Cuban Missile Crisis Analysis

The bargaining approach – the Cuban missile crisis Most early studies of public administration postulated that efficiency and the organization’s structure were two sides of one coin. They concentrated on how to design an organization basic unites because they believed it would reflect on the level of efficiency as the main goal of any organizations. In the 1949, however, Herbert A. Simon modeled a very different approach, he argued that “a theory of public administration should be concerned with the processes of decision as well as processes of action”, he further explained that “decision making should be seen as central element of studying organization’s function because it is impossible to understand administration without understanding …show more content…
The hypnosis were posed by Graham Allison in his study of the Cuban missile crisis, and more precisely in his book the Essence of Decision as Model III which was published, in 1971. Allison stated that "The name of the game is politics: bargaining along regularized circuits among players positioned hierarchically within the government”. He further explained that “Government behavior can thus be understood according to a third conceptual model, not as organizational outputs, but as results of these bargaining games”. 2. Unlike his other two models, rational actor and organizational behavior, model III’s claim are less theoretical but more discursive. That may question the validity of the claim as assumption which the model relies on. In their article, Rethinking Allison’s Models, Bendor and Hammond argued that “It proved difficult, however, to build a clear and coherent model around this claim because Allison relied on some literature which made some faults. For instance, as they referred to “the rational actor model, he could draw on well- specified, axiomatically constructed theories. The organizational process model is based on works that advance propositions that are thematically (though not deductively) connected. In contrast, the literature on bureaucratic politics, bargaining approach, is more discursive and far less …show more content…
There are some arguments which support this claim. For example, Krasner suggests that considerable similarities should be expected as the President chooses most of the important players and set the rules. He selects the men who head the large bureaucracies, and these individuals must share his values.’’4. However, the executive branch members may have a conflict as a result of difference over goals and differing over belief about how to achieve a goal. In the case of the Cuban missile crisis, “the executive committee had divided between two sides, military advisor John McCone and Secretary of State Dean Rusk as two supporters of airstrike with the three of the president’s closest advisors Robert Kennedy, McNamara and presidential counselor Theodore Sorensen as advocates of blockade.”5. Also, the disagreement would be solved as soon as the President as higher and commander in chief support one of the two sides as Kennedy did by holding the blockade as a final alternative to stop the Russians from installing the nuclear missile in Cuba. On the other hand, bargaining would be more required among executive leaders as the political system of the country divide power between the president and prime minister as two executive branches. For instance, in the case that President and PM of Kurdistan Region were

Show More

Kennedy Cuban Missile Crisis Analysis

Cuban Missile Crisis Research Paper

Cuban Missile Crisis Essay

Presidential Responses Essay

presidents at war Essay

1960s Nuclear Weapons

Jfk Assassination

Soviet Union and R.b Bennett Essay

Nuclear Weapons Essay

Rudy Wong Investment Advisor Case Study Essay