International Review of Public Administration 2004, Vol. 8, No.

119

CHAOS, UNCERTAINTY, AND POLICY CHOICE: UTILIZING THE ADAPTIVE MODEL

DEUG WHAN SA
Dong-U College, South Korea

This paper explores new policy models adaptable to a new policy environment, Age of Chaos, characterized by uncertainty, complexity and nonlinear relations. This article identifies the limits of existing policy choice models, presents an adaptive model as a new explanatory tool that suits situations of extreme uncertainty, complexity and chaos. It addresses a series of discussions on contents, features and utility. An adaptive model as a decision-making principle in which complex factors seek norms in positive sum amidst dynamic uncertainty in a policy environment does not only complement existing theoretical deficiency current policy-making models, but also reaches an explanation surpassing them. It also has the features of a self-access study system settling, managing inherent policy contradictions and tracing goals in the midst of extreme disorder and chaos through an infinite self-evolution process. Ultimately, it can develop into a policy choice model with the highest adaptability. In the uncertain, dynamic and nonlinear chaotic environments of today, this model can control disturbance in policy outcomes and deal with interference by unpredictable opportunistic factors. It can inspire officers in charge of policy implementation, and force bureaucratic government organizations into self-organization and change. Key Words: chaos, policy choice, adaptive model

INTRODUCTION
Arguments have arose that state that in a rapidly changing policy environment, limitations exists to explaining new policy phenomena with the Newtonian paradigm based on the assumption of order, stability, and equilibrium. The existing policy paradigm based on certainty and generality has difficulty in diagnosing and resolving such policy phenomena as modern society assumes more diversities, complexity, disorder, instability, and disequilibrium.1 Policy studies based on the Newtonian paradigm have emphasized stability, order, equilibrium that focus on how to secure policy objectives, achieve certainty, and rationality through enforcement means (Howlett and Ramesh 1995: 139). The prime examples are the rational model, the incremental model, which flourished

heated argument until the mid-1960s, and the garbage can model in the 1970s. The basic assumptions of these models were grounded on certainty (or limited certainty), that current policies had continuity over some period of time linearly up to the future, as stability and equilibrium were normal, those policies out of the normality range were regarded as exceptions. The policies that failed to accomplish intended objectives, were considered, policy failures (Barry 1992; Kempe 1996; Amey Albrecht and Amir 1997; Ascher 1999; Scott 1999) and were attributed to; poor policy design,incompetent administrations, problems in implementation of policies, and interference of political process (Birkland 2001: 187). As chaotic situations increase in complex phenomena, uncertain changes and non-linear developments have become general. The existing policy models have been

120

Chaos, Uncertainty, and Policy Choice: Utilizing the Adaptive Model

Vol. 8, No. 2

losing ground in the explanation of such phenomena. Though the Newtonian policy paradigm is useful in some areas (Elliott and Kiel 1997), the status quo where complex policy situations are under way desperately calls for a new policy model which can offer appropriate explanations and solutions.2 In most cases, policies are considered dynamic evolutionary processes which create patterns different from old policies through incessant interactions with the given environment. In this sense, modern policies can be seen as adaptive evolutionary processes and should be considered dynamic while the existing policies are static. In point, policies should orient themselves to co-evolutionary ways of settling problems. In particular, such policies have structures in which a variety of sub-systems connected with each other by non-linear feedback loops interact in a non-linear way. Governments face very difficult times of choosing policies that deal with the management of incremental uncertainty, chaos and complexity (Kiel 1994; Johnson and Burton 1994). This paper aims to develop a new theory model to aid governmental policy choice and establish utility in this era of uncertainty and chaos.

to source and phase of policy procedures; i) uncertainty from contingency, ii) uncertainty from inter-dependency of constituents, and iii) general uncertainty (Tompson 1967). The uncertainty from contingency arises when it is impossible to predict how the policy environment will change. What results is uncertainty from the interdependency of constituents makes it impossible to predict changes in the relationship between policy matters and constituents. Finally, general uncertainty comes from lack of knowledge about the cause and effect relationship in policy making.

The Emergence of Chaos Theory and Characteristics

Chaos theory offers theoretical explanations about the world of uncertainty. Chaos theory refers to the study of complex and dynamic systems with orders and patterns emerging from externally chaotic forms (Prigogine and Strengers 1984). The reason chaos theory draws a lot of interest is the highlight of; disorder, instability, diversity, flexibility and disequilibrium. This explains characteristics of rapid social changes in modern times referred to as the age of uncertainty. The focus of the chaos theory as a study is on complex, indeterminate, non-linear and dynamic systems. The main study object chaotic systems are chaotic which are complicated and dynamic. The characteristics of the chaos theory are as follows: The first is its self-organization principle. Selforganization means that the organization is determined by internal factors without any outer interference. That is to say, self-organization is a network of production processes of constituents interrelated with each other, and a system that produces the same network (Varela Maturana and Urife 1974; Jantsch 1980). The chaos theory assumes that order and organization can make an autogenesis out of disorder and chaos through the process of self-organization. This also means that setting up conditions for self-organization to naturally take place can result in a reduction of policy failures. The second characteristic is co-evolution, referring to a process in which individual entities constituting a system continually adapt to each other and change. The essential concept of co-evolution, is mutual causality, which puts emphasis on mutual evolution where an individual entity evolves entire group and vice versa, not the evolution of the survival of the fittest. It means interdependent species in continual inter-relationships evolve

EMERGENCE OF THE AGE OF UNCERTAINTY AND THE CHAOS THEORY

The Age of Uncertainty and Chaos
In many cases, a small choice might lead to overwhelming results that generate either a virtuous cycle or a vicious cycle. If future results can be clearly predicted by stability and linearity, this will eliminate difficulties in making choice. Policy choice has been an embarrassment in uncertain or chaotic situations that do not meet desirable conditions. As a result, most major policies revert back to the uncertainty and chaos. Though the presence of uncertainty in policy procedures is widely known, it has not been determined what influence it wields on policy choice (Morgan and Henruion 1990: Lein 1997: 20). Generally, uncertainty refers to difficulties in predicting the future. Naturally, the uncertainty here includes not simply difficulties in predicting the results of various factors and interactions, but also difficulties in predicting different configurations of interactions caused by the effect of such interactions (Saperstein 1997: 103-107). Uncertainty is classified into 3 categories according

January 2004

Deug Whan Sa

121

together. For example, if a mutant frog appears with a longer tongue or a frog whose hunting speed is twice as fast, it will have a competitive advantage to the environment and subsequent off-spring will flourish with the superior gene. On the other hand, flies will decrease in number, until a mutant fly appears that has any combination of advantages such as; faster, bad smells frogs avoid, or becomes poisonous, subsequent off-spring will survive and flourish. This is the way frogs and flies coevolve with each other. Therefore, chaos theory regards a variety of paradoxes as an important principle instead of ignoring it or taking it as an exception. Third, the characteristic is the existing Newtonian determinism theory which presumes linear relations where things proceed from the starting point toward the future on the thread of a single orbit. Thus, it also assumes that predictions of the future are on the extendFigure 1. Time Evolution of Single Solution of Mathematical Model (Determinism)
x(t) x Maximum

ed line of present knowledge and future knowledge is not as unclear as the present one (Saperstein 1997: 103107), and that as similar inputs generate similar outcomes, there will be no big differences despite small changes in initial conditions. However, chaos theory assumes that the outcome is larger than the input and that prediction of the future is fundamentally impossible.3 Hence, due to extreme sensitivity to initial fluctuations and non-linear feedback loops, small differences in initial conditions are subject to amplifications and eventual different outcomes, known as chaos.4
Figure 3. Eventually Know Outcome of Policy-making, Perhaps can Change
xn(a)

xo(a)

bifurcation

(a) n

xo Time(t) to

Figure 4. Never Know Outcome of Policy-making

xn(a)

Figure 2. Time Evolution of Flow of Solutions (Chaos)

chaos x(t) x Maximum xo(a)

(a) n

xo Time(t)

to

Chaos is sometimes divided into strong chaos and weak chaos (Eve, Horsfall and Lee 1997: 106); and goes through a series of orbit processes of close intersections and divisions. In particular, weak chaos is found in the

122

Chaos, Uncertainty, and Policy Choice: Utilizing the Adaptive Model

Vol. 8, No. 2

Figure 5. Strong Chaos

Strong Chaos

System time

Figure 6. Weak Chaos

Weak Chaos

System time

limits that account for the small proportion inside a system, while strong chaos features divisions at some points inside a system, which lead to occupation of the entire system in little time.

CHAOS, UNCERTAINTY AND POLICY CHOICE

1. Review of Existing Policy Models
Social scientists have tried to explain and predict policy matters, but never have generated satisfactory outcomes in terms of accuracy of predictions. There could be a variety of reasons for this inaccuracy in prediction, but one certain reason is that policies themselves are intrinsically governed by uncertainty, complexity and

chaos in policies that produce many different outcomes though they are faced with the same initial internal states, the same environments, and governed by the same causal relationships. Discussions on policies based upon existing Newtonian paradigms have emphasized stability, order, equilibrium and causality. In particular have focused on how to secure certainty between policy goals, means, economics, and social rationality (Howlett and Ramesh 1995; 139). The rational model and the incremental model that flourished until the mid-1960s can be taken as the most representative examples (Braybrooke and Lindblom 1963). However, controversies led to attempts to integrate the rational model and the incremental model in the 1970s. The garbage can model, a model of choice stressing irrational elements of organizational conditions beyond these two models, emerged later (Cohen, March and Olsen 1972: 1-25; March 1972: 29-30). The garbage can model assumes that final decisionmaking processes emerge from an accidental choice out of an organization governed by four streams of problems, solutions, participants and choice chances. Each stream operates by a dint of rules, values and orders. The prime characteristic of the garbage can model is that in selecting policies it focuses on the organizational existence and roles instead of the individual (Palumbo 1988: 87). Primarily it takes place when the main currents of the streams are interwoven and muddled up in a limited time frame with the alternative of easy choices. The name garbage can comes from this muddling in which decisions are made similar to messes in a garbage can. Yet, real decisions are not always made randomly or accidentally as the garbage can theory claims. One of the distinctive features of the chaos theory is that casualty and inevitability co-exist. Prigogine and Stengers proved that casualty and inevitability work together and showed the correspondence to each other (Prigogine and Stengers 1984). Both of them cannot tip the balance in a self-organizing and disorganizing universe. With the awareness of the policy status governed by uncertainty, complexity and chaos, understanding of the paradigm changes and the adaptive model are significant in policy studies. Here, the adaptive model can be defined as a decision-making principle in pursuit of a positive sum of complex factors that reduce policy failures under dynamic uncertainty. The adaptive model can be seen as a creative, evolutionary adaptive process; that considers uncertainty and chaos arising from interactions between policies and environment,

January 2004

Deug Whan Sa

123

and instead of policies simply being applied to environment, and manages self-paradox, and is continuously pursuing inherent goals. 5 The adaptive model regards policies as a dynamic, non-linear and complex system in which static stability, order and equilibrium exchange with instability, disorder and disequilibrium. Policy bureaucrats experience uncertain and chaotic factors in real policy choice situations that derive from external influences. For example, cases on the verge of complete failure under existing policies due to small incidents such as citizen appeals or similar political cases lead to new policies in relation to the new structures as order emerges out of chaos. In this sense, the adaptive model provides decision-makers enough confidence to naturally accept uncertainty and chaos. While existing polices make it possible to give explanations only after a simplification of policy environments on the assumption of a one-peak landscape like Mt. Fuji, the adaptive model is one intrinsically appropriate to complexity and chaotic situations with the assumption of a multi-peaked landscape. Thus, the adaptive model, assuming incomplete rationality and dynamic uncertainty, does not accept the survival of organizations. In other words, it differs from rational, incremental and garbage can models in terms of the number of goals pursued in the conditional limits and the number of alternatives available to achieve goals. This model attempts to achieve more goals with worse constraint-based adaptation, but has fewer alternatives or means employable. In this sense, the adaptive model make it possible to actually explain and predict status

quo, and is more advanced than the existing models.6 The differences among the rational model, the incremental model, the garbage can model and the adaptive model are presented in Table 1.

Characteristics of the adaptive model

In policy choice, the adaptive model has different characteristics from existing models as preconditions are different. The adaptive model has basic characteristics as in the following: First, the adaptive model in policy making has several policy goals, and searches and selects a relatively small number of policy alternatives, though utilizing information and knowledge available in more environmental constraints. Second, as the model presupposes highly dynamic uncertainty about the policy environment, the accurate prediction for the results of policy making is impossible from the beginning with already decided policy alternatives even considered hypotheses, and works in the situations with sensitivity to them. Therefore, a policy is a continuous process of decision-making and a management process of paradoxes inherent in the policy. That said, the main concerns of policy-makers are changes, creative adaptation, and the minimization of policy failures such as correcting policies with errors through continuous monitoring. Third, a policy organization cannot be guaranteed its permanent survival; it is an organization that is capable of policy learning from failures (Lagadec 1997), and an adaptive organization that continuously exchanges with

Table 1. Differences Between Existing Policy Choice Models and the Adaptive Model
Rational model Policy choice standard View on human Assumptions on rationality Assumptions on organization Assumptions on policy environment Origin of policy-making Number of policy goals Conditions of limit Number of policy alternatives Optimized Rational economic entity Complete rationality Accept the survival of organization in advance Static certainty Incremental model Incremental Social entity Limited rationality Accept the survival of organization in advance Static uncertainty Garbage can model Random Organizational entity Limited rationality Adaptive model Adaptive Complex entity Incomplete rationality

Accept the survival of Doesnt accept survival of organization in advance organization in advance Static uncertainty Dynamic uncertainty

Newtonian paradigm One or just a few Minority Large majority Several Majority Minority

Chaos and complexity theory One or just a few Majority Relative majority multiple Large majority Small minority

124

Chaos, Uncertainty, and Policy Choice: Utilizing the Adaptive Model

Vol. 8, No. 2

Table 2. Evolution Process of the Adaptive Model

Stage Level Evolution process I II Imitative adaptation Competitive identity Institutional identification III IV Individual group Individual cluster Individual group level Common interest- oriented Enter critical level Stabilized

Data: Excerpt from Dollinger (1990: 275).

the environment through self-innovation. In this case, chief executive officers take interest in offering appropriate tension and political conditions to improve the organizations agility and adaptability. Fourth, judgment on success or failure of policy is thoroughly result-oriented. The standards for successful policy are the results from policy implementation, not the status of policy-making. The adaptive model is similar to a launched missile that hits the target through continuous self-correction and tracing (Probst 1984). A launched missile aiming at a target eventually strikes it through continuous tracing processes despite mobile and non-linear movements of the target. Therefore, the choice behavior of the policy in this model can be seen as dynamic strategy making (Higgins 1978; Hinings 1989; Stacey 1995) or incessant management process of policy paradox (Stone 1988). This adaptive model takes shape step by step through complex processes as in Table 2, and it has its own systems, not governed by accidents like the garbage can model. As this model includes interest conflicts and negotiation processes between powers inside the organization, understanding of power relationship inside the organization is a must. In addition, the model is more sensitive to political, social, and psychological factors than traditional models.

UTILITY EVALUATION OF THE ADAPTIVE MODEL AS A NEW POLICY CHOICE MODEL

With the awareness of policy status governed by complexity, uncertainty and chaos, understanding of paradigm shift and the adaptive model based upon is very significant. Policy officers experience more uncertainty and chaos in policy-making procedures than anyone else. For example, cases on the verge of complete failures under the existing policies, due to small incidents such as citizen appeals or similar political cases,

lead to new policies with relation to new structures as order emerges out of chaos. In this sense, the adaptive model provides decision-makers enough confidence on which they can naturally accept uncertainty and chaos. While the Newtonian worldview stressed linear and definitive causality in pursuit of orderly and predictable equilibrium and stability, chaos paradigm allows plural rationalities and contradictions, and emphasizes non-linear and dynamic creative relationship, with complexity and disorder. The adaptive model based on such chaos paradigm provides new views to understand uncertainty, complexity, changes, instability and disorder, and offers new frames of understanding to achieve policy goals through continuous self-evolution. In particular, the adaptive model has an advantage of explaining how policies change with time, resolve uncertainty, and, further present the need to dynamically manage policies to cope with future uncertainty intrinsically. The scholar who first applied the chaos theory to public policy study is Brown. He attempted to analyze American environmental policies with the application of non-linear dynamics, and conducted the analysis with the combination of individual factors, world system factors and vertical data (worsening environment, economic activities, political structure, citizens attitudes, and election results) (Brown 1994, 1995: Elliott and Kiel 1997: 69). His study illustrates which choices of politics and policies in America have caused a worsening environment in the country. Another scholar who applied non-linear dynamics is Saperstein, who revealed how arms competition takes place in times of high tension and possible war by developing a non-linear interactive model (Saperstein 1996: Eve, Horsfall and Lee 1997: 69). Both studies by Brown and Saperstein presented how it is possible to apply non-linear dynamics methods to domestic situations and international relationships. The urban growth model of Allen is an interesting study, adopting the chaos and complexity theory. Urban growth contains highly complicated states with interfer-

January 2004

Deug Whan Sa

125

ence by various factors. Allen, thus, tried to identify the changes, offering various possible alternatives rather than reaching an accurate answer by projecting random factors with time (Allen 1982: Eve, Horsfall and Lee 1997: 69). The Allen study has significance in the aspect that it opened possibilities for the policy-makering world among various choices. It has been the health policy field that combined and developed chaos, uncertainty and non-linear dynamics. In 1989, Stanley conducted an analysis, adopting a mathematical model combined with random factors to predict AIDS proliferation. Findings predicted that AIDS would spread out among teenagers to a great extent. Usually, teenagers were foreseen as a group with a low incidence of AIDS. However, the research Sanley was supported of by the studies of Selik, Chu and Buehler that pointed out the rapid spread of AIDS among teenaged girls. The work of Stanley shows that it may be possible to anticipate unexpected outcomes with the proper analytical tools. Namely, results unpredictable by other explanatory models were made predictable by methodology. On the other hand, though we live in the world of high uncertainty, complexity and chaos, the adaptive model is not applicable to every public policy area. In case of the processes where factors interact with each other with relative stability, the traditional rational model or satisfaction model, garbage can model or incremental model could be applied with higher utility. There are social phenomena with predictable and stable phenomenon. For instance, it has been statistically proven that educational attainment and income level have a stable inter-relationship in U.S. There are also claims that some budgetary arenas in the United States, could well be explained without an application of the adaptive model (Elliott and Kiel 1997). In particular, projections for the next budget can be predicted in statistical methods or with the incremental model that actually adopt these methods on site. Accordingly, the relationship between traditional models such as the rational, satisfaction, garbage can, incremental, adaptive models featuring chaos, non-linear dynamics, complexity and uncertainty should be complementary rather than exclusionary. Furthermore, the adaptive model is very useful in understanding a variety of interactions and system factors, and can even offer explanations that greatly surpass the limits of traditional models.

CONCLUSION
Economists, more than other social scientists, have made considerable headway in understanding nonlinear dynamics and complexity in economic systems. Economists have begun to realize that the amplification of positive feedback in economic systems requires a rethinking of economic theory. As Arthur (1990) notes, conventional economic theory, as well as system theorists, have assumed the prevalence of negative feedback in social and organizational systems. In economics, negative feedback takes the form of diminishing returns, a concept elevated to the status of an economic law of nature (Elliott and Kiel 1997: 71). Arthur contends that the assumption of negative feedback, and hence diminishing returns, does not adequately reflect reality. A more accurate picture of reality would allow for the fact that those stabilizing forces do not operate. If that is the case then there is no single equilibrium point for the economy, but a multitude of potential equilibrium points. It implies that the intrusion of unexpected chance factors, when interacting with already complex dynamics in a social system, can lead to outcomes at odds with the expected rationality of market economics. Dynamics of chaos in a natural system does not always apply to human systems to the same extent. Chaos in human society appears with much more complexity and variety, and cannot be fundamentally expelled with the existing Newtonian control system. If we suppose chaotic behaviors in human society accompany malfunctions, the following three options could be presented. first, altering or minimizing system parameters; second, interjecting small perturbations to smooth dynamics; third, altering the orbit of a system by cybernetic assessment and feedback. Policy analysts and policy makers know a social phenomenon is chaotic, but at best be able to watch the fascinating time series that is generated. Some regard it as a risk avoiding behavior, but actually it is the best behavior to minimize policy failure. In many cases, policy-makers already have an adaptive capacity that produces automatic responses to a rapidly changing policy environment. This indicates an abolition of deterministic and equilibrium-oriented economic logics, and leads to an evolutionary process based upon non-linearity. Therefore, the utility of the chaotic paradigm in policy study and the incurred adaptive model will increase with the acceleration of uncertainty, complexity and

126

Chaos, Uncertainty, and Policy Choice: Utilizing the Adaptive Model

Vol. 8, No. 2

chaotic phenomena in society. Lastly, follow-up studies to complement the adaptive model and determine experimental limits as the goal of future scholars.

Public Policy Making. New York: The Free Press. Braybrooke, David and Charles Lindblom. 1963. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Cohen, Michael D., James G. March and Johan P. Olsen. 1972. A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17(1). Dror, Yehezkel. 1968. Public Policymaking Re-exam ined. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company. Dryzek, Johns S. 1987. Rational Ecology: Environ ment and Political Economy. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc. Elliot, Euel, & L. Douglas Kiel. 1997. Nonlinear Dynamics, Complexity, and Public Policy: Use, Misuse, and Applicability. In Eve, Raymond A., Sara Horsfall, & Mary E. Lee. 1997. Chaos, Com plexity, And Sociology: Myths, Models and Theo ries. London: Sage Publications. Eve, Raymond A., Sara Horsfall, & Mary E. Lee. 1997. Chaos, Complexity, And Sociology: Myths, Mod els and Theories. London: Sage Publications. Higgins, James M. 1978. Strategic Decision Making: An Organization Behavioral Perspective. Manage rial Planning 12 (March/April). Hinings, C. R. and Royston Greenwood. 1989. The Dynamics of Strategic Change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh. 1995. Studying Pub lic Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jantsch, E. 1980. The Self-organizing Universe: Scien tific and Human Implications of the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution. Pergamon Press. Johnson, J. L. & Burton, B. K. 1994. Chaos and Complexity Theory for Management: Caveat Emperor. Journal of Management Inquiry 3. Kempe, Ronald Hope, Sr. 1996. Development in the Third World: From Policy Failure to Policy Reform. New York: M. S. Sharp. Kiel, Douglas, L. 1994. Managing Chaos and Com plexity in Government. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

NOTES
1. While Newtonian worldview stressed linear and definitive causality in pursuit of orderly and predictable equilibrium and stability, chaos paradigm allows plural rationalities and contradictions, and emphasizes non-linear and dynamic creative relationship, complexity and disorder. 2. Scholars have already espoused the potential of these new sciences to aid in the solution of a range of policy problems (Elliott and Kiel 1997). 3. What is most interesting about systems operating in chaotic regimes is that exacting long-term prediction is impossible. Short-term prediction, however, does appear to be possible in the highly nonlinear regime of chaos (Gordon 1991: Elliott and Kiel 1997: 67). 4. This phenomenon, known as the butterfly effect, exemplifies those instances where a small change (the flapping of a butterflys wings) may generate disproportionate change (a tornado). 5. It also has features of a self-access study system - settling internal problems - managing contradiction inherent in policies and tracing goals in the midst of extreme disorder and chaos through infinite self-evolution process. 6. The adaptive model may be capable of both prediction and control in social and policy systems. Additionally, the adaptive model may add to our knowledge of social dynamics, and is better to learn when and how to direct policy responses.

REFERENCES
Amey, R. G. Albrecht S. L. and Amir S. 1997. LowLevel Radioactive Waste: Policy Failure, Regional Failure? Regional Studies 31(6). Ascher, William. 1999. Why Governments Waste Nat ural Resources: Policy Failures in Developing Countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Barry, Commoner. 1992. The Failure of the Environ mental Effect. Current History 91. Birkland, Thomas A. 2001. An Introduction to the Poli cy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of

January 2004

Deug Whan Sa

127

Lagadec, Patrick. 1997. Learning Processes for Crisis Management in Complex Organization. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 4-3. Landau, Martin. 1973. On the Concept of a Self-Collecting Organization. Public Administration Review 33 (Nov/Dec). LeLoup, L. T. 1978. The Myth of Incrementalism: An Analytical Choice in Budgetary Theory. Policy 10. Levinthal, Daniel A. 1991. Organizational Adaptation and Environmental Selection: Interrelated Processes of Change. Organization Science 2(1). Lein, James K. 1997. Environmental Decision Making: An Information Technology Approach. Massachusetts: Blackwell Science, Inc. Lindblom, Charles E. 1979. Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. Public Administration Review 39(6). March, James G. 1972. Theories of Choice and Making Decisions. Society (Nov./Dec.). May, Peter J. 1990. Reconsidering Policy Design: Policies and Publics. Journal of Public Policy 11(2). Ornstein, Norman J. and Shirly Elder. 1978. Interest Groups, Lobbying and Policy-Making. Washington, D. C: Congressional Quarterly Inc. Palumbo, Dennis J. 1988. Public Policy in America: Government in Action. San Diego, California: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers. Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers. 1984. Order Out of Chaos: Mans New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books. Probst, G. 1984. Cybernetic Principles for the Design, Control, and Development of Social Systems and Some After Thoughts. In H. Ulrich and G. J. B Probst (ed.). Self-Organization and Management of Social Systems. Berlin Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag Co. Richard Hofferbert. 1989. The Study of Public Policy. In James P. Lester (ed.), Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence. Duke University Press. Sabatier, Paul A. 1988. An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Ori-

ented Therein. Policy Sciences 21. Sabatier, Paul A. and Mazmanian Daniel. 1980. The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of Analysis. Policy Studies Journal 8(4). Saperstein, Alvin M. 1997. The Origins of Order and Disorder in Physical and Social Deterministic Systems. In Eve, Raymond A., Sara Horsfall, & Mary E. Lee. 1997. Chaos, Complexity, and Sociology: Myths, Models and Theories. London: Sage Publications. Simon, Herbert A. 1972. Theories of Bounded Rationality. In Mcguige C. B. and Rov Radner (eds.), Deci sion and Organization. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Scott, H. Dewey. 1999. The Fickle Finger of Phosphate: Central Florida Air Pollution and the Failure of Environmental Policy, 1957-1970. The Journal of Southern History LXV(3). Smith, J. Brock and Donald W. Barclay. 1999. Selling Partner Relationships: The Role of Interdependence and Relative Influence. Journal of Personal Sell ing & Sales Management 19(4). Stacey, R. D. 1995. The Science of Complexity: A Alternative Perspective for Strategic Change Processes. Strategic Management Journal 16. Stone, Deborah A. 1988. Policy Paradox and Political Reason. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company. Tompson, James. 1967. Organization in Action. New York: McGraw Hill. Varela, Francisco, H. R. Maturana, and R. Urife. 1974. Autopoiesis: The Organization of Living System, Its Characterization and a Model. Bio-Systems 5. Waldrop, Mitchell M. 1992. Complexity: The Emerg ing Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York: Simon & Schanster. Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Deug-Whan Sa received his DPA from the Korea University and is an Associate Professor of Public

128

Chaos, Uncertainty, and Policy Choice: Utilizing the Adaptive Model

Vol. 8, No. 2

Administration and Policy at Dong-U College in Sokcho, Korea. Research interests include Public Policy, Environmental Policy, Urban Politics and NGO. Published articles have been included in journals as Public Administration Quarterly, The Korean Political Science

Review, Public Policy Quarterly, and Korean Society and Public Administration.
Received: September 30, 2003 Accepted after two revisions: December 15, 2003