Challenges to Effective Decision Making: The Case of Tbilisi City Hall

Abstract

Public policy refers to the way, method, and means of solving problems in public life. Practical can be considered a decision that solves the existing problem or even slightly improves the situation. In order to make an effective decision in public policy, the available resources, knowledge, and experience of the decision-maker and the relevant "rules of the game" are needed. To evaluate the effectiveness, we must consider the characteristics of the field, the dynamics of the problem development, and the citizens' involvement in the problem-solving process. Thus, if the actors face a barrier to defending their position and presenting an alternative solution to the problem, we will not be able to consider the decision effectively.           The model of policy streams involves three independent streams that pass through a window of opportunity, and a decision is made there. The mentioned streams are the flow of existing problems in the specific field of public policy, the stream of actors interested in the mentioned problems, and the stream of possible alternatives for solving the problems. The main advantage of the named model is that the currents stream independently of each other and have no way to influence each other. In particular, no matter how influential the political actor is, he cannot influence his own alternative in the decision-making process. The so-called taxi reform in Tbilisi was carried out with the mentioned model. In particular, the city hall implemented the appropriate policy to regulate the chaotic taxi market. A number of adjacent problems appeared to the mentioned problem, which caused its severity. These include the problem of administration, the threat of crime, and low quality of service. Among the alternatives for solving the problem, only the policy that would create an opportunity to form a unified system could be effective; at such a time, only the government could carry out regulatory policy. The decision was made, and today, the third stage of taxi reform is being implemented.              We can consider the model of rounds as a model of power confrontation and compromise, where each new round is a new opportunity to solve the problem. However, the outcome is significantly determined by the power and influence the actor possesses and how much he can affect opponents or influence them. The main drawback of this model is that influences and recruitment allow the actor to benefit from unequal conditions and prevent effective decision-making. The city hall decided to build a shelter for homeless dogs in Tbilisi with the mentioned model. In particular, the urgency of the mentioned problem gradually increased and eventually became one of the painful problems, both due to the increase of animals and the emergence of cross-cutting problems (condition of animals, safety of citizens, sanitary conditions). The City Hall, the private sector, and animal rights defenders acted as actors in the window of opportunity. Initially, animals were sterilized with the agreement of animal rights defenders and the City Hall. A shelter owned by a private owner operated in Tbilisi. In the next round, the City Hall and the private sector jointly decided to build a shelter (with investment from the private sector). With their agreement, those human rights defenders who do not consider it proper to transfer dogs to the shelter were in the minority.           Punctuated equilibrium is a model that describes the extent to which the decision-making process in public policy can become deadlocked simply because the actors of the problem agree with each other and block the entry of a new actor into the decision-making process. In contrast to the rounds model, the main drawback of this model is not the influential actor but the agreement of the actors involved in the process so that a new actor does not enter the process, which may most likely create an effective decision alternative, although unacceptable to other actors. An example of this model is the policy of construction permits by Tbilisi City Hall. In particular, the "Transparency International Georgia" report submitted on December 14, 2018, indicated that the zonal council, business, and political actors operating in the City Hall created a kind of equilibrium, which contributed to the growth of the so-called K2 coefficient. According to the document, in 2014-2016, the K2 coefficient increased by 54% compared to 2009-2013. In this way, the decision was made according to the "punctuational equilibrium," and the entry of a new actor into the process was blocked.            The advocacy coalition framework refers to forming conflicts in the decision process, which agree on a compromise position, considering their capabilities and goals, which is finally formed as an accepted decision. The main drawback of this model is the actor's lack of opportunities and resources, which forces him to compromise with the opponent and affects the final decision. The decision regarding the project of the Tbilisi bypass railway was made with the mentioned model. In 2016, "Transparency International Georgia" talked about the need to complete the bypass railway project, which had started in 2010, but was stopped under the new government. Two coalitions were formed around the issue: the opposition / the non-governmental sector and the government. The government decided to stop the project before the approval of the city's general plan, and with this argument, the project was stopped.            The mentioned research aims to study, in each case, the example of Tbilisi City Hall, which alternative decision-making models were used, and how effective the results were. During the research, we used the qualitative research method case study, through which we studied the decisions made in Tbilisi City Hall, discussed above. Each named model helps us to evaluate the decision made in public policy, to judge the validity of the process, and to analyze the obtained result step by step. Each model has its disadvantages and advantages, but these must be evaluated depending on the context, particularly under the conditions of the decision. As a result of the research, it was determined that the model of Kingdon's streams is highly effective in decision-making because it puts each problem, political actor, and alternative in equal conditions and creates an optimal basis for decision-making.