debate 424 C. Bargaining and Co a l i t i o n Formation 434 D. External V a l i d i t y of Power Research Studies 440 I I I MODEL B BACKGROUND LITERATURE 442 A. Human I n t e l l e c t u a l Limitations 442 B. . Organization as a Unit of Analysis 446 C. Decision-Making i n Organizations 453 Heuristic Programming Process Theories 458 ( v i i i ) TABLE OF CONTENTS continued D. Organizational Ra t i ona l i t y 4°2 E. Organizational Environment 466 IV PROPOSED STUDY OF THE RATIONALIZATION OF THE RAILWAY SYSTEMS IN METROPOLITAN WINNIPEG: SUGGESTED STUDY ORGANIZATION 475 V RAIL STUDY PURPOSE OF STUDY 477 VI RAIL STUDY STUDY ORGANIZATION 478 VII REVISED STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 481 VIII RAIL STUDY PROGRAMS 482 IX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 483 BIBLIOGRAPHY 484 ( i x ) LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES 1 The Urban System 2a Real Urban Environment 2b Perceived Urban Environment 3 Diagram of a Five Stage Logical Path for Programmic Research 4 The Decision-making Process 5 "Series of decisions" model 6 Unicity Mall: ,Community Committee Level Actors 7 Unicity Mall: Committee on Environment Level Actors 8 Unicity Mall: Council Level Actors 9 Unicity Mall: Lawsuit Actors 10 Policy Guideline: In i t i a t i o n of Shopping Centre Study 11 Glendale Golf Course: Chief Commissioner Investigates Glendale 12 Glendale Golf Course: Directors' Report on Glendale 13 Unicity Mall: Mr. Haxby Coordinates Unicity Mall Analysis 14 Unicity Mall: Department Reports on Unicity Mall (x) FIGURES continued 15 Unicity Mall/Policy Guideline: Legal Advice on Mall and Greater Winnipeg Development Plan 200 16 Policy Guideline: Committee on Environment Produces Own Report 204 17 Formation of C.O.S.T. 263 18a Initiation of the Rail Study 288 18b Initiation of the Rail Study 290 18c Initiation of the Rail Study 293 18d Initiation of the Rail Study 295 19 Accelerated CPR Yard Study 302 20a Rail Study: Reducing the Scope 308 20b Rail Study: Reducing the Scope 312 21 Request for Additional Transportation Studies 322 22 Clarifying the Purpose 328 23 Council Approves Rail Relocation Program in Principle 331 24 Preparation of a Detailed Relocation Plan 333 25 Detailed Rail Relocation Plan Submitted 337 26 EPC and Council Reaction to Rail Study 344 27a Winnipeg Development Plan Policy Principles/Do Nothing Alternative 346 27b Winnipeg Development Plan Policy Principles/Do Nothing Alternative. 349 27c Winnipeg Development Plan Policy Principles/Do Nothing Alternative 350 (xi) TABLES I Canadian Population Growth — 1931-1971 2 I I Characteristics of Urban Decision-Making Models 25 I I I Unicity Mall: St. James-Assiniboia Councillor: Perceived Roles and Perceived Issue Scope 108 IV Standards for Types and Sizes i n Shopping Centres 114 V City of Winnipeg Shopping Centre — S i t e Area 115 VI Unicity Mall: Model A Variables: St. James-Assiniboia Community Committee Level 122 VII Unicity Mall: Model A Variables: Committee on Environment Level 140 VIII "Henderson" Report: Model A Variables: Committee on Environment Level 143 IX Unicity Mall: Model A Variables: C i t y Council Level 154 X Unicity Mall: Model A Variables: Subsequent Lawsuit 163 XI Unicity Mall: Major Actors i n Decision Series 164 XII Unicity Mall Model B Synopsis 179 XIII R a i l Relocation P o l i t i c a l Process 251 XIV Sherbrook-McGregor Overpass, St. V i t a l -Ft. Garry Bridge — P o l i t i c a l Process 253 XV R a i l Relocation — Model A Variables: Council Members . 255 ( x i i ) TABLES continued XVI Rail Relocation — Model Variables: Pressure Groups XVII Percentage of Rail Relocation Executive Committee Meetings Attended by-Individual Representatives (13 of 19 meetings) XVIII Percentage of Rail Relocation Technical Coordinating Committee Meetings Attended by Individual Representatives (28 of 54 meetings) XIX Rail Relocation Organizational Process: Release of Rail Study XX Summary of Propositions XXI Examples of Leverage Points Available to Change the Decision-Making Process XXII-1 Strategies for Policy Objectives XXII-2 Strategies for Policy Objectives XXII-3 Strategies for Policy Objectives FLOWCHARTS Organizational Process Model Flowchart Rezoning Procedure Flowchart Approving By-law 272/73 ( x i i i ) PREFACE My goal f o r t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s to contribute to our understanding of urban government decision-making. Using the multiple model methodology introduced by Graham A l l i s o n i n his seminal work, Essence of Decision, t h i s present study refines his decision models and applies them to the urban l e v e l of government. However, thxs analysxs reaches beyond A l l i s o n ' s single issue approach and studies two issues pertinent to the City of Winnipeg. As a r e s u l t , we are able to compare and contrast the perspectives given by two di f f e r e n t decision-making models on two d i f f e r e n t issues, and i n addition, compare the d i f f e r e n t sets of leverage points and strategies for intervention suggested by the two models. The desire to improve the decision-making a b i l i t y of urban government i s the raison d'etre behind t h i s study. Therefore, the format of t h i s analysis i s written with the desired audience i n mind — elected and appointed o f f i c i a l s i n a l l l e v e l s of government and urban c i t i z e n s i n general. S i m i l a r l y , t h i s study makes as few assumptions as possible about the readers' previous academic background i n the area. For example during the writing of t h i s paper, selections from various chapters appeared for public scrutiny i n the Manitoba Department of Urban A f f a i r s ' Newsletter, Urban A f f a i r s . I t was hoped that by forcing ^Graham T. A l l i s o n , Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban M i s s i l e  C r i s i s . Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Co., 1971. (ziv) a public communication role upon myself I would avoid writing only for the in i t i a t e d . Presumably this pre-publication device met with some success, for as a result, I was very pleased to receive discussion and comments on 'these various newsletter articles from a wide variety of individuals across Canada, ranging from high school students to university faculty and local politicians. The following report begins by introducing the concept of the "urban problem" and by identifying the importance of studying urban government decision-making (Chapter I ) . The current status of research i n this area i s reviewed, and i n particular, attention i s drawn towards Canadian literature (Chapter I I ) . Following this background to urban government decision-making, the study's methodology i s introduced (Chapter III) and the two models are developed — Model A, the P o l i t i c a l Process Model (Chapter IV) and Model B, the Organizational Process Model (Chapter V). The case studies then follow; each of the two models being applied to the two decision-making issues. Issue I, Unicity Mall, concerns the controversial establishment of a regional shopping centre i n Winnipeg (Chapter VI), while Issue I I , Rail Relocation, concerns the far reaching decision to relocate a l l the major r a i l lines and r a i l yards i n Winnipeg (Chapter VII). In the conclusion of this study, we compare and contrast the differing interpretations of the decision process which the two models offer. As well, we analyze the influence of the issue-scope upon the decision process and compare the different sets of leverage points and (xv) strategies which were suggested by the two models and by the resu l t s of our study (Chapter V I I I ) . For the readers ' i n t e re s t , Appendix I contains background information on the development and current structure of the C i t y of Winnipeg. Those unfami l iar with Winnipeg might benefit from th i s review before they read the case mater ia l . In add i t ion, Appendices I I and I I I contain the theo re t i ca l and research l i t e r a t u r e reviews which provide the bases f o r Model A and Model B. A great deal of the background information for the two issues came from personal interviews with many government administrators and p o l i t i c i a n s . I must record my appreciat ion of these ind iv idua l s who gave t h e i r f u l l cooperation and displayed an enthusiast ic in teres t i n my research. Although a l l of the interviewees are c i t ed i n the Bibl iography, anonymity was extended wherever possible and spec i f i c references to ind iv idua l s were made only when i t was necessary for a better understanding of the pa r t i cu l a r s i t ua t i on . With respect to the preparation of t h i s volume, I am indebted f i r s t of a l l , to Graham A l l i s o n whose Essence of Decis ion provided the framework fo r my study. I am also indebted to my d i s se r ta t i on committee, inc luding Professors Michael A. Goldberg, Paul Tennant, I l an Vert insky, and espec ia l l y Kenneth R. MacCrimmon and Vance F. M i t c h e l l , who together offered not only research d i r e c t i on but also steadfast moral support. Many k ind fr iends worked long hours with me, gathering data and preparing the manuscript. Without t h e i r help, t h i s study would not have been poss ib le. I s incere ly thank my research ass istants — Ted Pa lys , Barry Fogg, Margaret Apost le, Linda Ament, and i n pa r t i cu l a r my senior research ass i stant Maureen Grant; my t yp i s t s — Karen Adams, Karen Popp, Pauline Sparrow, and espec ia l l y my secretary Anne Parr; and the many reviewers who offered pert inent c r i t i c i sms and suggestions — Hazel Ramsey of the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, Tom Plunkett of the I n s t i t u te f o r Local Government at Queen's Un ivers i ty , P h i l Wichern of the Univers i ty of Manitoba, Jack Sklofsky of the Federal M in i s t ry of State fo r Urban A f f a i r s , Mario Perreault of the Government of Manitoba and Bor i s Hryhorczuk of the C i t y of Winnipeg. Most importantly, there would have been no study at a l l without the generous funding assistance from the Manitoba Department of Urban A f f a i r s and the Federal M in i s t ry of State f o r Urban A f f a i r s . And f i n a l l y , I extend a spec ia l acknowledgement to my wife Cathryn, to my fami ly , and to the many fr iends who pa t ien t l y accepted my recluse behavior during the long preparation of t h i s manuscript. Robert H. Kent March, 1975 I THE URBAN PROBLEM Academic interest i n Urban A f f a i r s and c i t y problems i s a conspicuous and pervading phenomenon of the 1970's. In Canada and the United States alone, there are more than 500 "public and private research agencies currently engaged i n research on urban problems",* at 2 least 200 professional journals are devoted s p e c i f i c a l l y to t h i s subject , l i t e r a l l y thousands of texts and a r t i c l e s have been written on the urban problem since 1970, and the number i s accelerating. Government has also responded. Both the Government of Manitoba and the Canadian Federal Government created a Mi n i s t r y for Urban A f f a i r s (1971) and many other P r o v i n c i a l Governments are planning to do likewise. To state that c i t i e s and urban regions are r i f e with society's c r i t i c a l problems seems rather t r i t e ; however, a case should be made to emphasize the s i t u a t i o n . I t i s obvious that Canada i n 19$7 was a predominantly r u r a l , farm-oriented country, with no c i t y larger than 200,000, and with less than 20$ of the population l i v i n g i n urban centres. By the beginning of the 1950's, over 60% of Canadian c i t i z e n s were l i v i n g i n c i t i e s , and now, the percentage fe d e r a l l y i s about 7 ^ t — around 70$ i n Manitoba and over 80% i n Ontario.^" Depending on whose report one reads and how "urban" i s defined, these figures change. l-Urban A f f a i r s Quarterly, Vol. 7 f No. 3 , March 1972, 2The Urban Social Change Review, Vol. 3 i Vol. 4 f and Vol. 5. ^See N. H. Lithwick i n Urban Canada: Problems and Prospects. (A report prepared for The Honourable R. K. Andras, Minister responsible for Housing, Government of Canada), Ottawa: 1970, p. 71. ^-Source: 1971 Census of Canada, S t a t i s t i c s Canada. See Table I . TABLE I CANADIAN POPULATION GROWTH - 1931-1971 1931 1951 1961 1971  % Change % Change % Change % of % of 1931- % of 1951- # of 1961-Population Total Population Total 1951 Population Total 19&L Population Total 1971 Total 10,376,786 100.0 14,009,429 100.0 35.0 18,238,247 100.0 30.2 21,568,310 100.0 18.3 Urban^ 5,573,798 53.7 8,628,253 61.6 54.8 12,700,390 69.6 47.2 16,410,785 71.6 29.2 Rural 4,802,988 46.3 5,381,176 38.4 12.0 5,537,857 30.4 2.9 5,157,525 23.9 -6.9 (1) Source; Census of Canada, 1931, 1951, 1961 and 1971. (2) The term • urban* is defined in the 1971 Census as including " a l l persons living in: (l) incorporated cities, towns and villages, with a population of 1,000 or over; (2) unincorporated places of 1.000 or over, having a population density of at least 1,000 per square mile; (3) the built up fringes of (l) and (2) having a minimum population of 1,000 and a density of at least 1,000 per square mile. The remaining population is rural." - 3 -However, the urban-rural population turnabout since Confederation i s obvious. Now assuming s o c i a l and economic problems eventually centre around people, and since more people l i v e i n the c i t i e s than i n the country, obviously there are going to be numerically more occurrences of s o c i a l and economic problems i n urban Canada than i n r u r a l Canada. But the "Urban Problem" i s much deeper than that. I n f l a t i o n , unemployment and poverty are problems which are obviously evident i n c i t i e s to a great extent, but they simply happen to occur i n c i t i e s and are found i n r u r a l Canada as w e l l . These are not problems of the c i t y , only examples of problems which are found i n 5 the c i t y . However, the fundamental source of the "Urban Problem" i s the process of urbanization i t s e l f . For perfectly r a t i o n a l and private economic reasons, people concentrated i n our c i t i e s i n ever-increasing proportions. Yet the consequences i n terms of s o c i a l cost grew so fa s t that by the time they were recognized, drastic solutions of a c r i s i s nature were required, f o r the increased population contributed to our slum c r i s i s , our p o l l u t i o n c r i s i s and our increasing crime r a t e . At the same time, t h i s process l e d to our accelerating urban sprawl, creating our transportation c r i s i s , our municipal revenue c r i s i s , our municipal service c r i s i s , and our housing c r i s i s . Now, considered i n t h i s l i g h t , i f we point to problems that are generally urban i n nature — ones that are central to the urban process — problems of the c i t y rather than just those found i n the c i t y — we f i n d that these problems share 'See; Lithwick, Urban Canada: Problems and Prospects, o p . c i t . - 4 -a common characteristic: they are highly inter-dependent. For example, housing, as part of the urban problem, is related to transportation and land use. Transportation and land use, in turn, effect the urban poor, the environment and the physical revenues of cities, which subsequently affect housing, and the cause-effect chain is looped back upon itself. As noted by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, The inter-relatedness of public policy is reflection of the inter-dependence of the social problems that policy tries to amelio-rate. Unlike the rural society of the past, urban Canada is characterized by an incredible complex and inter—active pattern of social problems. This patternal problem, is to a great extent, the result of urban living oand the pressures of increased urbanization. This fundamental inter-dependence is the basic crux of the urban problem and accordingly has serious implications for how governments solve the urban problem. Also, we should note that the "urban problem", inter-meshed with the total "urban process", is a product of not only the many inter-related present day problems but also of its past development. The vast amounts of capital tied up in transit infrastructure and in private fixed investments dictate that the changes are severely constrained. For example, planning in Winnipeg today is largely restricted by historical development. Besides the inter-relationships between the various problem areas, another major component of the urban problem is the very nature Municipal Submission to the First National Tri-Level Conference, November 21 and 22, 1972, by Mayor D. G. Newman, for the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, Document No. TCTi+t p« 47» of the c i t y ' s s i z e . Size alone with i t s weighty influence on urban housing, t r a f f i c congestion, health and the q u a l i t y of l i f e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t factor leading to the urban problem with which smaller municipalities do not have to contend. Figure 1 i s a simple portrayal of t h i s inter-connected s i t u a t i o n . Observe that the major problem facing researchers i s that we are not sure of either a l l the factors which make up t h i s complicated system, or the relationships between them. We know that i t i s a complicated process, but as to the exact nature of t h i s process — ? Attempts are being made to b u i l d simulation models of t h i s i n t e r -related network, by, for example, the Federal Ministry of Urban A f f a i r s on a national scale (The Macro-Urban Program Impact Model, MUPIM), the Ontario Government on a p r o v i n c i a l scale (PROMUS) and the University of B r i t i s h Columbia on a regional scale ( i n t e r - I n s t i t u t i o n a l P o l i c y Simulator, HPS).''' These models are primarily economic simulations since the s o c i a l and behavioral components of these models are s t i l l f or the most part unknown and there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the accuracy and r e l i a b i l i t y of the economic and behavioral models. I t i s suggested that one reason why we have an "Urban Problem" i n our Canadian c i t i e s i s that our municipal government decision-makers have f a i l e d to see the "urban problem" i n i t s proper perspective. These policy-makers or decision-makers have perceived the "urban problem" not as a system of inter-connected problems, as i n Figure 2a, but as ^See: Michael Goldberg, "Quality of L i f e and Urban Simulation Models: HPS", paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Schools of Business, June 6, 1972, M c G i l l University. C i ty Size i Public Economy Figure 1 (each l i n e represents a re lat ionsh ip) - 7 -Figure 2a Real Urban Environment - 8 -a c o l l e c t i o n of unrelated problems to be tackled as they appear or as the public draws attention to them. Figure 2b could represent t h i s kind of view. What the policy-maker saw was not problems of the c i t y , but problems i n the c i t y . Examples of problems i n the c i t y are poverty, housing costs, transportation congestion, environmental decay, s o c i a l unrest and f i n a n c i a l squeeze. Unfortunately, up to the present, government has dealt with these problems as i f they were unrelated i l l s f o r which direct solutions could be found. The mistake i n t h i s approach i s that we t r i e d to cure symptoms of a complicated problem and therefore never got around to t r e a t i n g the problem i t s e l f . Headache p i l l s do not cure a concussion. As a result there was and s t i l l i s a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of attempts to attack single problems and for the most part these attempts are to no a v a i l . In many cases, solutions have i n fact aggravated the problem. For example, i n some urban communities the removal of b l i g h t v i a urban renewal has l e d to i t s spread; subsidization of land acqu i s i t i o n i n the suburbs has l e d to costly sprawl and further land-cost increment; building roads has spread the population further and induced i t to drive more cars fo r more miles creating transportation problems. I t w i l l be shown i n subsequent chapters that our municipal government's decision-making mechanisms and structures are i n fact geared to t h i s inappropriate model of the c i t y . Primarily t h i s i s because we have had very l i t t l e understanding of the extent of urban problems, t h e i r impact and t h e i r r e a l causes. As a r e s u l t , urban poli c y has dealt with symptoms, not causes, and these problems have persisted with ever increasing severity. In conclusion we see that - 9 -Solution O Solution O Problem Solution Problem Problem Problem Problem Solution Solution Figure 2b Perceived Urban Environment - 10 -what has been portrayed as the "Urban Problem" i s a mesh of various i n d i v i d u a l problems in t e r - r e l a t e d i n a complex manner. When attacking one problem area, we should be aware of how the other areas might be affected, and of the b e n e f i c i a l or disastrous chain reactions which could follow. The Urban Meta-Problem > Urban problems — however i l l - d e f i n e d t h i s concept may be — are one of the main concerns of modern society. The t r a n s i t i o n to a saturated society i n which many of the material and service necessities of l i f e become free goods, the population growth, anticipated innovations i n technology, and many of the possible (though unpredictable) transformations i n culture and values — a l l w i l l result i n urban configuration and urban problems even more d i f f i c u l t to manage and resolve than the contemporary ones. 8 I f we can accept that the "Urban Problem" i s at least one of the most c r i t i c a l i n our society, then we might ask how urban governments and research organizations are coping with t h i s i n t e r - r e l a t e d and multivariate puzzle? F i r s t of a l l , consider the a c t i v i t i e s and interface between urban researchers seeking s o c i a l action, and government. The sit u a t i o n i n Canada appears t h i s way. Professional urban planners plan and submit t h e i r recommendations to the p o l i t i c i a n ; professional transportation experts design economically and l o g i s t i c a l l y better transportation systems and submit t h e i r recommendations to the p o l i t i c i a n ; urban ecologists % e h e z k e l Dror, Urban Metapolicy and Urban Education. Santa Monica, C a l i f o r n i a : The Rand Corporation, February, 1970, pp. 2 - 3 . - 11 -and environmentalists, p o l l u t i o n experts, sociologists with respect to urban slums, poverty and ghettos, resource s c i e n t i s t s with respect to power usage and natural resources, municipal finance experts, health planners, urban p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s — a l l conduct extensive research and submit t h e i r recommendations to the p o l i t i c i a n . Note that a l l of the above assaults upon i n d i v i d u a l sub-div i s i o n s of the "Urban Problem" follow a pattern — a problem i s eventually defined by the s p e c i a l i s t , solutions are developed and the recommendations are fed into the p o l i t i c a l machinery for anticipated action. But consider t h i s process. The objective for the researcher or of the research i s to solve a p a r t i c u l a r problem — increasingly urban research i s action- and problem-oriented. However, no matter how ingenious the research proposal or how optimal the solution might be, unless i t passes r e l a t i v e l y quickly through the p o l i t i c a l decision-making f i l t e r and retains i t s p r i n c i p a l components, the solution could very w e l l become suboptimal or dysfunctional, or i t could be completely bypassed. In other words, the many expensive and time-consuming research a c t i v i t i e s which attempt to tackle the "Urban Problem" may be "sound and fury" s i g n i f y i n g nothing, i f they cannot pass from p o t e n t i a l i t y into a c t u a l i t y through the p o l i t i c a l decision-making process. Thus i t seems that most studies into solving the "Urban Problem" are dependent upon the government policy-making system for implementation. This dependence has been noted i n recent behavioral and policy-making l i t e r a t u r e ; I f we think of the transmission of research findings from the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s to the set of persons who l e g i s l a t e and operate public programs as involving the passage of information through a series of channels - 12 -such that the research results may be blended with other kinds of information, e.g. about political repercussions, then i t is lUcely that the nature and the significance of the research results may be distorted or that the results, even i f they satisfy a l l the other criteria to a high degree, may not reach the f u l l set of policy decision-makers, or i f they do they may be incomprehensible to them.' Besides distorting information, the decision-maker, or decision process, can restrict information by sequentially responding to short term pressure — symptoms of difficulty — since policy-makers are more interested in the intensity of problems rather than their duration.^ Therefore, the decision process proceeds incrementally and emphasizes policies perhaps beneficial in the short run which 11 could be counter-productive in the long run. Jay Forrester refers to these unforeseen consequences caused by short term behavior and 12 the complexities of the Urban System as counter-intuitive results. 9 'Irving, R. Silver, "The Role of Social Science Research in Urban Policy", Plan Canada, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1972, p. 110. See also: Y. Dror, Urban  Metapolicy and Urban Education, op.cit. and J. David Edelstein and Malcolm Warner, "Voting and Allied Systems in Group Decision-Making: Their Relationship to Innovation, Competition and Conflict Resolution", Human Relations. Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 179 - 188. 1 0The Science Council of Canada, "Cities for Tomorrow", Report No. 14, September, 1971. ^Charles E. Lindblom, The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cli f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968; Charles E. Lindblom, "The Science of Muddling Through", Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, Spring, 1959, pp. 79 - 88; N. H. Lithwick, "Urban Policy-Making: Shortcomings in Political Technology", Canadian Public Administration, Vol. 15, No. 4, Winter, 1972, pp. 571 - 584; Thomas J. Plunkett, The  Financial Structure and the Decision-Making Process of Canadian Municipal  Government. Ottawa: The Policy Planning Division, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, March, 1972. 12 Jay W. Forrester, Urban Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass 0; M.I.T. Press: 1969. - 13 -Also, procedures being somewhat r i g i d , process what they have been structured to deal with and collect information on what they know or 13 what they require information on. Friedrich points to another aspect of government decision-making — voting — and notes that although the idealized process should not be dichotomic with respect to decision alternatives, voting practices seem to face an either/or situation. "The situation i s further complicated by the fact that, such public discussions are, on account of their publicity, so d i f f i c u l t to reach that the true decision-making i s transferred to party conclaves or even more restricted groups — groups which meet i n secrecy or at least allow only limited p u b l i c i t y . " 1 ^ Bear i n mind, however, that when one talks about a decision-maker, i t i s not necessarily an individual but perhaps a whole organization and "that i t i s quite possible for a decision problem to exceed the 15 processing capacity of the total organization." For example, the 13 For example see: J . D. Stewart, "Forward From Corporate Planning", Local Government Chronicle t August 4, 1972, pp. 1320 - 1321; and Michel Crozier, "The Relationship Between Micro and Macrosociology", Human Relations, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 239 - 251. ^ C a r l J . Friedrich, " P o l i t i c a l Decision-Waking, Public Policy and Planning", Canadian Public Administration, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring, 1971f p» 5» Also see a discussion on government decision-making secrecy: Gordon Robertson, "The Growing Leak of Secret Documents", The Globe and Mail, Thursday, September 7, 1972, p. 7 • and Gordon Fairweather, "Why the Sacred Cow Should Die and the Public Should See More", The Globe and Mail, Saturday, September 9, 1972, p. 7. 15 K. R. MacCrimmon, "Decision-Making among Multiple Attribute Alternatives: A Survey and a Consolidated Approach", Rand Publication, No. RM 4S23 A.R.P.A., December, I96S, p. 5. "Urban Problem'' i s clearly a multi-dimensional network of inter-relationships challenging the capacity of the decision-maker to register and process the information.^ However, "the most common approach to these decision problems i s to attempt to reduce that dimensionality of the problem. This reduction commonly results i n alternatives that while described by the original number of attributes, 17 are evaluated i n a space of smaller dimensionality." ' In other words, the decision process reduces the complexity of the problem and i t s solutions to a form that i s simple enough to be processed but probably lacking i n sufficient meaningful content. It would appear then that a government decision-making system could obstruct the "urban Problem-Solving" process and pose a major 18 source of environmental uncertainty for urban researchers and planners. Secondly, what of the co-ordination between the many individual researchers and institutions that the inter-disciplinary "Urban Problem" demands? Generally speaking, research organizations studying facets See: Karl E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1969? and, David Klahr, "Decision-making i n a Complex Environment", unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1967, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 17 'MacCrimmon, "Decision-making among Multiple Attribute Alternatives: A Survey and a Consolidated Approach", op.cit., p. 7« 18 See: J . K. Friend and W. N. Jessop, Local Government and Strategic  Choice: An Operational Research Approach to Processes of Public  Planning, Beverley H i l l s , California: Sage Publications, 1969; and J . K. Friend and C. J . L. Yewlett, "Inter-Agency Decision Processes: Practice and Prospect", a paper presented to the conference, "Beyond Local Government Reform: Some Prospects for Evolution i n Public Policy Networks", Institute for Operational Research, December, 1971. - 15 -of the "Urban Problem" are unorganized both within and among themselves — not disorganized but unorganized. The United States has begun an Urban Observatory Program of co-ordinated research among three l eve l s of government and ten c i t i e s . In Canada t h i s i s not the case. Apart from attempts by some govern-ments and quasi-governmental agencies to catalogue research a c t i v i t i e s (The Manitoba M in i s t r y f o r Urban A f f a i r s , the Federal M in i s t ry of State fo r Urban A f f a i r s , the Canadian Council on Urban and Regional Research, and the Inter-Governmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research) and some e f fo r t s at co-ordinat ion by i n t e r - d i s c i p l i n a r y i n s t i t u t e s on a few Canadian campuses ( for example the Resource Science workshop at the Resource Science Centre of the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia), there i s l i t t l e co-ordinated research e f f o r t between the plethora of agencies and academics who pol lute the urban scene with multitudinous interv iews, measurements, theories and reports , i n hope of squeezing t h e i r f indings through the decis ion f i l t e r s of the p o l i c y -making system. I t becomes apparent then that there ex i s t at l eas t two over-r i d i n g problems (meta-problems) requ i r ing so lut ion i n order to solve the "Urban Problem"; co-ordinat ion of research a c t i v i t i e s — necessary considering the i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y and mult ivar iate nature of the "Urban Problem" — and a thorough ana lys i s , understanding and eventual improvement of the p o l i t i c a l decision-making system (Dror refers to t h i s as Metapolicymaking),"^ The f i r s t metaproblem i s an organizat ional Yehezkel Dror, Publ ic Policy-Making Re-examined. Scranton, Pennsylvania: The Chandler Publ ishing Company, 1968 0 problem; the knowledge i s available and only the ef f o r t i s required. The second metaproblem i s a research problem requiring intensive study into policy-making processes. Observe, however, that being disjointed 20 and incremental applies not only to the urban decision-making process, but also to the ef f o r t s of those who attempt to solve the "Urban Problem". 2 1 One might ask why public agencies have devoted so l i t t l e e f f o r t 22 to improve the process of policy-making. Some argue that metapolicy-making i s " d i f f i c u l t with no obvious rewards attached to i t . " 2 ^ The p o l i t i c i a n ' s short time horizon and desire f o r fast and re a d i l y recognizable returns on p o l i t i c a l investment are probably part of the reason. We could also note that p o l i t i c a l leaders usually have l i t t l e time, expertise or administrative mechanism for such metapolicymaking a c t i v i t i e s . Others point out that "planning i s homologous with organization" 2^ and that the planning procedures of an organization are constrained by 20Charles E. Lindblom, The Intelligence of Democracy; Decision-Making  Through Mutual Adjustment. New Y o r k : T h e Free Press, 1965; D. Braybrooke and Charles E. Lindblom, A Strategy of Decision. New York: The Free Press, 1963. 2lThomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962. 2 2 I n March, 1972, the Federal Government established an I n s t i t u t e for Research on Public P o l i c y , a f i r s t attempt i n Canada to meet t h i s need. 23james M. Lyday, "An Advocate's Process Outline for P o l i c y Analysis. A Case of Welfare Reform". Urban A f f a i r s Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. k, June, 1972, p. 398. 24stafford Beer, An Address on "Inscape-Landscape", Ideas, C.B.C. Radio Documentary program, Friday, November 17, 1972. - 17 -25 the attitudes and behavior of the organization i t s e l f . Therefore, i n order to change an organization*s planning procedures, which would include changes i n policy-making practices, a metasystem i s suggested which could operate outside of the behavioral constraints of the system seeking change. This reasoning supports the concept of a senior l e v e l of government (a metasystem) assisting an urban government to redesign and evaluate i t s policy-making system. We should also be aware that although parts of the complex decision-making process are explicit and directly observable, many others proceed by hidden channels that the participants themselves 26 are often only pa r t i a l l y aware of. This makes the system's observation and evaluation d i f f i c u l t and perhaps impossible for the participant p o l i t i c i a n . Another reason for the paucity of metapolicymaking i s that the analysis of p o l i t i c a l decision-making systems from a behavioral and inter-disciplinary approach i s s t i l l an embryonic endeavour. Without this knowledge, many are misled and make the mistake of refining the inputs of the decision process while neglecting the analysis and 27 improvements of the decision process as a whole. 25 W^, B, Eddy and R, J, Saunders, "Applied Behavioral Science i n Urban Administrative/Political Systems", Public Administration Review, Vol. 32, No, 1, January - February, 1972. 26 Y. Dror, Public Policy-making Re-examined, op,cit., p, 12. 27 'An example of this i s found i n ; New Approaches to Public Decision- Making, Special Study No. 18, by Alice M. Rivlin, prepared for the Economic Council of Canada, January, 1972 and reviewed by R. A. Johnson i n Canadian Public Administration, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1972, p. 665. - 18 -In conclusion then, we see that the "Urban Problem" i s a c r i t i c a l top ic f o r research, and that a major i f not the major focus f o r invest igat ion i s urban policy-making — how does the p o l i t i c a l process make decis ions and how can that process be improved? The concern i s not fo r the weaknesses i n present urban p o l i c i e s , but for the apparent i n a b i l i t y of our urban policy-making systems to handle the present and future "Urban Problem". F i n a l l y , i n a foreboding tone, and as a p lea f o r a c t i v i t y , Dror states that "whi le the d i f f i c u l t i e s and dangers of [Urban] problems tend to increase at a geometric r a te , the knowledge and manpower qua l i f i ed to deal with these problems tend 28 to increase at an arithmetic r a t e . " More simply, problems are increasing fas ter than are the e f f o r t s and capacit ies to solve them. Y . Dror, Urban Metapolicy and Urban Education, o p . c i t . , p. 3 I I RESEARCH IN URBAN GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING The following discussion of Urban Government Decision-Making research i s not an i n c l u s i v e review of the l i t e r a t u r e . The intention i s to review the approaches that the academic world uses to understand how decisions are made i n a c i t y government. A source of information that Dror notes i s not included, namely bibliographies of p o l i t i c a l participants. This i s not to say that important information cannot be found i n these anecdotal reports;"'' but the present analysis i s being r e s t r i c t e d to the more d i s c i p l i n e d approach of developing a body of systematic theory on Urban Decision-Making. This analysis i s also r e s t r i c t e d to research of urban government decision-making as opposed to government decision-making i n general. The analysis i s organized around the research models or paradigms which are used, and includes a review of appropriate Canadian research. At t h i s stage i n the discussion, decision-making s h a l l be synonymous with policy-making. ^See for example: Edward N. Costikyan, Behind Closed Doors. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966; James M. Curley, I'd Do I t Again. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957; Gene Fowler, Beau James. New York: Viking, 1949; Alex Gottfried, Boss Cermak of  Chicago. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1962; John V. Lindsay, Journey into P o l i t i c s . New York: Dodd Mead, 1967; Mike Royko, Boss: Richard Daley of Chicago. New York: Signet Publications, 1971; Alan R. Talbot, The Mayor's Game. New York: Harper and Row, 1967; Lloyd Wendt and Herman Kogan, Big B i l l of Chicago. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1953; Brand Whitlock, Forty Years of I t . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1925; Leonard J . Ruchelman (ed.) Big C i t y  Mayors: The C r i s i s i n Urban P o l i t i c s . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969. - 19 -- 20 -Approaches to Urban Decision-Making Research There are f i v e basic research paradigms which frame academic research into urban decision-making. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of these f i v e models results from a blending of paradigm taxonomies developed by K i r l i n and o E r i e with respect to urban decision-making^ and Dye with respect to 3 government policy-making i n general. Excluded are two models c i t e d by K i r l i n and E r i e on po l i c y output ("Resource" and "Symbols") since these approaches do not t r y to understand the decision-making process per se. The f i v e models are: I n s t i t u t i o n a l , E l i t i s t , Group, Incremental, and Culture. Most urban decision-making research employs one of these f i v e models; some, of course, use combinations. Concrete di v i s i o n s between paradigms are tenuous; however, research studies can be categorized quite successfully into at least one of the f i v e . ^ 1. I n s t i t u t i o n a l Model The I n s t i t u t i o n a l Model considers the structure of urban government organizations as either a dependent, independent or 2 John J . K i r l i n and Stephen T. E r i e , "The Study of C i t y Governance and Policy-Making: A C r i t i c a l Appraisal", Public Administration Review, March/April, 1972, pp. 173 - 184. 3Thomas R. Dye, Understanding Public P o l i c y . Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. 4 F o r example, K i r l i n and E r i e refer to the Group paradigm as the "Cleavage" model and combine the E l i t i s t and P l u r a l i s t paradigms into a "Power" model. Dye, on the other hand, combines the P l u r a l i s t and Group paradigms into a "Group" model and retains the E l i t i s t model by i t s e l f . This analysis w i l l follow the Dye c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . - 21 -intervening var iab le with respect to the po l i c y resource base and po l i c y output. Usual ly t h i s approach begins with a s imp l i s t i c descr ipt ion of the formal structure of urban government. For example, studies of formal p o l i t i c a l structure commonly pos i t two types of government s t ructure, "Reformed" and "Unreformed". This two part c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s made on broad organizat ional var iables such as the presence of non-partisan e lec t i on s , the use of c i t y managers, ward e lec t ions , e t c . The object of I n s t i t u t i o n a l studies i s apparently to discover the impact of i n s t i t u t i o n a l or organizat ional arrangements on po l i c y formulation. 2. E l i t i s t Model This model, which K i r l i n and Er ie re fe r to as a Power model, concerns i t s e l f with studying the preferences and values of a governing e l i t e . The model looks at who governs and who makes decisions as opposed to what makes decis ions or how decisions are made.** An assumption of the E l i t e paradigm i s that power i n a community i s h ighly centra l i zed with membership drawn d i sproport ion-ate ly from the upper socioeconomic s t ra ta of soc iety . Membership i n the " e l i t e " i s also r e l a t i v e l y stable and publ ic po l i c y does not r e f l e c t demands of society but values of the e l i t e . In conclusion, the e l i t e s influence masses more than masses influence e l i t e s . ^ 5 Charles Lindblom, The Policy-Making Process, o p . c i t . ^Thomas R. Dye, Understanding Publ ic Po l i c y , o p . c i t . , p. 20; and Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, "Decisions and Nondecisions: An Ana l y t i c a l Framework", The American P o l i t i c a l Science Review, V o l . 57, 1963, pp. 632 - 642. - 22 -3 . Group Model The Group model proposes that interaction among groups i s the central fact of p o l i t i c s , and public policy at any given time i s the equilibrium reached i n this group struggle. Group theory purports to describe a l l meaningful p o l i t i c a l activity i n terms of the group struggle. Policy-makers are viewed as constantly responding to group pressures — bargaining, negotiating, and compromising, among competing demands of influential groups.7 In terms of the plu r a l i s t , community power i s widely diffused. Changes, therefore, i n the relative power of interest groups can be expected to result i n policy changes. Also, individuals who contribute to a part of the urban decision-making process take their cues for p o l i t i c a l behavior from the reference groups with which they identify. Examples of the many dimensions of reference groups or cleavages i n society are economic class, organized group interests, socio—ethnic classification, ideology and income and occupation. 4* Incremental Model "Incrementalism views public policy as a continuation of past government ac t i v i t i e s with only incremental modifications." This model of government decision-making was f i r s t proposed by Lindblom 9 i n his famous ar t i c l e "The Science of Muddling Through", and has Dye, Understanding Public Policy, op.cit., p. 24 - 25. ^Ibid. t p. 30. ^Charles E. Lindblom, "The Science of Muddling Through", op.cit. - 23 -been elaborated i n more detail i n subsequent publications• J" w Applications of this model i n the urban scene are rare and usually i n conjunction with the other models. For the most part the Incremental model has been used either on a federal, international or state l e v e l , and mainly with respect to the budgeting process. 5» Culture Model The Culture model highlights the differences between communities to account for differences i n government structure, administrative styles and the functional emphasis of pursued policies. Culture i s unfortunately a nebulous term, synonymous with environment. Questions that the researcher would ask are, ( l ) What are the significant dimensions of the environment that generate demands upon the p o l i t i c a l system; (2) How do environmental (cultural) inputs affect the character and content of the p o l i t i c a l system; and (3) How does public policy affect, through feedback, the environment and the character of the p o l i t i c a l system? Two models not included i n this survey which are used by Dye 11 12 are the Systems model and the Rationalism model. I t i s f e l t 1 0Charles E. Lindblom, The Intelligence of Democracy, op.cit.; Lindblom, The Policy-Making Process, op.cit.; Braybrooke and Lindblom, A Strategy  of Decision, op.cit. ''"•'•See for example the systems models developed by: Terry N. Clark (ed.) Community Structure and Decision-Making: Comparative  Analyses. Scranton, Pennsylvania: Chandler Publishing Co., 1968; Annmarie Hauck Walsch, The Urban Challenge to Government: an  international comparison of thirteen c i t i e s . New York: Praeger Publishers, 1969» 1 2 F o r example Dror's Optimal model i n Public Policy-Making Re-examined, op.cit.. Part IV. - 24 -that the Systems model i s more corre c t l y a framework i n which any of the f i v e paradigms can be used, and that the Rationalism model i s an i d e a l normative goal that the researcher would use as a frame-of-reference to evaluate his descriptive research r e s u l t s . Table I I compares the f i v e models along the following four dimensions: (adapted from K i r l i n and Erie's review) a) Image of P o l i t i c a l Man - the s t i m u l i and mechanisms which lead to an individual's p o l i t i c a l behavior. b) Image of the P o l i t i c a l System - d e f i n i t i o n of the manner i n which the p o l i t i c a l system operates,, c) Concepts of Change and Points of Leverage - how p o l i t i c a l systems i n c i t i e s change and the points of manipulation which w i l l effect change. d) Type of Model - characteristics of the models employed, defined as: normative (prescriptive of a p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l system); descriptive (post hoc explanations of relations among dimensions of p o l i t i c a l systems); predictive (anticipatory hypotheses r e l a t i n g changes among dimensions of p o l i t i c a l systems). Discussion Relative merits, strengths and weaknesses of these paradigms have been debated f o r some time i n the p o l i t i c a l science l i t e r a t u r e . " ^ ^See for example Nelson W. Polsby, "How to Study Conimunity Power: The P l u r a l i s t Alternative", Journal of P o l i t i c s , Vol. 22, August, I960, pp. 474 - 484; Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, "Two Faces of Power", The American P o l i t i c a l Science Review, Vol. 56, December, 1962, pp. 947 - 952; Thomas J . Anton, "Power Pluralism and Local P o l i t i c s " , Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 7, March, 1963, pp. 425 - 457; Theodore Lowi, The End of Liberalism. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, I969 and; Andrew S. McFarland, Power and Leadership i n P l u r a l i s t Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969. TABLE I I CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN DECISION-MAKING MODELS Paradigm or Model Image of P o l i t i c a l Man Image of P o l i t i c a l System Concepts of Change and Points of Leverage Type of Model I n s t i t u t i ona l E l i t i s t Group Incremental Culture Uniform, mechanist ical ly responding to l e g a l / s t ruc tu ra l s t imu l i Responds to force st imul i ? assumption of d i f f e r i n g in te res t s and of act ion which i s i n ten t i ona l Indiv iduals enmeshed i n a referent group, responding to i t s cues i n p o l i t i c a l behavior Limited i n i n te l l i gence and time to invest igate a l l a l te rna t i ve s . Conservative. Evaluative standards of p o l i t i c a l l y appropriate behavior and structures serve as cues to p o l i t i c a l behavior Exact ly re f l ec ted i n l e g a l structures Con f l i c t ua l , with power i n t e r r e l a t i o n -ships as basic structure Competitive group p o l i t i c s Reactionary, slow to implement new p o l i c i e s , conserva-t i v e , cautious System whose a c t i v i t i e s are bounded by the " c u l t u r a l l y accept-able"? may be c o n f l i c t u a l or consensual Change laws and l e g a l l y defined ins t i tut ions ? change i s in tent iona l Economic power Group organization and t a c t i c s Improve alternat ives Changes i n cu l ture, most frequently through s oc i a l i z a t i on and opinion Descr ipt ive ? f o r reformers, normative Descr ipt i ve -normative Descr ipt ive-pred ict ive Descript ive Descr ipt ive - 26 -The following arguments are directed towards some of the models i n pa r t i c u l a r , and a l l i n general. 1) The E l i t i s t model asks the question "Who runs the community?" This, as Lindblom 1^ and Bachrach and Baratz 1-* note, i s the wrong question to ask. What i s required i s to ask how decisions are made and what the decision-making process i s . I f these questions are not asked, i t seems that the E l i t i s t model w i l l c o r r e c t l y answer the wrong question. 2) E l i t i s t models also assume that the power structure tends to be stable over time. P l u r a l i s t s hold that power may be t i e d to issues, and issues can be f l e e t i n g or persistent, provoking c o a l i t i o n s among interested groups and c i t i z e n s , ranging i n t h e i r duration from momentary to semi-permanent. . . . To presume that the set of c o a l i t i o n s which exists i n the community at any given time i s a timelessly stable aspect of s o c i a l structure i s to introduce systematic inaccuracies into one's description of s o c i a l r e a l i t y . 3) E l i t i s t models employ an i n v a l i d concept of power and usually f a i l to d istinguish between power, influence, and authority. Bachrach and Baratz believe that: power i s neither the only nor even the major factor underlying the process of decision-making and the actions thereto. We believe, i n f a c t , that i n some situations power i s not involved at a l l , that i n such situations the 14charles E. Lindblom, The Policy-Making Process, op.cit. •^Bachrach and Baratz, "Two Faces of Power", op.cit. ^Nelson W. Polsby, "How to Study Community Power: The P l u r a l i s t Alternative", op.cit., pp. 478 - 479. - 27 -behavior of decision-makers and their subjects alike can be explained p a r t i a l l y or entirely i n terms of force, influence, or authority••'-7 and also that; a decision cannot be said to be a result of power or influence or authority or force unless and u n t i l i t i s specified from whose point of view the decision i s being examined, i.e., from that of the one who seeks compliance or of the one who gives i t . ^ 8 4) The five paradigms offer no concrete c r i t e r i a for distinguishing between important and unimportant decisions. Studies of urban decision-making are usually centred around one or a few policy decisions subjectively chosen for study by the researcher. The nature of the decision content and topic may predetermine the results. Perhaps important decisions are processed differently from non-important decisions. I f so, the resultant research would be a theory of urban important-decision-making. 5) The models disregard that power, with respect to decision-making, may be exercised by confining the scope of decision-making to relatively "safe" issues. The researcher's model will lead him to study those decisions that get to some decision-making forum. But what process determines whether an issue gets this far? These decisions are only at one end of a two-tailed decision-making process. Bachrach and Baratz, "Decisions and Non-Decisions: An Analytical Framework", op.cit., p. 640. |lbid., p. 641. - 28 -Stated d i f f e r e n t l y , can the researcher overlook the chance that some person or associat ion could l i m i t decision-making to r e l a t i v e l y non-controversial matters, by inf luenc ing community values and p o l i t i c a l procedures and r i t u a l s , notwithstanding that there are i n the community serious but l a ten t power c o n f l i c t s ? l Q Bachrach and Baratz r e fe r to t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n as "dec i s ions " and "non-decis ions", 6) In general, these models have been used to study decisions that were important enough to draw the researcher ' s a t tent ion . However, urban decision-making also includes the day-to-day routine decis ions. There i s no reason to be l ieve, however, that t h i s unexcit ing phase of the decision-making process does not great ly a f fect the more observable decision-making that draws publ ic and academic a t tent ion . The above models do not lead the s c i en t i s t to invest igate t h i s area of decision-making. Weick draws attent ion to t h i s problem: A large number of organization theories [which would include decision-making theor ies] could l eg i t imate l y be re labe l l ed " theor ies of c r i s i s " . This i s so because many of them have more to say about the pathology of organizations than about t he i r normalcy. Nobody seems to know much about how organizations operate i n untroubled timesj the day-to-day, routine existence of organizations i s not given much a t tent ion . In the world of the theor ies , organizations seem to lope along from c r i s i s to c r i s i s , and do nothing very i n te res t ing i n between. Bachrach and Baratz, "Two Faces of Power", o p . c i t . , p. 949 - 29 -This emphasis on pathology i s misleading, i f i t implies that routine a c t i v i t y i s not problematic. I n e r t i a and routine, on-going a f f a i r s are not nearly as easy to explain as they might appear to be. ^ 7) Since the models i n d i v i d u a l l y focus on one p a r t i c u l a r type of influence i n the decision-making process (an E l i t e , a c o l l e c t i o n of groups, a bureaucratic structure, the culture, incremental behavior) a single-causality view of urban decision-making i s reinforced. By themselves, the models would lead us to believe that urban decision-making i s influenced primarily by one source. However, i t i s safe to assume that urban decision-making, l i k e the "urban problem", i s multivariate and that obstacles to better urban decision-making are multi-causal. 8) The actual urban decision-making process i s s t i l l for the most part a "black box", and, as previously stated, the models do not direct our e f f o r t s to reveal i t s workings. This problem i s discussed 2 1 by Dye ; however, he s t i l l leaves readers contemplating a mysterious urban decision-making "black box". 2 0 K a r l E. Weick, The S o c i a l Psychology of Organizing. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1969» p. 34. 2 1Dye, Understanding Public P o l i c y , o p . c i t . , Ch. 12. - 30 -Canadian Research into Urban Decision-Making During the past decade, attention has been drawn to the c u l t u r a l differences between Canada and the United States. These differences stem from the d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s i n government i n s t i t u t i o n s , 22 r e l i g i o u s t r a d i t i o n s , and h i s t o r y , and manifest themselves i n values towards individualism, equality of opportunity, aesthetic appreciation and morality, e l i t i s m , ethnic i d e n t i t y , t r a d i t i o n and family l i f e ; 2 ^ respect f o r authority and deference towards p o l i t i c a l leadership; 2^ 25 and business attitudes or ethics. J These studies, reinforced by the results of "culture" research into American urban decision-making, caution attempts to apply research results i n Canada from American studies. As recently noted, "The wealth of material available from both B r i t i s h and United States sources, Seymour Martin Lipset, "Revolution and Counter-Revolution: The United States and Canada", i n Thomas Ford (ed.) The Revolutionary  Theme i n Contemporary America. Lexington, Kentucky: The University of Kentucky Press, 1965» PPo 21 - 64, also; S. M. Lipset, Revolution  and Counter-Revolution; Change and Persistence i n Social Structures. New York: Basic Books, 1968. 2 3 l b i d . , and; S. D. Clark, The Developing Canadian Community. Second Ed i t i o n . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968, and; S. D. Clark, Canada, The Uneasy Neighbour. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1965. 24Harold Kaplan, Urban P o l i t i c a l Systems: A Functional Analysis of  Metropolitan Toronto. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967t and; Edmund Fowler and Robert L. Lineberry, "The Comparative Analysis of Urban Policy: Canada and the United States", i n Harlan Hahn (ed.) People and P o l i t i c s i n Urban Society. B e v e r l y . H i l l s , C a l i f o r n i a : Sage Publications, 1972, pp. 345 - 368. 2 5 v . F. M i t c h e l l and B. Cole, "Student, Faculty, and Executive Attitudes Towards Business and Society: A Canadian-U.S. Comparison", proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Canadian Schools of Business, 1972. - 31 -while he lp fu l and informative, has very l im i t ed d i r ec t relevance to the Canadian scene". To be relevant to an analys is of the C i t y of Winnipeg, mater ia l reviewed must include Canadian research; remembering however that cultures d i f f e r among the many regions w i th in Canada. I t i s i n t h i s l i g h t that a comprehensive review of American studies was not deemed as c r i t i c a l as the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the major approaches, with t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s , used to research urban dec i s i on -making. Urban decision-making research i n Canada i s sparse. A recent review of a l l Canadian urban l i t e r a t u r e concluded that Toronto p o l i t i c s i s studied most often and i s used as a basis f o r genera l izat ion 2 ' ' ' . Metropolitan Toronto, however, has at l ea s t one-tenth of Canada1s population and with i t s metropolitan government, the relevance to other Canadian urban areas must be doubted. A l so, the knowledge that i s developed i s general ly e i ther opinions, impressions or genera l izat ions, 2ft based on l im i t ed r e l i a b l e research . Within the s pec i a l i t y of urban decision-making, t h i s pattern i s repeated. The majority of the research analyzing how decis ions are made i n urban government has been of a j ou r na l i s t i c case-study nature, one-sided against " b i g c i t y government" and usua l ly with no 2 ^M. Brownstone, et a l . , "Report to the M in i s t ry of State fo r Urban A f f a i r s on a Conceptual Framework f o r Research i n Urban Government and C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n " , mimeo, January 30, 1973i P« 42. 2 ? P . H. Wichern, "Canadian Urban P o l i t i c s : The Status of a F i e l d " , paper prepared f o r a Departmental Colloquium, Department of P o l i t i c a l Studies, Univers i ty of Manitoba, January 16, 1972. 2 8 I b i d . - 32 -t heo re t i ca l bas i s . These studies are wr i t ten with an i m p l i c i t E l i t i s t or Group model approach and describe the confrontation between government and developers, or c i t i z e n groups and c i t y h a l l on zoning 29 or redevelopment issues. ' There i s , of course, value i n these studies, 30 espec ia l l y with respect to the re su l t i ng primary data gathered. However, general izat ions and appl icat ions are d i f f i c u l t to draw. Another drawback i s that the mode of change or leverage which these studies would suggest i s to change the representation of the e l i t e or to restructure the pressure groups. In the case of Toronto, the r u l i n g e l i t e has been changed recent ly and now includes many of 31 the o ld outsider pressure groups. Time w i l l t e l l i f t h i s broorafull of new e l i t e s w i l l br ing with i t a change i n urban decision-making. Evidence suggests that a change i n the people w i l l not lead so ea s i l y 29 See: Lloyd Axworthy, "The Citizen and Neighborhood Renewal", The  Future City, Report No. 3. Winnipeg: Institute of Urban Studies, The University of Winnipeg, 1972; The Bureau of Municipal Research, "Neighborhood Participation i n Local Government", Civic A f f a i r s . Toronto: Bureau of Municipal Research, 1970; Graham Fraser, Fighting Back. Toronto: Hakkert Publishers, 1972; Jack Granastein, Marlborough Marathon. Toronto: Hakkert and James, Lewis, Samuel, 1971; Dorene Jacobs, "The Annex Ratepayers1 Association: Citizen Efforts to Exercise Social Choice i n Their Urban Environment", in James Draper (ed.) Citizen Participation: Canada. Toronto: New Press, 1971, pp. 288 - 306; James Lorimer, A Citizen's Guide to City  P o l i t i c s . Toronto: James, Lewis, Samuel, 1972; James Lorimer, The Real World of City P o l i t i c s . Toronto: James, Lewis, Samuel, 1970; Beatrice Schriever, "Citizens Prevent a Zoning Change", Community Planning Review, Vol. 22, No. 5, 1972; John Sewell, Up Against City Hall. Toronto: James, Lewis, Samuel, 1972; Vancouver Urban Research Group, Forever Deceiving You: The Politics  of Vancouver Development. Vancouver: Vancouver Urban Research Group, 1972. 30 See for example Lorimer, A Citizen's Guide to City P o l i t i c s , op.cit. 31 Toronto Globe and Mail. December 25, 1972, p. 1 and p. 7. - 33 -32 to a change i n the process. The other urban decision-making studies of Canadian c i t i e s can be c l a s s i f i e d as using e i ther the I n s t i t u t i o n a l , E l i t i s t , Group or Culture models. No studies have been found which tes t out the Incremental model. The best analys is of urban decision-making i s s t i l l Kaplan's 33 Functional Analys is of Toronto. Apart from a s im i la r but smaller scale study of Winnipeg, which also t r i e d to include a more behavioral or organizat ional psychological approach, no other venture of t h i s nature i n urban government has been made. In another review of the Canadian urban research scene, Brownstone et a l . emphasize tha t , There i s a noticeable absence i n the Canadian l i t e r a t u r e of mater ia l deal ing with such matters as counci l -administrat ive r e l a t i on s , the ro le of administrators i n po l i c y develop-ment and the organization of counci ls f o r cohesive policy-making.35 32 See: Charles Perrow, Organizational Analys i s : A Soc io log ica l View. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth Publ ishing Co., 1970. Recent Events i n Toronto's c i t y counc i l support t h i s hypothesis: Toronto Globe  and M a i l , March 2, 1973, p. 35; A p r i l 7, 1973, p. l . f f ? May 15, 1973, p. 6; January 5, 1974, p. 7« 33 Harold Kaplan, Urban P o l i t i c a l Systems: A Functional Analysis of  Metropolitan Toronto, o p . c i t . H. Kent, "The Dissonant Decade: A Study of Con f l i c t Between the C i t y of Winnipeg and the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg", unpublished M.B.A. Practicum. Winnipeg: The School of Commerce, The Univers i ty of Manitoba, March, 1970. 35 M. Brownstone, et a l . , "Report to the M in i s t r y of State f o r Urban A f f a i r s on a Conceptual Framework fo r Research i n Urban Government and C i t i z en P a r t i c i p a t i o n " , o p . c i t . , p. 19. - 34 -S i m i l a r l y , research into the r o l e of the bureaucrat i n policy-making . . . . . . i s badly needed i n Canada where work on bureaucracy generally i s scarce i n any event, and highly l i m i t e d to insulated and fragmented r o l e s , relationships and contexts, and on c i v i c bureaucracy v i r t u a l l y non-exist ent.3 ° As a conclusion to t h e i r review, Brownstone et a l . draw attention to a number of deficiencies i n Canadian urban research, including: (a) the lack of published descriptive research r e l a t i v e to Canadian urban p o l i t i c s and administration; (b) the sc a r c i t y of t h e o r e t i c a l or a n a l y t i c a l studies; and (c) the increasing flow of l i t e r a t u r e " r e l a t i v e to urban administration which concentrates on the p o s s i b i l i t y of the application of p a r t i c u l a r techniques but r a r e l y describes or analyzes existing urban administrative systems."37 I t would appear, then, that research of urban decision-making i n Canada i s s t i l l i n a nascent state. Studies to date, with few exceptions, use either an E l i t i s t or a Group model; many are not t h e o r e t i c a l l y grounded; and as a recent government publication exemplifies, some inputs to the urban decision-making process have been i d e n t i f i e d , but the "black box" remains.-*8 Therefore, i n a f i e l d of research as new as urban government decision-making, almost any e f f o r t to c o l l e c t primary data would be a contribution to knowledge. 36ibid., p. 31. 37ibid., p. 20. ^Thomas J . Plunkett, The Fi n a n c i a l Structure and the Decision-Making  Process of Canadian Municipal Government, op.cit. - 35 -More s p e c i f i c a l l y , a primary research need indicated by the current status of Canadian research into urban government i s a n a l y t i c a l and theory-grounded descriptive studies based on models other than the popular E l i t i s t and Group models, and which take into account the contribution of both the p o l i t i c i a n and the c i v i c bureaucracy i n decision-making. I l l RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Most normative decision-making models have been developed from laboratory experiences and studies of corporate management. With no reason to believe that the parameters of the decision-making process i n business organizations and urban government are s i m i l a r , we cannot apply these ready-developed decision-making models to a c i t y government system. The f i r s t objective must be to understand how decisions are made i n urban government and to i d e n t i f y the parameters of the urban decision-making process. Only then can we create or adapt decision-making models which w i l l work i n that milieu. To discover how decisions are made i n urban government poses some research obstacles above and beyond problems (to be discussed) such as coping with the complexity of organizational decision-making, defining when and where decisions are made, and deciding what constitutes a decision. F i r s t of a l l , access to a c i t y ' s decision-making process i s d i f f i c u l t considering i t s p o l i t i c a l nature. Secrecy i s a treasured commodity i n government policy-making procedures, 1 and p o l i t i c i a n s can be expected to r e s i s t academia's invading, prodding and analysing t h e i r inner sanctorum. Secondly, i f the researcher can observe the actual p o l i t i c a l decision-making process, responses to interviews may be p o l i t i c a l i n nature and distorted due to misperception of r e a l i t y by the decision-maker. Gordon Robertson, "The Growing Leak of Secret Documents", op.cit. I -36 -- 37 -To overcome these d i s t o r t i o n s , participant observation could be used, whereby the researcher i s a member of the decision-making process i t s e l f . This i s an u n l i k e l y state of a f f a i r s , however, and bias from p o l i t i c a l involvement could be expected. The major r e s t r i c t i o n on the researcher's discovering the true decision-making process i s a version of the Experimenter E f f e c t . 2 Previously, i t has been shown that the experimenter can d i s t o r t his findings unintentionally by recording and interpreting only data which support his hypothesis, and by overtly influencing his interviewees by his physical, psychological and s o c i a l nature. His academic background can also effect his perception of r e a l i t y . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the decision-making model which the researcher uses to frame his investigation (for example, the f i v e models discussed i n Chapter II) can f i l t e r , d i s t o r t and predetermine his research findings, and bias the r e s u l t i n g determination of the r e a l decision-making process. In The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c R e volutions^ Kuhn proposes that s c i e n t i f i c research i s r e s t r i c t e d by the t h e o r e t i c a l model or "paradigm" that the d i s c i p l i n e currently promotes. Accordingly, the three main endeavours of science are to reveal the " f a c t s " of r e a l i t y that the paradigm determines are worth discovering, to match these facts i n r e a l i t y with the theory, and t h i r d l y , to a r t i c u l a t e the theory or to ^Robert Rosenthal, Experimenter Effects i n Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966; and Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow, A r t i f a c t i n Behavioral Research. New York: Academic Press, 1969, Chapter 6. ^Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions, op.cit. - 38 -t idy-up i t s frayed or hazy edges — "mopping-up operations" as Kuhn c a l l s i t . ^ Kuhn uses the term "paradigm" i n a much broader sense than t h i s paper does. For him, paradigms are the s c i e n t i f i c community's way of seeing the world — i t s comprehensive set of be l i e f s and commitments — conceptual, t heo re t i c a l , instrumental, methodological and quasi-metaphysical. The present discuss ion deals p r imar i l y with the methodological aspect of a paradigm; however, the basic concept remains. The sa l i ent feature of t h i s view towards science i s that when a s c i e n t i f i c community acquires a paradigm or model, i t also acquires a c r i t e r i o n f o r choosing problems which are assumed to have so lut ions. The model that a s c i e n t i f i c d i s c i p l i n e employs to study the world determines f o r the researcher what he should look f o r , what the problems are, and what the solut ions should be. The paradigm, then, i s a f i l t e r which can bias the researcher towards a pa r t i cu l a r perspective of r e a l i t y . This aspect of Experimenter E f fect i s s im i l a r to the I d e a l i s t ' s (Berkley, Kant, and Hegel) concept of the world wherein the world conforms to the mind. Although there i s no in tent ion to enter in to the epistemological debate between the l o g i c a l p o s i t i v i s t s and the h i s t o r i -c i s t s , i t should be noted that the academic world i s s t i l l i n a state 5 of f l u x regarding how we acquire knowledge. ^ I b id . . p. 24. 5 For a review of the current state