Cuban Missile Crisis, Essay Example

Background and Goal

Making decisions has been one of the major tasks faced by governments in response to the pandemic. The Norwegian government has played a significant role in coming up with policies aimed at limiting the number of infections and deaths in the nation to protect its citizens. The decisions made by the Norwegian government can be said to have followed the idea brought about by March (3). March highlights that changes noted in any organization are always made to respond to the environment; however, they do not do so with the intention of fulfilling plans held by individuals. In this case, organizations can at times ignore important policies and, in other scenarios, enforce them more than expected. This applies in the case of the Norwegian government in response to the pandemic. On some occasions, the government ignored advice given by expert committees. All this was done in response to the rising number of infections in the nation. March (4) highlights that any action taken by an organization can be viewed as an application of procedures or rules to address a situation. Such an action can also be viewed to result from past experience. The Norwegian government had witnessed the effects of the pandemic in other nations; therefore, the action to come up with regulatory measures may be said to have resulted from the experience. March (4) supports this by saying that actions can be said to spread from one organization to the other. However, this is determined by contact and vulnerability. In this case, the Norwegian government knew that its citizens were at risk of contracting the virus; therefore, there was a need for protection.

Immergut (62) brings forward an idea that can be applied in the case of the Norwegian government’s response to the pandemic. Immergut suggests that key players in a nation in conjunction with government institutions play a significant role in shaping policy conflicts. In Norway, the government collaborated with Norwegian Directorate of Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, and expert committees to develop the decisions made on March 12, 2020. Martin (9) supports the need for technical expertise during a political conflict to aid in coming up with effective decisions. Martin also highlights that effective negotiations rely on repeated interactions of decision-makers to come up with compelling choices.

Olsen (85) suggests that choices made in an organization rely on few people based on their expertise. In this case, they are delegated to focus on defined issues and come up with effective practical solutions. However, decisions made in the process have to be guided by a set of procedures that are likely to cause acceptable results. In Norway, the government delegated Norwegian Directorate of Health to come up with effective measures to respond to the pandemic’s threat. Olsen (85) also suggests an artifactual model whereby several participants can come up with solutions and analyze their effectiveness. Such a model is applied in a scenario where many values and variables are guiding the decision-making process. Such a situation is difficult to analyze, and decision-makers face challenges in identifying and assessing the consequences of available alternatives.

In a decision-making process, participants have a focus on whether their decisions are observable and the likelihood of the outcomes being noted. In this case, decision-makers have to come up with regulations that will be identified during implementation and are likely to contribute to positive outcomes. However, such decisions can also result in outcomes that might be hard to identify (Resh and Cho, 2). This might be attributed to the fact that outcomes might take a prolonged period before manifesting.

Cameron (21) highlights that during the implementation of policies, the key players in the process remain to be public agencies. However, a government still has an influence over the process. Even though other players can also be involved in the process, their actions are limited. This explains the decision-making process applied in Norway. Norwegian Directorate of Health was in charge of making the decisions in Norway in response to the pandemic.

The process of decision-making in Norway can also be described using incremental politics. Incremental politics suggests that changes made frequently can help achieve positive outcomes for the situation rather than relying on one major policy change (Lindblom, 520). In Norway, the government and its institutions came up with frequent changes to the initiated restrictions. The improvements made in the measures were guided by the changes noted in the spread of the virus. The various changes initiated by the Norwegian government and other key decision-makers helped to reduce the effects associated with the virus.

March and Olsen (11) suggest that a decision-making process is not focused on coming up with a decision but on the happenings that occur simultaneously. Decision activities focus more on the outcomes that are likely to result rather than the decision itself. This applies to the decision-making process in Norway. Norwegian government focused on the pandemic and the outcomes that could arise from the measures rather than the effects the decisions would have on the public. March and Olsen (13) also highlight that any choice assumes a cycle of connections. There exists a connection between organizational choices and environmental responses.

According to Gustavsson (125), policies cannot be enacted without there being a question about a defined behavior observed in individuals. However, he argues that the actions taken by groups and players in a decision-making process rely on the policy at stake. Regulatory measures often result from government control over society. In the case of regulatory measures, the process is defined by struggles between various competitors. Measures can be initiated while having strong opposition from some of the parties involved. Gustavsson (129) highlights that new policies enacted by governments result from changes that occur in judgment. The changes often result from key events. The decision-making process applied in Norway can be said to have followed the public attention model of regulation. The effects brought about by the pandemic influenced decision-makers to come up with regulations that affected business operations.

Norway’s Choice Development Process

Immergut (63) suggests that political decisions require various decision-makers to agree. In this case, proposals likely to affect the general public have to be validated by other players involved in the process. However, Immergut (63) highlights that the ability of other decision-makers to influence the decisions being made relies on the powers they have that can allow them to block the enactment of policies. This aspect was observed in Norway, where the decision-making process in response to the pandemic had several players. Still, the government could at times ignore the advice given by expert committees. Immergut states that constitutional provisions come up with veto opportunities that outline procedures that divide power among representatives. In this case, the legislature and the executive have to be involved in the decision-making process. To ease the process of making decisions in response to the pandemic, the Norwegian government was granted the power to enforce actions which in the beginning was a role of the legislature (IPU, 1). This aimed to ensure that the government reacted fast to the pandemic to limit the number of new infections and deaths. This was to safeguard the general population. Immergut (65) highlights that if the decisions made by the executive do not require approval from the legislature, it can then initiate direct action. The legislature in Norway granted the government executive the powers to initiate direct action in response to the pandemic without relying on its permission.

March (2) proposes assumptions that guide actions initiated by leaders. The first assumption is that change might be very hard to effect in organizations if individuals in the organization are not ready enough for such actions. This explains why the Norwegian government had to develop measures to ensure that its citizens were safe. One can argue that the public knew of the existence of the pandemic but had not taken effective measures to protect themselves. This triggered the government to initiate action. Another assumption is that key decision makers have different abilities; therefore, organizations should seek to identify influential leaders. This enhances the possibility of success. By following the assumption, one can argue that the Norwegian government had effective leaders who came up with measures that helped limit the spread of the virus in the nation. As proposed by March (2), the third assumption is that the objectives held by decision makers have to be precise. When enforcing the measures, the Norwegian government had the aim to limit the spread of the virus. The last assumption is that the outcomes from an action help justify whether it was right or wrong. In this case, to justify the actions initiated by the Norwegian government, one can assess whether they were effective in reducing new infections.

Martin (4) states that all participants have to agree to acceptable sources of data during negotiation. However, in other cases, participants can have a varying set of facts that influence their actions. This explains the conflict in Norway between the central administration and local municipalities. The two entities established varying measures in response to the pandemic based on the information they had. Some of the municipalities ended up retaining established measures. Martin (4) suggests the need to include technical expertise during negotiations to ensure that the differences that exist in information are eliminated. Experts help to foster an understanding of policy problems in all participants. Martin (126) highlights that penalty defaults also facilitate the negotiation process and outcomes. Penalty defaults refer to the consequences that are likely to arise if a decision making process does not result to an effective solution. The issue of penalty default applies to the Norwegian decision-making process in response to the pandemic. The government knew that if no effective measures were initiated to address the pandemic, the citizens faced a high risk of infections and complications associated with the virus. This challenged the government to develop measures to limit spread.

According to Studlar (2), some of the issues in a political conflict can be prioritized while others which might be of equal importance might be sidelined. In such a conflict, there are inequalities in the opportunity to be heard and involved in a decision-making process. Studlar (3) states that the general public remains to be passive during the development of policies, but when mobilized, they can play a significant role in effecting change.

Different Decision Models

One of the decision models that could help shed light on the process and outcome of the intervention development procedure in Norway in response to the pandemic is the rational decision-making model (Etzioni, 385). According to Etzioni (385), the rational model proposes that a decision-maker identifies a problem, sets goals, assesses available alternatives, and then selects the alternative they perceive to be the best to solve the problem at hand (Enderud, 25). Each of the identified alternatives is guided by a course of action and its possible consequences concerning the problem aimed to solve (Halabi, 367). After the best alternative is selected, it is implemented and continuously assessed to identify consequences that determine its success in achieving set goals. The advantage associated with the model of making choices is that it ignores the effects of political influence (Heracleous, 16). The model aims at ensuring that the decision made has the maximum output likely to achieve set objectives. This applies to the Norwegian government. It came up with strict measures that helped to ease the risk faced by other nations. In some way, the decisions met the set goals, which were to minimize infections and deaths.

Heracleous (16) proposes that the model used in making choices is influenced by constraints and effects of the culture in question, perceptions held by different actors, the best course of action, and is also bounded by human rationality. Halabi (367) also highlights a boundedly rational model in making decisions which proposes that a decision is based on the first alternative that a decision-maker perceives to be the best. In this case, decision-makers do not have to identify a set of alternatives and compare them to develop the best one. This might explain some of the decisions made in Norway in response to the pandemic. Some of the decisions were made in a rush. Therefore, there was no adequate time to weigh possible alternatives.

The rational model of decision-making focuses more on the process of choosing the alternative that has the likelihood of causing the best outcome rather than the alternative itself. Oliviera (13) suggests that the rational model helps select the decision according to the degree of anticipated efficacy. Uzonwanne (2) also supports the fact that the rational model weighs the probabilities associated with different alternatives and allows decision-makers to identify probable results for each of them. This explains the choices made by the Norwegian government and other agencies in response to COVID-19. The decisions made were aimed at reducing infections and deaths resulting from the virus. The decisions ignored the fact that they were to limit various human rights and focused on their possibility to reduce the spread of the virus in the nation.

Another model that can help shed light on Norway’s decisions and outcomes in response to the pandemic is the progressive model (Lindblom, 1). Lindblom (1) refers to the model as the art of muddling through. Lindblom suggests two alternatives in which the incremental model is used in decision making. This paper will focus on the second alternative as it is more applicable to the decision-making process in Norway. The model suggests that governments come up with the major objective they seek to achieve. In this case, they tend to ignore other values that could apply in the situation. The model does not focus on the possible consequences associated with alternative policies and values attached to them (Migone and Howlett, 3). After coming up with a defined objective, it is necessary to identify several policy alternatives and later compare them to develop the most effective one. Comparison in the incremental model relies on experience to predict the consequences similar approaches can have in the future. The benefit of the model is that it allows a repeat of the defined procedure as conditions and ambitions change with time. The incremental model can be used to describe the process of decision-making applied in Norway in response to the pandemic. Lindblom (520) suggests that small changes made in a fast sequence in incremental politics can help achieve desired objectives more quickly than waiting for a major policy change. He adds that the incremental model acts as the fastest model of change. This explains the many policy changes introduced in Norway in response to the government. The government reacted in a fast manner to ensure that the nation’s spread was limited. The various measures introduced in Norway support the idea brought forward by Lindblom that the incremental model is a fast way of effecting change. Few months after the measures were introduced in Norway, the nation saw a significant decline in the number of new infections and deaths. By mid-April 2020, the number of new infections recorded in Norway had reduced significantly.

Dror (156) challenges the incremental model proposed by Lindblom and brings forward a normative-optimum model that guides the making of policies. One of the features of the model is that it provides a clarification of values, purposes, and the procedure followed in making decisions. The model also promotes focusing on available alternatives and emerging ones. In this case, the Norwegian government should have focused on identifying a number of alternatives that would help to remedy the situation. In the normative-optimum model, one has to project estimated outcomes of the various alternatives to identify the preferable one. One can argue that the Norwegian government identified the various measures to be the best alternative in controlling the spread of the virus in the country. The model relies on theory and experience to come up with decisions (Dror, 156). This applies in the case of Norway since the government knew that lacking to come up with effective measures would be a risk to the general population. It also relied on information gained from other nations about the effects of the pandemic and the effectiveness of established measures. The model also suggests that it promotes improvements according to changes experienced. According to the way the pandemic manifested in the nation, the Norwegian government made several changes to the decisions made on March 12, 2020.

Another model that could help shed light on Norway’s decision-making process and the outcome is the garbage can model. Cohen et al. (3) indicate that four basic variables influence the model. The first one is the number of choices available for decision-makers. Each of the choices is guide by time and the number of choice makers involved. The next one is the problem that needs to be addressed to come up with a solution. The third is the rate flow of solutions. Decision-makers, in this case, have several solutions to address a particular problem. They also have to identify problems and decisions associated with the solutions. The last variable, as proposed by Cohen et al. (3), is participants.  For each decision to be made, it must rely on the input from various participants. Norway can be said to have followed the garbage can model in coming up with policies in response to the pandemic. The pandemic was the main problem at hand. In Norway, the choice-making procedure was carried out by a series of participants involving the government, Norwegian Directorate of Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, and professionals from various fields. This helped to ensure that decisions made were well informed.

One of the characteristics associated with the garbage can model the ambiguity of goals. Various participants in a decision-making process might have different goals and preferences. This brings about a contradiction. According to Master (1), ambiguity limits the number of decisions that can be made to achieve mutually shared goals. This explains the clash experienced involving the principal administration and local rulers in Norway. They had differences in the goals they wished to achieve by introducing the measures to address COVID-19. Some local municipalities ended up retaining their measures that were different from those introduced by the central government. Another characteristic is fluid participation. In this case, participants in a decision-making process have a difference in their input (Jones, 48). This is determined by the interests held by each of them. For the case of Norway, it can be said that the government had more input in the decision-making process since, at times, it ignored the advice from expert committees. However, this can be associated with the government acting according to the logic of appropriateness (Ansell, 5885). The government acted in the manner since it saw the measures were necessary to combat the pandemic. Olsen (86) indicates that time also influences the definition of problems and the selection of participants. If there is adequate time, all participants are actively engaged such that each of them has an input in the choices made. Time was a significant challenge during the development of policies in Norway. The garbage can model is also defined by bounded rationality (Jann, 3). Decision-makers following the model are faced with a misunderstanding of events and their sources.

The conceptual models proposed by Allison (690) can also help shed light on Norway’s decision process and outcome in response to COVID-19. Allison proposes three models that can clarify or foresee the behavior of governments in response to a crisis. The models are; balanced strategy, group procedures, and administrative legislation (Allison, 690). In the rational policy, model governments try to develop a course of action that will likely have the maximum output to meet goals and objectives. By following the model, the government is viewed to be the rational actor. Therefore, the government acts as the key player in all major processes involved in decision-making (Huda, 1). Another concept used to define the rational policy model is the problem. Any action taken is always in response to a problem faced by a nation. For Norway, the problem was the spread of the virus. Another concept is static selection which refers to the set of alternatives available that can be applied to respond to a crisis. For an action to be rational, decision-makers must have defined goals and objectives they seek to achieve. The decision-makers also need to have several courses of action that can respond to a problem. They also have to identify consequences for each of the actions. For a choice made by decision-makers to be rational, it must have the maximum output in solving the problem faced by a nation (Allison, 694). With this in perspective, it can be said that the decisions made by the Norwegian government followed a rational policy model.

In the organization process model Allison (698) proposes that government behavior in response to a crisis can be defined as a course of action selected by a united rational choice-maker controlled by a central power with information to achieve maximum output. By following the organization process model, government action can be defined as the output of a large organization functioning with respect to a defined design of conduct (Kuwashima, 221). Government leaders can interfere with such organizations but do not have full control. This helps shed light on the reason behind the Norwegian Directorate of Health making the decisions issued on March 12, 2020. The Norwegian government mandated the directorate to address the pandemic in the nation.

Allison (707) indicates that there does not exist a unitary actor but several players in the administrative legislation model. In this case, the decision-makers do not focus on a specific issue but on others that might affect a nation. The players included in a decision process are from critical organizations in a country. The nature of the problem at hand permits differences between the major players with reference to their preferences and interests. Goals and interests held by different actors in a bureaucratic politics model rely on the need for national security, concerns held by organizations and individually (Jones, 6). According to Norcross (1), decisions in a bureaucratic politics model are based on conflict, arbitration, and brokering. This explains the actions taken in Norway in response to the pandemic. The government, together with its entities and professionals, played a role in the decision-making process. Input and interests held by various players in the process were different, which contributed to conflicts. This is defined by the fact that various decision-makers view an issue differently, influenced by their positions (Krylova, 1). In this model, the decisions made by a government rely on the input of various decision-makers. This was the same in Norway, where the government relied on advice from professionals in making decisions to respond to the pandemic.

Holyoke (2) states that when responding to social problems, administrative agencies have to involve organizations representing groups of people perceived to be at high risk. By collaborating, administrative entities and public organizations come together and develop regulations and expenditure programs. This enhances the enactment of regulatory policies by interest groups with the support of governments. In this case, guidelines exist without law. This can help to eliminate social and economic inequalities that result from regulatory measures.

Case Type

The case type in question leading to the decision-making process in Norway affected the entire society. In this case, the whole nation was at a high risk of being infected by coming to close contact with an already infected person. The decision-making process in Norway was aimed to come up with a defense policy for the general public. It might be defined to have followed the stream perspective. In this case, the government had a stream of choice-making possibilities (Egeberg 5). There was a need to develop effective measures that would help limit the spread of the virus in the country.

Wilson (5) suggests that the nature of the issues at hand influences the participants to be politically activated to participate in a policy-making process. A policy case focuses on the political content and the decision outcome. The Norwegian government focused on the decision outcome, which was to reduce the number of infections in the nation. To respond to the pandemic, the Norwegian government and other key players had to identify the most effective measures that would help combat the spread of the virus (Oslo University Hospital, 1). The process in Norway can be defined to be administrative regulation since it had social objectives (Wilson, 82). However, the government can also be said to have altered business behavior as an alternative to responding to the pandemic. Wilson (82) highlights that political actors in the decision-making process are threat-oriented and rather than looking for opportunities. In this case, government interventions allow all sorts of regulatory measures and coalitions to respond to possible threats.

Wilson (344) presents the process applied in the formulation of policies. He highlights that each policy must have a price and an advantage. Price, in this case, refers to the burden received by the general public. Each policy has to have a cost that the public has to bear. Norwegian citizens had to withstand the effects brought about by regulations in response to the pandemic. The decision-making process in Norway in response to the pandemic can also be said to be entrepreneurial politics. Wilson (347) describes entrepreneurial politics as regulations that benefit the greater public while negatively affecting a particular group. Defined interest groups find such policies and measures to be unattractive (Gormley, 4). In this case, the regulations introduced in Norway benefited the public. However, businesses and other establishments faced a negative impact since the regulations forced them to close.

Moran (4) states that regulatory policies can be easily distinguished from others in that they make direct choices about who is to be affected and those to be left out. Some people may benefit more than others from enacted regulatory policies. Businesses in Norway were significantly affected by the regulatory measures introduced in response to the pandemic. Moran (5) highlights that the key sectors of an economy receive the greatest impact from established measures. Regulatory policies are based on battles and concessions.

Being a case that affected the whole society, the Norwegian government therefore aimed at ensuring that the public was safe. It established measures to protect everyone. The decision-making process in Norway also had a stream of participants who were actively engaged. The government collaborated with Norwegian Directorate of Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, and expert committees to identify the most appropriate measures to introduce. One of the advantages associated with the stream perspective of decision making is that it discourages the implementation of decisions that are likely to use much of participants’ time and energy (Egeberg, 56). Another attribute associated with the stream perspective is that important decisions do not require all participants to validate.

Lowi (284) highlights that regulations introduced in public health eliminate morality and focus on regulating a particular group. In this case, regulations in the health sector seek to eliminate the possibility of harm to the public. Such regulations seek to control habits that might contribute to such results. This applies in the case of Norwegian regulations in response to the pandemic. Lowi (284) also highlights that vaccinations can be considered to be an example of regulatory policy in the health sector. Lowi (284), in “Four systems of policy, politics, and choice,” states that governments result in regulations as a strategy to control society and individual behavior. However, there are moral and political procedure consequences that arise from such actions. Policies provide enticements and possessions that might promote or limit the development of defined groups (Kellow, 14). Enticements result from social consequences that arise from government-initiated actions.

According to Brown (1), in every conflict, the results are determined by the manner in which the audience is involved in the process. If the audience is actively engaged, the results are more likely to be positive. The scope of a conflict also acts as a determinant of the political strategy to be applied. It also helps to determine whether the public is to be involved in a policy development process or not.

Works Cited

Allison, Graham T. “Conceptual models, and the Cuban missile crisis.” The American political science review 63.3 (1969): 689-718

Ansell, Christopher K. “Garbage Can model of behavior.” (2001): 5883-5886.

Brown, Adam.“Summary of Schattschneider: The Semisovereign People — Adam Brown, BYU Political Science.” Adambrown.info, 2021, https://adambrown.info/p/notes/schattschneider_the_semisovereign_people  Accessed 23 May 2021.

Cameron, Charles. Chapter 2. Getting Started: Issues, Interests, Institutions, and Information. https://scholar.princeton.edu/ccameron/political-analysis-toolkit

Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen. “A garbage can model of organizational choice.” Administrative science quarterly (1972): 1-25.

Dror, Yehezkel. “Muddling Through-” Science” or Inertia?” Public administration review (1964): 153-157.

Egeberg, Morten. State and organizations: majority board, party board, and bureaucracy in Norwegian politics. Univ.-for., 1981.

Etzioni, Amitai. “Mixed-scanning: A” third” approach to decision-making.” Public administration review (1967): 385-392.

Enderud, Harald (1985): Decisions in Organizations – in Behavioral Theory Perspective. Forward, Aalborg 6th edition.

FHI. “The Entry Quarantine On Arrival In Norway From Red And Yellow Countries / Areas.” FHI, 2020, https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/coronavirus/fakta/reiserad-knyttet-til-nytt-koronavirus-coronavirus/.

Halabi, Abdullah. The Factors That Effect on Rational Decision Making. International Journal of Applied Research 201 9; 5(5): 365-369

Heracleous, Loizos Th. “Rational decision making: myth or reality?” Management development review (1994).

Holyoke, Tom. “Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States.” The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. 2015.

Huda, Jasmine. “Conceptual Models Of Foreign Policy Behavior.” Umich.Edu, 1998, http://www.umich.edu/~psci160/GSIPIERRE/005007.html#:~:text=The%20Rational%20Policy%20Model%20is,the%20goals%20of%20national%20security.

IPU (2020). “Country Compilation of Parliamentary Responses to the Pandemic.” Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2020, https://www.ipu.org/country-compilation-parliamentary-responses-pandemic#N

Jann, Werner. “Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen, A garbage can model of organizational choice.” The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Jones, Brian Noble. Inside the Black Box: The Garbage Can Model of Decision-making in Selective College Admissions. Diss. University of Georgia, 2018.

Jones, Christopher M. “Bureaucratic politics and organizational process models.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. 2010

Kellow, Aynsley. “From policy typologies to policy feedback.” Handbook on Policy, Process and Governing. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.

Kuwashima, Kenichi. “How to Use Models of Organizational Decision Making?” Annals of Business Administrative Science 13.4 (2014): 215-230.

Krylova Yulia. Bureaucratic Politics. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_681-1

Lindblom, Charles E. “The Science of «Muddling Through. » Public (1995).

Lindblom, Charles E. “Still muddling, not yet through.” Public administration review 39.6 (1979): 517-526.

Lowi, Theodore J. “Four systems of policy, politics, and choice.” Public administration review 32.4 (1972): 298-310.

Lowi, Theodore J. “Comments on Anderson,” Governmental suasion: adding to the Lowi policy typology.”(article by John L. Anderson, in this issue, p. 266).” Policy Studies Journal 25.2 (1997): 283-286.

Master, David. Garbage Can Decision Making.” Davidmaister.com, 1983, https://davidmaister.com/articles/garbage-can-decision-making/

March, James G. “How we talk and how we act: Administrative theory and administrative life.” (1980).

Martin, Cathie Jo. “Conditions for successful negotiation: Lessons from Europe.” Negotiating Agreement in Politics (2013): 121.

Martin, Cathie Jo. “Negotiating political agreements.” Political Negotiation: A Handbook (2015): 7-33.

March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. “Organizational choice under ambiguity.” Ambiguity and choice in organizations 2 (1976): 10-23.

Migone, Andrea and Howlett, Michael. The Oxford handbook of classics in public policy and administration. OUP Oxford, 2015

Moran, Michael. “Theodore J. Lowi,“American business, public policy, case studies and political theory”.” The Oxford handbook of classics in public policy and administration. 2015.

Norcross, Luke. “‘Almost Perfect’: The Bureaucratic Politics Model and U.S. Foreign Policy.” E-International Relations, 2019, https://www.e-ir.info/2019/03/13/almost-perfect-the-bureaucratic-politics-model-and-u-s-foreign-policy/ Accessed May 16, 2021.

Norwegian Directorate of Health. “The Norwegian Directorate of Health has adopted comprehensive measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19.” Helsedirektoratet, 2020, https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/nyheter/helsedirektoratet-har-vedtatt-omfattende-tiltak-for-a-hindre-spredning-av-covid-19 . Accessed May 16, 2021

Oliveira, Arnaldo. “A discussion of rational and psychological decision-making theories and models: The search for a cultural-ethical decision-making model.” Electronic journal of business ethics and organization studies 12.2 (2007): 12-17.

Olsen, Johan P. “Choice in an organized anarchy.” Ambiguity and choice in organizations (1976): 82-139.

Oslo University Hospital. “OUH – Covid-19 Studies.” Ous-Research.no, 2020, https://www.ous-research.no/home/corona/Projects/21002 Accessed May 16, 2021.

Resh, William G., and Heejin Cho. “Revisiting James Q. Wilson’s Bureaucracy: Appointee Politics and Outcome Observability.” Available at SSRN 3444698 (2020).

Studlar, Donley. “EE Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America.” The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. 2015.

Uzonwanne, Francis C. “Rational model of decision making.” Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance. Springer International. (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2474-1

Wilson, James Q. “The politics of regulation.” The political economy: Readings in the politics and economics of American public policy (1984): 82-103.

Wilson, James Q. American government: Brief version. Cengage Learning, 2011.