Decision Aids for Local Decision Making: Discussion

In this period of declining state and federal support for many local programs, local officials are given the formidable task of providing adequate levels of community services for localities which often exhibit unique and unpredictable growth patterns. More than before, local officials must assume the role of entrepreneurs in planning and implementing community service delivery systems. As with any type of management role, the local decision maker has an ever-increasing need for management information. The quality of a particular decision with regard to community service provision is only as good as the quality of the information available to the decision maker. Unfortunately, many small units or subunits of government have neither the information or the means of obtaining the information for making sound management decisions. Realizing the importance of information to the local decision-making process, Doeksen and Nelson have developed an impressive program of decision aids for local decision making. The main thrust of their program is to assist rural areas in planning to accommodate change. Their program emphasizes three main areas which include decision aids (a) to predict growth, (b) to evaluate alternative community service delivery systems, and (c) to administer delivery systems. This discussion will attempt a brief assessment of the strengths and limitations of these decision aids. In conventional terms, area (a) is concerned with the demand side while areas (b) and (c) are concerned with the supply side of community service provision. Given the collective nature of community service provision, this discussion is written from a public choice perspective. With respect to demand, the authors have indicated that population, employment, and income changes impact directly on the level and mix of community services. Local decision makers face a twofold challenge of satisfying the majority needs of current residents and planning for potential growth. The latter of these challenges appears to be the most troublesome. In planning for populations and industries which may (or may not) arrive at some future date, decision makers are faced with the problem of planning for option demand. Option demand is a special public goods problem associated with identifying and collecting a fee from individuals who will benefit at some future date from a public decision made today. For expanding communities, planning for option demand means designing and financing service delivery systems which exceed the effective demand of the current population. This task is further complicated by uncertainties as to the preferences of future residents which may differ from those of current residents. Reliable growth forecasts can reduce some potential overinvestments or underinvestments in service delivery systems. On the supply of community services, Doekson and Nelson discussed decision aids to assist decision makers in evaluating and administering alternative systems. For this purpose, community service budgets were developed which enable decision makers to choose among alternative systems. Adopted from farm management budgets, community service budgets eliminate some of the guesswork associated with implementing or increasing the level of community services. Lacking the resources to generate budget information, local officials will be able to use these decision aids to provide services at lower costs. I was particularly impressed with the format and thoroughness of the budgets designed for ambulance delivery systems. Particularly noteworthy of these budgets are the decision options which are made available to decision makers. These options provide considerable flexibility for decison makers. After adopting a service delivery system, Josef M. Broder is an assistant professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia.