 classical democratic sense, or can be through representatives for their point of view in a pluralist-republican model (Kweit and Kweit, 1986 p. 22). Kweit and Kweit go on to point out that criteria for evaluating policies in a democratic process are the accessibility of the process and/or the responsiveness of the policy to those who are affected by it, rather than the efficiency or rationality of the decision.
Public Participation In Rational Policy Making
Many "rational" policy decisions are made using the policy analysis process. According to Lang, a decision is rational to the extent that it is shown empirically to match the best available means of achieving a given end (Lang, 1986). Traditional rational planning and policy analysis processes typically have five or six steps. Patton and Sawicki outline six steps in the policy analysis process: (1) problem definition; (2) identification of goals and objectives; (3) development of alternatives; (4) development of evaluation criteria; (5) identification of the "best" alternative; and (6) monitoring and evaluation of the outcome (Patton and Sawicki, 1986, p.26) Figure A-1 shows a diagram of the policy analysis process.
Kweit and Kweit suggest that policy analysis tends concentrate power in the hands of a few experts and that policy analysis is most compatible with bureaucratic decision-making which is "antithetical to citizen participation" (Kweit and Kweit, 1986 p. 21). Because the policy analysis process relies on specialized techniques, expertise is an inherent component of policy analysis. As such, the role of citizen participation in the traditional policy analysis process is minimized. Citizens often lack technical expertise and can be emotionally involved in issues of concern rather that being detached and rational (Kweit and Kweit, 1986 p. 22).
For a number of reasons, a purely rational decision-making process is difficult. One major limitation inherent in the process is the lack of comprehensive information. However, input from citizen groups outside organizational boundaries can help provide more comprehensive information on all aspects of the policy analysis process. Kweit and Kweit state:
In a democracy, it is the public that determines where it wants to go, and the role of its representatives and bureaucratic staff is to get them there. In other works, ends should be chosen democratically even though the means are chosen technocratically (Kweit and Kweit, 1986 p. 25).
Figure A-1. The Policy Analysis Process
This statement has important implications with respect to Forest Service decisions. The existing policy structure within the agency mandates that targets (or the ends), which are tied directly to funding, are set by Congress. This would imply that the ends are chosen democratically. The targets are implemented on the Forest and District level. Thus, traditionally the means are developed and chosen technocratically.
Congress, as elected representatives, theoretically represents the public interest in setting targets. Recent issues with respect to forest management (i.e., spotted owl lawsuits) suggest that this approach is no longer effective in managing the National Forest system. On its face, this may seem to imply that the Forest Service should apply a purely technocratic decision-making process. However, it is unlikely that a purely technocratic (top-down) approach will continue to be appropriate given the number and diversity of public interests who have a stake in forest management decisions.
Lang, suggests that traditional comprehensive and strategic planning processes are insufficient for current resource management planning and advocates a more interactive approach to planning. Lang suggests:
An integrated approach to resource planning must provide for interaction with the stakeholders in the search for relevant information, shared values, consensus, and ultimately, proposed action that is both feasible and acceptable (Lang, 1986 p 35).
Lang suggests that conventional planning tends to be dominated by a technical/analytic style where the planner i