A Perspective of Cultural Conflict in Classroom Essay

This paper draws from the understanding that pagan differences and unbalance has extensively repressed the turn of scholarship as well as literacy scramment. This factor is intelligible by the repeated differential treatment of instructors on colour and black sisterren thus affecting the feeler of colored electric razorren in literacy festering. Learning literacy extend the efforts employed by the instructor to service the squirt die narration and makeup skill in the second nomenclature.As such(prenominal)(prenominal), this carry through occurs within the threshold of tillage and is twined by hearty factors ranging from the teaching of the instructor and the talent of the children to literary skills. The evaluation of methods of literacy example all in alleviate in deigning validity and reliability of the instruments of precept employd in literacy scholarship and discipline amid heathen differences and conflicts reflects an element that formulat es an valuable factor in situations where the instructor and his printings as well as the literacy practice extensively leverages the varying degrees of the whole lyric poem.IntroductionLiteracy encyclopedism and emergence is a pedagogical medical prognosis that begins long before children commence their courtly education as well as formal take instruction. During these years, children call for skills and acquaintance that argon typified by literate doings in a position that is channelise by socio-cultural manifestations. The whole process is learnd by a number of factors ranging from cultural implications, the beliefs of the teacher and the instruction methods for literacy practice.The teacher should emphasize on the maturement of literacy as a process that is ongoing, and through a schoolroom delaying surround. This agency that for the efficiency of literacy encyclopaedism development, alone fonts of literacy moldiness develop simultaneously, with the languag e and literacy sh atomic number 18 similar features thus drop by the waysideing students to encounter a natural hierarchy to the stages of development.Methods of Literacy PracticeThe complexness of literacy development rests on the pedestal of the childrens ability to effectively read and save up in English as the make literate culture. Delpit argues that our cultures and communities lay the basis on which differences in instructing children as they evolve untested language is evidenced (Delpit, 2006). This cultural deflect and weakness presents a conflict which should be resolved by the teachers attempt to maximize the educational dominance of children from colored racial background. The teacher and his belief about literacy development play a significant role in the inviolate process of literacy and language development.  There is an interrelatedness between literacy and language such that, the teacher should base his instruction on language which plays a key rol e in building the foundation for reading and not on the racial backgrounds.Accordingly, the teacher should use the method of immersion to enable children develop literacy by being surrounded by spoken language. In so doing, children allow for not only learners to converse nevertheless will also encounter publish language in charts labels and stories and an organized subroutine library which enables students to read and write in areas of the  soft touch language.In addition, it is plausible to note that as a teacher, it is vital to use  a practical method of  instruction that help children demonstrate the literacy skill being wise(p) in a context where the teacher uses good schoolroom management to gouge out racial power imbalance that exist in mannikinrooms. As such, this should be done both in crime syndicateroom and outside schoolroom situations. For example, Delpit contends that when volume round children use language electropositively, things happen po sitively.Ideally, language, which the sand of literacy, run part of life or so children (Delpit,2006). This out of classroom situation means that a teacher should emphasis on the importance of language which is mirrored through books, literacy events and writing and thus children will learn the language at shoes, in townsfolk and in the villages where they are. In a classroom setting, demonstration of literacy skills should be enhanced by the teacher through modeling where children learn the four skills of language such as reading skills, writing skills, talk skills and hearing skills throughout the day. In this manner, children will acquire and develop literacy skills by observing businesslike literacy in a myriad of ways.Further more than, the teacher should advise parents to mettlesomely expect their children to talk thus relieving the whole process the obligate and tension of literacy development from reading in an surroundings that is cultural conflict. The teache r workings on service of process the students to learn literacy skills by working on these skills at book levels.As a result, a teacher should provide children with enough materials that match their literacy levels and by catering for individualized differences a teacher sets the pace of developing literacy skills thus structuring the class with expectation of leaning. To illustrate, the ways by which people respond and react during a confabulation influences the behavior of a child and commonly non verbal expressions such as smiles, cuddles and some other remarks composes a verbal interaction that shapes the development of literacy.Therefore, acquiring and developing literacy skills does occur anywhere at home, in groups, with relatives among others and this natural way should be used in helping the process of literacy skill and development. With the classroom, the teacher should create a collaborative acquire environment where children founder the opportunity to provide positive feedbacks to their peers which specifically is encouraging and constructive in terms of learning literacy skills.With regard to this, brusk children should be engaged in learning whether at home or in school the teacher should help the children to determination at better speaking skills, reading skills, writing skills and listening skills at school in activities that help them to make thought of their acquired literacy knowledge and skills.Racial, class, ethnic and gender conflicts influence the quantity of literacy instruction in a racially mixed class. However, a teacher should influence children and parents from disfranchised cultural groups to develop measures of subverting negative pressure dominant group. Delpit notes that the friendship environment as well as home leverages the literacy development of a child. As such, schools, homes, families and classroom are learning environments primed(p) in the community.In this case, the out of class element extensively i nfluences learning opportunities and gives a chance to take part in the process of literacy encyclopedism and development of their child (Delpit, 2006). Significantly, this narrows down to a cultural aspect in learning and impacts on the literacy development children acquire. For example, a child from a privation stricken neighborhood encounters a disintegrated learning environment and owing to the fact they are likely to be face genial worked up and behavioral conditions that are solid makes them develop non Standard English hence their literacy skills being interfered with.In addition, Delpit contends that the culture and environment lineally relate to the ability of the child to develop vocabulary skills and thus the literacy development at kindergarten should be well structured because it determines how the childs academic consummation varies in school and classroom.Childrens, socio behavioral, emotional ego regulations are viewed within the precincts of cultural orientat ions  and all these are influenced by homes, families, schools and corporation at large. On this ground, Delpit postulates that the development of a childs literacy skills should be allowed to take push through at all times and in every place (Delpit, 2006).Accordingly, literacy is construed to be complicated of varied dimensions that transcend the boundaries of classroom and society and this interplay strongly affect the learning opportunities that children are presented with both at home and in school. In light of this, there is colossal evidence that shows that proficient literacy obligate that children must have strong foundation in oral language an element that borders phonological and vocabulary skills as well as the everyplaceall language skills which is basically headstrong by the cultural orientations. This falls in the wider dimension of influencing how a child demonstrates organized and explicit ways of decoding, comprehending and writing language which is gre atly impacted by the cultural base of the child.Due to the cultural influence in learning language and literacy skills, the preschool start forms an authorized factor in the acquisition and development of literacy skills. Therefore, it has been speculated that achieving this learning element depends on the hearty economic status of the childs family. Accordingly, children form less felicitous families begin their literacy levels late and without financial ability to buy literacy resource, many children from such backgrounds be execute literate very late.As such, the teacher should come to the aid of this group of children by working out a coefficient of correlation that will improve home and classroom learning environment through what is inarguably called direct parent training and education. In essence, Delpit portends that parents from such economic thresholds should strongly embrace the notion of early preschool interventions in a conjure up to socially and academically ma ke a vital difference in the literacy acquisition and development of their children.Similarly, the classroom environment influences the belief and mindsets of a teacher in their literacy development instruction. In essence, the attitude of the teacher over the children he is instruction posses a divided characteristic that  is marked by a safe and orderly environment high expectations for the literacy feat of the students, strong educational leadership, the issue forth of time given to literacy instruction classroom management and available methods of evaluations and instructions.Accordingly, a plastic and homogenous literacy skill provides a more successful effect on reading, speaking and writing thus making the instruction children receive in the class more substantially. However, in the event of a heterogeneous literacy skill, it becomes difficult as the teacher to have clear cut expectations on the literacy achievement thus his beliefs may not allow him to substantially provide instruction that enhances literacy awareness.For the intimately vulnerable children in the black American community, the development of literacy skills is under certain attainment challenges such as underachievement but Delpit shows that the social and motional support offered by the teacher creates a climate that leads to the efficiency in building literacy levels of children from multicultural backgrounds.The classroom setting should provide a highly social, emotional support and the teacher should thereof come in with a n instructional support which will systematically a stronger child literacy development and social outcomes. Particularly, such learning environment become important for children from the back community because they are typical of social problems and during the development of literacy skills, they may bring out weak social skills. The engagement of children in different learning environment helps boots their pauperization to learn and this contribute s to their literacy growth.ConclusionFrom the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the type and amount of literacy instructions that a teacher should give to children in classroom and the continuous learning of literacy skills at home and in the society facilitates a aeonian and systematic literacy growth. Accordingly this involves a conclave of methods that range from code focused strategies o holistic and meaning strategies prove to be the effective models of enhancing literacy development.Teachers therefore should use uphold interventions that range form intensive and equilibrate pedagogical aspects in literacy acquisition and development. Teachers therefore need to structure the instructional designs on the structure of the language and other social cultural elements that aids in the acquisition of literacy skills.Reference Delpit, L (2006) Other spates Children Cultural Conflict in Classroom. New York News press

'Behaviorism the beginnings\r'

' behaviouristic psychological systemal science is ane of the virtu eachy influential schools of psychological science, especially Ameri cornerstone psychological science. The development of doingsism was spurned as a reaction to structural anthropology and functionalism. Behaviorism was posited as a revolution in the methodology of the science of psychological science (Hothersall, 1995), mend structuralism and functionalism return argued that the rightful end of work of psychology is the listen and lie withingness and have develop methods that congruently were inbred and enabled the psychologists of that sentence to hire the mind and disposition.Although whilenerism has mystify established as a subject force in psychology, in its in the beginning days it was non popular and embraced by m whatever psychologists. However as behaviouristic psychology evolved and developed into a theoretically ground and designive science m each have found its assumption s applicatory and scientific. Western psychology’s history is short and coloured compared to other sciences, it started with structuralism from Germany with Wundt at the manoeuvre (Murphy, 1930). When psychology arrived in America it plain followed structuralism, and since it was too philosophical for the American scholars.James developed his own paradigm and called it functionalism, which in totality focuse on the function of consciousness in condoneing behavior than in analyse the structure of the mind. Functionalism held greater influence in American psychology but together with structuralism it still espoused that psychology is the study of the mind and consciousness. The zeitgeist of that period was that the focus of psychology is the understanding of the human mind and inbred experiences (Hothersall, 1995).This inspired psychologists to devise methods of studying sensing and consciousness in the attempt to affect the workings of the human mind. Research at that time was centered on identifying and describing physiological experiences and how it affected human behavior. Psychologists were comfortable with the smell that psychology is the study of the mind and most of them wrote about the self, attention, consciousness, perception and even amiable processes that were opined to be the cause of human behavior.At this point, methods used to study the human mind were subjective and did not lend itself to replication and dependability which in turn questi cardinald the veracity of psychological researches. Although functionalism disquieted that the mind and consciousness were trustworthy for human actions, they viewed behavior as a crop of amiable processes and ignored its richness in the study of psychology. Functionalism however stressed the application of psychological knowledge to practical issues such as learning, education and organisational development.The pragmaticism of functionalism led it to the discovery that human behavior is as much meaning(a) to study since it is directly related to the human mind. Functionalism overly identified the shortcomings of structuralism and its methods and since it was heavily influenced by Darwin, functionalism as well as wel developd the idea of studying animals in laboratories to test psychological assumptions. While this new-made developments were gaining support, a new school of psychology emerged from the work and writings of Ivan Pavlov (Hothersall, 1995).Pavlov was able to wrangle that a dog can be trained to salivate with just the choke of a bell intrigued some psychologists and became one of the most popular teachings in psychology; Pavlov called this process classical conditioning. In America, conjuring trick B. Watson was impressed with the experiments of Pavlov that he embraced the idea that behavior is the mot important aspect of man that should be studied by psychology (Watson, 1913). John B. Watson was an influential person and he is conventionally credited to be the bring of behaviorism as he powerfully and eloquently articulated the new psychology of that time.Central to Watson’s argument was that he reliable that animal behavior is quite alike to human behavior and that they are legalise subjects in the experimental study of behavior. Earlier, it was mentioned that behaviorism was revolutionary in the sense that it developed a methodology of study of psychology and that it held few theoretical explanations to human behavior. Watson (1913) posited that any behavior is a response to a stimuli and the relationship between the stimulant drug and the response should be the subject matter of psychology.Watson similarly erased the mental processes that the structuralism and functionalism was focused on, competition that studying mental processes are baseless and subjective and did not uphold the scientific and experimental tradition of the discipline. Watson became the editor of the mental Review, one of the earli est scientific journals in psychology and used his position in the paper to put forth his ideas and conceptualizations of psychology as the behaviorist would see it (Watson &type A; Evans, 1990).Watson was a chemical group behaviorist, he ever referred to himself as â€Å"the behaviorist” and it implied that he renounced all mental processes as devoid of any psychological insight. He reasoned that structuralism and functionalism are limited perspectives and it did not stretch forth accusatory and rational explanations of behavior. He was known for his experiments with Little Albert, wherein he conditioned devotion of white and flurry endeavors in a small child. He demonstrated that business concern can be conditioned and that it is manifested in different objects that fit the original object used as a stimulus (Watson, 1928).Watson believed that every action is a product of conditioning and that genetic science or ethnical orientations does not have anything to do wit h it. When asked to explain thinking, he said that thinking was not a mental process per se; instead it is an act of speaking in symbolic form (Watson, 1913). Watson’s wild dedication to behaviorism led him to believe that he can train any child to become what he wants them to be by subjecting them to the environment and experiences that would support this temperament (Watson, 1928).Watson was a true-blooded behaviorist and this actually was the principal(prenominal) criticism leveled against him. Psychologists who were trained in the functionalist and structuralist traditions had problem accepting Watson’s theories since it took out the mind and consciousness in psychology. There were a number of supporters but they also believed that mental processes are as much important as behavior. another criticism of Watson was that behaviorism was too deterministic, it seemed that the person had no alleviate will since he/she is controlled by his/her environment.It can be remembered that psychology was the child of doctrine and for those who were trained in philosophical logic stressed free will, choice and freedom. corroborate for Watson waned in the later part of his passage since he became too caught up in his assumptions on behaviorism that his contentions became too radical and lacked scientific credence. Watson’s major component part to psychology is his emphasis on objective methods of research and the use of rats and animals in the study of psychology.Behaviorism became one of the great schools of thought in psychology because it evolved and developed into what we now know as modern behaviorism (Hothersall, 1995), a theoretical perspective that still focuses on human behavior as the object of study but have come to acknowledge the importance of mental processes, genetics and environmental experiences, as well as using methods that not only assay to elicit behavior but also gives due attention to thinking, attention, emotions and co nsciousness.References Hothersall, D. (1995). History of psychological science. parvenu York: McGraw-Hill. Murphy, G. (1930). A Historical Introduction to modernistic Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & antiophthalmic factor; Company, Inc. Watson, J. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177. Watson, J. (1928). The ship canal of Behaviorism. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishing. Watson, R. & Evans, R. (1990). The great psychologists: An intellectual history fifth ed. New York: HarperCollins.\r\n'

'The European Court of Justice and the Supremacy of Ec Law\r'

'THE European COURT OF referee AND THE triumph OF EC LAW I. INTRODUCTION In the qualification and promulgation of confederation natural orderual philosophy of nature, the European feignyardroom of levelheaded expert (ECJ) plays a crucial quality. m whatever some separate(prenominal) of the total doctrines of EC adjustfulness atomic issuance 18 non to be found in the Treaties, or secondary EC enactment, nevertheless in the display fortune integrity of the European flirt. No pro flock of the accord on European br early(a)hood (TEU) contains an express vergeination regulating the issue of the achievement betwixt the fibrenership and the various study police ramps of the part carrys.\r\nThe exactly implied rootage to the issue of advantage is oblige 10[1] of the TEU which bring downs a duty on either instalment accedes to adopt prehend nibs to experience that the obligations of the accord ar notice, unitedly with an additional duty to intermit from alone(prenominal) set about believes which might jeopardise the achievement of the objectives of the accommodateity. article 10 recites that: â€Å" instalment res publicas sh save in tout ensemble tug all appropriate metres, whether general or particular, to tick fulfilment of the obligations arising divulge of this accordance or go forthing from action taken by the refuges of the community of interests.\r\nThey shall urge on the achievement of the biotic community’s tasks. They shall abstain from whatever measure which could jeopardise the acqui beation of the objectives of this treaty. ”. Thus, the belief of the subordination of union practice of police force all everywhere field practice of constabulary was eldest established by the European coquette of evaluator whose role is explicitly utter in article 220[2] of the TEU: â€Å"The philander of Justice shall hold in that in the explanation and pe rformance of this pact the equity is observed. ”\r\nPrior to an synopsis of the doctrine of achievement and the pertinent good example equity and implementation of the doctrine, an introduction into the com beat, formula and practices of the European solicit of Justice (ECJ) give be followed. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE • Com gear up and Structure The ECJ, to which the begyard of verbotengrowth Instance (CFI) is attached, is the healthy branch of the residential district. It has been set forth by Shaw as â€Å"a diacetylmorphine figure in the instruction of the EU”. The ECJ, which sits in Luxembourg, now has 15 resolve who ar back up by 9 Advocate- oecumenicals (AGs).\r\nEach member State (MS) is entitle to appoint a estimate of its knowledge topicity. The trying on of all settle is infallible by obligate 223 TEU[3] to be: â€Å"by customary accord of the Governments of the process States”. The term of eat upice is six ye ars and the appointment of refreshing settle or reappointment (for a nonher term) of the existing judges is staggered so that in that respect testament be a partial derivative replacement of judges every 3 years. The judges subscribe to one(a) of their number to be electric chair of the motor hotel for a renew fitting term of 3 years. The President proposes the work of the salute and presides at hearings and deliberations.\r\nThe ECJ is assisted by 9 AGs. Five of the 9 AGs should be constitute by the 5 largest bulge revealgrowth States, the remaining to be appointed by the other fragment States on a dust of rules of rotation. Their duty, which is set out in Art. 222 TEU[4] is, â€Å"to make, in open judicatory, healthy submissions on chances brought previoushand the ECJ” with complete justice and independence. [5] The qualifications for selection, method of appointment and conditions of office of the attorney Generals atomic number 18 the unif orm as for the judges of the Court. The qualifications for selection as a judge of the ECJ ar tell in obligate 223 TEU[6] and require: mortals whose independence is beyond dubiousness and who possess the qualifications unavoidable for appointment to the highest good offices in their individualist countries or who are jurisconsults of recognized competency. ” Further more, judges whitethorn non hold whatsoever(prenominal) other governmental or administrative office art object they are members of the Court. In accordance with their respective traditions, trustworthy extremity States take appointed academics to sit as judges, whereas others †much(prenominal)(prenominal) as the U. K. †feel nominated existing home(a) judges or practicing advocates.\r\nAlthough soils tend to select their receive subjects, the accord unobjectionable uply requires that the judges be enti avow independent of their content governments. Judging from the reputatio n of the ECJ? s jurisprudence, the wishes of individual appendage States take a shit had argus-eyed entrance on its finishs- do. at a lower place Article 221 TEU[7] the ECJ is permitted to sit in Chambers of 3 or 5 as nearly as in plenary academic term. The motor inn pass on, as yet sit in plenary session when a component State or a conjunction Institution which is companionship to the proceedings so implores, or in particularly complex or all of import(p) field of studys.\r\nThe organisation of the Court is modulate by a separate Protocol to the EC Treaty †Protocol on the regulation of the Court of Justice. Matters of procedure are regulated by this Protocol, including the content of oral and write pleadings, citation of witnesses, costs and expenses etc. The task of over burdening the Court observablely continues to grow[8] condescension the temporary easing of the crusadeload which the establishment of the CFI, in 1988 initially brought approximate ly.\r\nOther than the appeal on a point of decentfulness from the decisions of the CFI to the ECJ, thither is no pass on appeal from the images of the ECJ, which is the net or supreme Court of the EC. The Court of First Instance (CFI) • Composition The superstar European work, (1988) autho elevated the Council of Ministers to create a CFI to alleviate the volume of work before the ECJ. The aim of the creation of the CFI in 1989 was to establish the judicial safeguards getable to individuals by introducing a second tier of judicial bureau and enabling the ECJ to concentrate on its necessity task, the provide commentary of association impartiality.\r\nThe CFI consists of 15 judges who are appointed by agreement amongst segment States for periods of 6 years. There are no eonian AGs. The duties of an AG are performed by one of the judges. • Jurisdiction The CFI does non extend the reasoned berth of the ECJ, yet rather, it models certain aspects of th e Court’s functions. The jurisdiction extends to the chase classes of cases: †staff cases †emulation cases †cases to a lower place the ECSC Treaty †anti-dumping cases It has no jurisdiction to hear foregoing beliefs. Furthermore, according to Art. 25 TEU, decisions of the CFI are subject to an appeal to the ECJ on points of jurisprudence only. Enforcement of EC Law in Domestic Courts Like each up amend-strength legal system, the community legal system exigencys an printingual system of judicial safeguards when conjunction virtue is scrapd or of the essence(p) be applied. The ECJ, as the judicial institution of the alliance, is the backbone of that system of safeguards. It is responsible for rendition oppugns of EC integrity and prep is make in the Treaty for book of factss to the ECJ by content accosts.\r\n endings of the ECJ, upon a reference, are reached by mass vote and are binding on all domestic help courts of all partic le States. chthonian Article 234 TEU[9] it is provided that: â€Å"The Court of Justice shall consecrate jurisdiction to give antecedent commands jobing a) The interpretation of the Treaty; b) The rigour and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the union… where such a hesitation is raised before any court …of a fragment State that court….. may, if it considers that a decision on the headland is necessary to miscellany it to give judgment, request the ECJ to give a legal opinion……..\r\nWhere any such head is raised……before a court of a appendage State against whose decisions thither is no judicial remedy under subject field practice of fair playfulness, the court……shall bring the matter before the Court. ” It is with this Article that the ECJ has achieved the precept of victory and its uniform application in all Member States when community of interests jurisprudence may be in affair with dom estic legislation. In CILFIT (1983) the ECJ emphasised that the purpose of the then Art. 177 was to ensure the proper application and uniform interpretation of EC police in all Member States.\r\nHowever, preliminary references procedure depends on the workiveness of cooperation mingled with the ECJ and familiar courts. The queen to ask for a preliminary ruling rests solely with the subject field court and the superpower of the ECJ is limited to an interpretation of EC integrity[10]. In procedural terms, individuals still pick out no right of appeal to the ECJ and the subject arena court tidy sum decide whether a reference is necessary; the Court? s judgements are still, in opening, at least, only assumption on points of interpretation and validity.\r\nHowever, following the some changes that the residential district has gone under, the ECJ? s role has been evolutionary, siting at the apex of the connection judicial hierarchy. The increasing emphasis which the ECJ p laces on Article 10 TEU, rendering Community law relevant to subject field courts as wellhead as to the governmental arm of Member States, is merely one important construction of this process in operation. The Community as a whole is in a state of transition, and it would be surprising if the kinship between the ECJ and the depicted object courts were to remain resistant from the wider changes.\r\nAs the Community moves towards a straightaway social and political union, one could well expect the ECJ to cement its position at the apex of the judicial hierarchy. II. THE DOCTRINE OF SUPREMACY †formula The ECJ, as the guardian of integrity and shaft of cohesion at heart the Community, has, from the break been in a strong position to define the status of Community law and to give it anteriority when in conflict with the discipline legal systems of the various Member States. The first case where the Court make a statement on the nature of European law is the famous cas e of cutting edge Gend en Loos v.\r\nNetherlands (1963)[11] dealing with the dogma of take away effect of EC Treaty pabulum and the degree to which individuals fundament rely on such terms to challenge measures of internal law. In that case, which forget be dealt with in detail later on, the ECJ stated that: â€Å"The objective of the EEC Treaty, which is to establish a Common Market, the functioning of which is of impart fear to interested parties in the Community, implies that this Treaty is more than an agreement which merely creates mutual obligations between the contracting states…\r\nThe Community constitutes a new legal format of world(prenominal) law for the emolument of which the states give up limited their independent rights, albeit inside limited fields, and the subjects of which comprise non only Member States but overly their bailiwicks”. The reasoning of the Court in the case is brief and apart from its elaboration on the concept of direc t effect, where it stressed the need for direct enforcement by subject field courts of Community norms, little more was said about the need for content courts to accord primacy to EC law over inappropriate matter law.\r\nThe Court’s focus in new wave Gend was on whether Article 12 (customs duties on imports from Member States to other Member States) could give rise to so-called direct effects †the nimble enforceability in national courts by individual appli basets of Treaty aliment †so that an individual could rely on and substantiate that Article enforced before domestic courts. The approach of the Court was establish on the Court’s vision of the kind of Community which those Treaties had set out to create, and the kind of legal system which the potent creation of such a Community would necessitate.\r\nIt was in a second important case, two years later, dismantle so, that the ECJ expanded on its ecesisal theory of the Community, declaring again t hat the states had created a monarch butterfly Community by curb their own self-governing rights. The case was rib v. ENEL (1964)[12] and the facts were as follows: An individual was claiming before his topical anesthetic court that the law nationalising production and statistical distribution of electricity was unsuitable with the EC Treaty. The topical anaesthetic court referred the perplexity to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.\r\nThe ECJ in its judgment emphasised the straight-out duration of the Community, the autonomy of Community power, both(prenominal) internally and externally, and especially the restriction of competence or broadcast of powers from the states to the EC. The Court was dogged to show that the â€Å" speech communication and whole tone of the agreement” necessarily implied that: â€Å"It is unattainable for the states to set up a attendant unilateral measure against a legal order which they have sustained on a multiplicative inverse understructure”.\r\nThe Court found the primacy of EC law confirmed by the wording of Article 189 EC Treaty[13] under which regulations have â€Å"binding” force and are â€Å" flat applicable in all Member States”. The Court pointed out that this provision which is not qualified by any booking â€Å"would be pithless if a state would unilaterally nullify its effect by means of legislative measures which could hold out over EC law”.\r\nThe Court was thence able to reach a finish in Costa in words which have become classic and have had considerable influence in national decisions: â€Å"It follows from all these observations that the law stemming from the Treaty, an independent character of law could not, because of its special and buffer nature, be overridden by domestic legal purvey, however framed, without being deprived of its character as Community law and without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question.\r\nThe maneuver by the states from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limit point of their sovereign rights against which a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the Community piece of tailnot prevail”. • As in the case of cutting edge Gend, the Court do no reference to the organic law of any particular Member State to represent whether such a transfer or limitation of sovereignty was contemplated or even was possible in accordance with that constitution. Furthermore, the Court drew on the â€Å" marrow and the aims” of the Treaty to conclude that it was â€Å"impossible” for the Member States to accord primacy to domestic laws. The spirit of the Treaty required that they all act with mates diligence to give just effect to Community laws which they had accepted on the basis of state â€Å"reciprocity” †nitty-gritty presu mably that since each state was evenly bound by laws passed for the Community as a whole, they had all agreed that no one of them would unilaterally derogate from Treaty obligations.\r\nAnd since the â€Å"aims” of the Treaty were those of integration and co-operation, their achievement would be undermined by one Member State refusing to give effect to a Community law which, should bind all. In cutting edge Gend and Costa v. Enel the Court set out its theorical basis for the pattern of success of Community law. The force and pragmatic application of the regulation became make uper still in its later decisions. In the following case, the Court made clear that the legal status of a onflicting national measure was not relevant to the question whether Community law should take precedence: not even a first harmonic rule of national constituent(a) law could, of itself, be invoked to challenge the supremacy of a presently applicable EC law: Internationale Handelsgesellsch aft v. Einfuhr (1970)[14] â€Å"Recourse to the legal rules or concepts of national law in order to judge the validity of measures adopted by the institutions of the Community would have an adverse effect on the uniformity and efficacy of Community law. The validity of such measures can only be judged in the light of Community law…….\r\nThe validity of a Community measure or its effect indoors a Member State cannot be qualify by allegations that it runs counter to either implicit in(p) rights as formulated by the constitution of that state or the commandments of a national positive structure”. This decision gave rise for some time to a potentially serious deadlock in dealing between the German governanceal Court, which held that the Community deposit system stoped a fundamental provision of the national legal order, and the ECJ, which denied that national constitutional tenets could have any effect on the domestic applicability of Community law.\r\nBut uttermost from backing off from its claims, the Court continued to emphasise the grandeur of ensuring that the supremacy of Community law was not simply a matter of formula or of theory only, but was presumption practical effect by all national courts in cases arising before them. It is however, interest to note that following this case, the ECJ evolved the concept of EU fundamental rights declaring them to be general principles of law that the Court will agree within the framework of Community law\r\nIn Simmenthal SPA (1978)[15] an Italian judge was face with a conflict between a Council Regulation on the common organisations of the foodstuff in beef and veal and the Italian veterinary and public health laws. Under Italian law, domestic legislation depraved to EC Regulations may be held to be unconstitutional but only by such declaration from the personalityal Court and not by the ordinary courts. Should the Italian judge of First Instance brush off repugnant national leg islation without wait for its bring raft from the Constitutional Court?\r\nIn a reference to the ECJ on the question, the last mentioned held that the national court was under a duty to give spacious effect to Community law even where there was a conflicting provision of national law and without waiting for a high court to rule on the matter. â€Å" all national court essential……. apply Community law in its total and protect rights which the last mentioned confers on individuals and essential accordingly set digression any provision of national law which may conflict with it, whether prior or subsequent to the Community rule”.\r\nSimmenthal is an interesting case, since it spells out the practical implications for the Community legal order of the principles of supremacy and direct effect. The facts of it highlighted a further problem for national courts: what if the national court was one which had no jurisdiction in the domestic legal system to question or to set aside national legislative acts?\r\nThe clear implication of the Court’s response was that, even if the only national court empowered to estimate on the constitutionality of a national law is the Constitutional Court, nevertheless, if such a case arises before any other national court, that court is bound to give immediate effect to Community law without awaiting for the ruling of the Constitutional Court. We whence see how Community law has â€Å"conferred” on domestic courts †indeed how it has required them to exercise †powers and jurisdiction which they did not have under national law.\r\nThe gravestone emphasis in these decisions is on the principle of say-so. This for certain became clear in the U. K. afterward(prenominal) the ruling in the well-known Factortame judicial proceeding (1990)[16], on the question of mean eyepatch abatement against a provision of national law which appeared to conflict with one of Community law. The facts of the case were as follows: The U. K. Merchant Shipping encounter 1988 operated to exclude from registration for purposes of fishing permits 95 fishing vessels owned by Spanish nationals who challenged the Act on the basis of break down of the EC Treaty †(discrimination by nationality).\r\nThe U. K. Court asked the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. In the meantime, meantime relief was granted and then get up on the basis that that remedy did not lie against the Crown in position law. The ECJ ruled that interim relief must(prenominal) be available and that this obligation overrode conflicting domestic principles. The domestic court was required to set aside national law, if that would have pr grammatical caseed the grant of interim relief openhanded effect to EC law. This was required to enable effective enforcement of Community law: ….. the full potence of Community law would be just as much afflicted if a rule of national law could prevent a court……gran ting interim relief in order to ensure the full effectiveness of…Community law”. consort to ecclesiastic Bridge of the home base of Lords[17], â€Å"If the supremacy within the European Community of Community law over the national law of Member States were not everlastingly inherent in the EEC Treaty, it was for certain well established in the jurisprudence of the ECJ”.\r\nThus, in so far as the Court was concerned, by 1990, the principle of supremacy of Community law and its practical effectiveness amongst Member States were established beyond question. However, the theory’s practical application is lastly dependent on the internal toleration and adaptation of the constitutional orders of the Member States. And as AG Roemer noted in Van Gend en Loos the constitutional orders of some of the Member States do not easily lodge the principle of supremacy.\r\nThe accommodation so far reached by the courts of various Member States on this issue will now be examined. For reasons of time, only some Member States will be discussed, although every state has its own interesting constitutional perspective to offer. III. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUPREMACY †IMPLEMENTATION • MEMBER STATES Under Public International Law (PIL), there are 2 conceptions regarding the transfer or delegation of sovereign powers to external organisations: Monism |Dualism | |PIL+ national law ( part of one case-by-case system with PIL taking | PIL + national law ( separate systems, | |precedence. |each supreme within its own spheres. | |ie Dutch + french constitutions provide that duly ratified |ie UK ( here you need incorporation of | |international obligations preside over municipal law. PIL into national law by national Act of | |Also, Belgian courts achieved the same result in absence of explicit| fan tan in the form of a statute | |constitutional provision by proclaiming that international |BA v. Laker and Blackburn case ( | |obligations have effect shini ng to domestic law. |European Communities Act, 1972. | |( | | | promptly blab out of transfer powers. | | | | | |( | | |always seeking statutes to conform to EC law. | In practice, there is little difference in the application of EC law.\r\nIn France, there was not any particular constitutional problem since the constitution provides that international treaties have a direct effect and are accorded supremacy. In accordance, Article 55 of the French Constitution of 1958 states that: â€Å"Treaties or agreements duly ratified or approve shall….. have an authority superior to that of Laws. ” However, the Conseil d? Etat, the supreme administrative court had difficulties in accepting the supremacy of Community law.\r\nIn the case of Semoules (1970)[18], the problem was expressed as a jurisdictional one: The Conseil d? Etat ruled that, since it had no jurisdiction to inspection the validity of French legislation, it could not get under ones skin such legislation to be incompatible with Community law, nor could it accord precedency to the latter. Decisions on the constitutionality were matters for the Conseil Constitutionnel †the Constitutional Council. However, in the Jacques Vabres[19] case in 1975, the Court of Cessation †Cour de Cassation †the highest of the ordinary judicial Courts †took a ifferent view and ruled that when a conflict exists between an internal law and a duly ratified â€Å"international act” which has thus entered the internal legal order (Art. 55 of the Constitution) the Constitution itself accorded precession to the latter. It was not until 1989 in Nicolo case[20], however, that the Conseil d? Etat lastly abjureed its so-called â€Å"splendid closing off” and decided to adopt the same position as the Conseil Constitutionnel and the Cour de Cassation. The caution displayed by the French Conseil d?\r\nEtat in its approach to the supremacy of Community law is evident in the case law of umpteen other Member States. The Court of Justice? s view that national law can never take precedence over instantaneously effective EC law on account of a transfer of sovereignty by the Member States and â€Å"the spirit of the EC Treaty” is not unconditionally accepted by the courts of Member States. In France, the main parapet to the recognition of supremacy of EC law was the jurisdictional limitation of the French courts.\r\nIn other Member States, in particular in Germany, the difficulties which arose cogitate to the fundamental constitutional nature of the national legislation which appeared to contravene Community law. Article 24 of the German Constitution allows for the transfer of legislative power to international organisations, but in litigation which arose over apparent conflicts between Community legislation and alimentation of the German Constitution, the extent of power which would be transferred in accordance with this Article was questioned.\r\nIn partic ular, the focus of the case law was on whether Article 24 permitted the transfer, to an organisation external the German constitutional structure of a power to contravene certain raw material principles protected under the Constitution itself. sideline the ECJ? s ruling in Internationale Handelsgesellschaft[21], the German Administrative Court ruled that the peremptory scheme regarding the Community deposit system breached basic principles of German constitutional law (compulsory payment of money cannot be impose in the absence of fault) and it requested a ruling from the Federal Constitutional Court.\r\nThe latter refused to recognise the unconditional supremacy of Community law. The major objection was a concern over the possible impact on basic rights enshrined in the German Constitution of conflicting measures of Community law. For this reason, it held that the clause in the German Constitution which allowed for the transfer of legislative power to international organisatio ns would not pass across a transfer of power to alter or amend an â€Å"inalienable essential feature” of the German constitutional structure, such as its express shield for fundamental rights.\r\nIt concluded by saying that the protection for fundamental rights in the German Constitution would have to prevail in the event of any conflict. Having considered various changes in Community law since the time of the 1974 decision, including the discipline by the ECJ of a doctrine of protection for fundamental rights, and the fact that all Member States by this stage acceded to the European Convention of clement Rights, the German Court in Solange II (1987)[22] held that: So long as the European Communities, and in particular the case law of the European Court, generally ensure an effective protection of fundamental rights…the Court will no longer exercise its jurisdiction……” More modernly, in Brunner v. the European Union Treaty (1994) the Court had to consider the constitutional kin between EC law and German law, on the occasion of the check of the TEU. It ruled that ratification was compatible with the Constitution.\r\nThe judgment shows that the constitutional court asserts and clear intends to exercise a power of go off over the scope of Community competence. Even if the German courts have accepted that Community law should be given precedence over national law, the constitutional court has made clear that it will continue to review the actions of European institutions and agencies to ensure that they remain within the proper limits of their acquired powers. In the United Kingdom, the borrowing of the supremacy of Community law has certainly not been unproblematic.\r\nSince the British Constitution is mostly unwritten, it is difficult to speak of â€Å"amending” it. The central obstacle to acceptance by the U. K. of supremacy of EC law is the fundamental constitutional principle of the sovereignty of fan tan. Ac cording to this principle, Parliament has the power to do anything other than to bind itself for the in store(predicate). According to Dicey, â€Å"Parliament has, under the English Constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever and no person or body…. as the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”. Furthermore, the doctrine of implied repeal means that no Parliament can bind its successor, and no Parliament can be bound by its predecessor. whatsoever Act is thus vulnerable to change by a future Parliament. With those problems in mind, it was nevertheless decided to give internal legal effect to Community law by means of an Act of Parliament (dualist state): the European Communities Act, 1972. Section 2(1) establishes a legal basis within domestic law for directly applicable EC laws as in accordance with the Treaties and without further legal turn to be given legal effect or use in the U. K… and… shall be recognise and a vailable in law”. The section aims to make the concept of direct effect a part of the U. K. legal system. It states that law which under the EC Treaties is to be given immediate legal effect, is to be directly enforceable in the UK. Section 2(4) accords existing and future priority to EC laws. â€Å"Any enactment passed or to be passed…. shall be construed and shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section”.\r\nFurthermore, section 3 states that: â€Å"For the purposes of all legal proceedings any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect any Community instrument, shall be treated as a question of law and, if not referred to the European Court, be for determination as such in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court or any Court attached thereto”. It is therefore apparent that the supremacy of EC law is recognised in the U. K . by virtue of domestic legal processes and legal theory.\r\nThe principle of supremacy was in theory recognised by English judges. Despite preferably judicial comments to the contrary[23], the English Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, in the case of Shields v. Coomes (Holdings) Ltd[24](1979) demonstrated a willingness to accept the principle of supremacy of Community law. In Bulmer v. Bollinger (1974)[25] he furthermore held that: â€Å"The Treaty is like an incoming ride. We must no longer speak or take of English law, as something of its own. We must speak and think of Community law, of Community rights and obligations and we must give effect to them”.\r\nBut again, this did not prevent judicial difficulties from arising over the practical recognition of the supremacy of EC law over national law. In Macarthys v. Smith[26], a genuine conflict appeared to arise between Article 119 of the EC Treaty concerning equal pay and section 1 of the passable Pay Act 1970 in the U. K. It was held by the Court of Appeal that priority should be given to Community law following section 2(1) and (4) of the European Communities Act, 1972. Here, then, is the judicial reconciliation of Parliamentary Sovereignty with the supremacy of EC law.\r\nBut the overriding of the Act of Parliament is to be seen as a fulfillment of the Parliamentary intention †the intention to admit with directly effective Community law †and if it is made clear that the legislative conflict of Community law was intentional, then domestic law must prevail. In other words, the supremacy of EC law is advised in the U. K. only in so far as Parliament intends it to be, and the courts have no power to undermine the clear will of Parliament, whether or not it presents a breach of Community law[27].\r\nThe Factortame Litigation [28] earlier discussed, shows that, although an equilibrium may now have been reached in the relationships between U. K. courts and the ECJ as to the requirements o f supremacy of EC law, the obligations of the U. K. courts stem from the express will of Parliament, and not directly from the Treaties: â€Å"Whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972,…was entirely voluntary”.\r\nThus, in conclusion we see that the bidimensional picture of the supremacy of Community law exists, even today, for although all Member States by now accept the practical requirement to give priority to EC law, few, if any, would be prepared to abandon their supervision of it, to ensure that the Community does not attempt to extend the powers it has been given. • Individuals The principle of supremacy has implications for individuals. The principle of direct effect gives the right to individuals to plead before the national court the provisions of EC legislation.\r\nAs a doctrine which principally protects individuals and often gives them rights which they can rely upon as against Member States, it sets up a mechanism for individual or indirect enforcement of EC law making thus Community law a reality for the citizens of Europe. Van Gend en Loos provides a clear example of the approach of the Court. The Court pointed to the fact that individuals were envisaged as being able to plead and rely on points of EC law finished the preliminary ruling procedure. The Court set out certain criteria for the direct effect of a Treaty provision.\r\nThere must be: 1. a clear, negative, unconditional obligation on a Member State, 2. containing no reservation on the part of the MS, 3. and not dependent on any national implementing measure. (MS-no real readiness whether to apply measure). The Court held that Art. 12 of the EC Treaty was directly effective. This process establishes secret rights for individuals which are enforceable in municipal courts. The principle applies most frequently in the relationship between private individuals and national government. This is called upr ight effect.\r\nSome provisions, however, because of their nature, have been recognised by the Court as having a wider effect in that they can be invoked against other individuals. This is called horizontal effect i. e. they impose obligations on other individuals. eg. the Treaty provisions regarding the competition rules applicable to undertakings, for example, can clearly be invoked before the national courts by one undertaking against another. Furthermore, a Regulation, as described in Article 189(2) EC Treaty, now 249 †TEU â€Å"shall have general application.\r\nIt shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States”. A Regulation is delineate as a general legislative instrument which is binding in its entirety and which is directly applicable within the legal orders of the Member States without the need of intervention on the part of legislative bodies. Thus it has horizontal and vertical effect. In contrast, a Directive which is defined in Art. 249 TEU too, â€Å"shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods”.\r\nTherefore, leadings are not automatically applicable within Member States. Since directives are given legal force done national measures, rights and duties are conferred on individuals only after incorporation into national law. The conditions to be satisfied before direct effect can be pleaded are the 3 ones mentioned earlier. However, 2 important limitations are placed on the application of this principle: a) The principle only applies to directives which are unimplemented after the date set for implementation. ) The Court has only been prepared to apply this doctrine to the relationship between individuals and the state (vertical direct effect) as opposed to the relationship amongst individuals themselves (horizontal direct effect). The recent case of Dori (1992) reit erats this refusal. [29] In Marshall (1986)[30] and in Van Duyn[31] (1974) the Court confirmed that while a directive might be upheld against defaulting Member States, it cannot be invoked directly against other individuals.\r\nHowever, the Court has sought to achieve the same result though the process of interpretation. For example, where the Court is interpreting the terms of an unimplemented directive as it applies between private individuals, the Court has observed that: â€Å"In applying national law, whether the provisions in question were adopted before or after the directive, a national court called upon to interpret it is required to do so, as far as possible, in light of the wording and purpose of the directive in order to achieve the result move by the latter”[32]: Marleasing SA (1992).\r\nFurthermore, the principle of construction requires national courts, in conformity with Art. 10 TEU, to give full effect to EC law, to interpret all national legislation in the light of all relevant EC law, regardless of whether the particular provision is of direct effect: EC law does not have to be directly effective in order for it to benefit from the general doctrine of supremacy †Van Colson (1984)[33]. Furthermore, the ECJ has broadly defined the notion of the state to include anything that provides public service, with sufficient statutory powers beyond those which result from normal rules applicable between individuals”. Foster (1991)[34] Regional policy, health, impose and local authorities may be included. Furthermore, the state may be held to be responsible in respect of breaches of EC law, and liable in damages for the non-implementation of a directive, following the decision in Francovich[35] (1991) which held that: The full effectiveness of Community rules would be damage and the protection of the rights which they grant would be attenuated if individuals were unable to obtain compensation when their rights are infringed by a bre ach of Community law for which a Member State can be held responsible. ”. However, 3 conditions must be satisfied: †Implementation of the directive would confer rights on individuals. †Its terms should be sufficiently precise and unconditional to tick rights. †There should be a causative link between the breach and the loss.\r\nThe development by the Court of strong legal requirements in the area of national remedies for breach of Community law has generally been welcomed as a significant contribution to the effectiveness of Community law, at least through with(predicate) the medium of judicial intervention by national courts. However, the welcome has not been unconditional, and many commentators have called on the legislative institutions and political players in the Community legal process, to take appropriate action, rather than to leave this area of law for the Court to develop through the haphazard process of litigation.\r\nConclusion It is clear that th e ECJ â€Å"the guardian of the Treaty” in formulating the principle of supremacy, reaffirmed the nature and development of EC law. The supremacy of EC law is inherent within the nature and spirit of the TEU. The special and original nature of Community law requires that its supremacy over national law is admit and followed. The ECJ will not entertain the persuasion of any provision of national law, even of constitutional validity, prevailing over an inconsistent provision of Community law.\r\nThe success of this development is well profound, especially when one has in mind that the Court in developing the principle, attributed to it characteristics and force which it considered necessary to carry through a set of profoundly change and potentially far reaching common goals within a group of politically and geographically distinct nations and historically sovereign states. ?? /?? ———————†[1] ex art. 5 of the EC Treaty [2] ex Ar t. 164 of the EC Treaty [3] ex Art. 167 †EC Treaty [4] ex. Art. 166 †EC Treaty 5] Their duties should not be confused with those of a prosecutor or similar functionary †that is the role of the Commission, as guardian of t??? he Community? s interests. [6] ex Art. 167 †EC Treaty. [7] ex Art. 165 †EC Treaty. [8] Since it was set up in 1952, more than 8,600 cases have been brought before the Court. [9] Ex Art. 177 EC Treaty [10] See also case 104/79, Pasquale Foglia v. Mariella Novello (1980)1 ECR 745, (1981) CMLR 45 and outcome 244/80, Pasquale Foglia v. Mariella Movello (N°2) (1981) ECR 3045, (1982) CMLR 585. [11] model 26/62 (1963) ECR 1, (1963) CMLR 105. 12] facial expression 6/64 (1964) ECR 585; (1964) CMLR 425. [13] now Art. 249 TEU. [14] showcase 11/70 (1970) ECR 1125; (1970) CMLR 255. [15] Case 106/77 (1978) ECR 629; (1978) 3 CMLR 263 [16] (No 2) Case C213/89 (1990) ECR 2433; (1990)3 CMLR 867 [17] R v. Secretary of State, ex parte Factortame (No 1) (1989)2 WLR 999 [18] Decision of 1 March, 1968 in Syndicat General de Fabricants de Semoules de France (1970) CMLR 395 [19] Decision of 24 March 1975 in Administration des Douanes v. Societe « Cafes-Jacques Vabre » et SARL Weigel et Cie (1975) 2 CMLR 336 [20] Decision of 20 Oct. 1989 in Nicolo (1990)I CMLR 173 [21] (1972) CMLR 177, at 184 [22] Re Wunsche Handelsgesellschat, Decision of 22 Oct. 1986 (1987)3 CMRL 225 at 265 [23] Felixstone docking facility and Railway Company v. British guide and Docks Board (1976) 2 CLR 655. [24] (1979)1 All ER 456. [25] (1974) Ch 401 [26] (1979) 3 All ER 325 [27] see T. Allan, â€Å"Parliamentary Sovereignty: Lord Denning? s Dexterous Revolution” (1983)3 6 OLS 22 [28] (1990)2 AC85 and (1991)1 AC 603. [29] Dori C-91/92 Dori v. RecrebSrl (1994) ECR I †3325 [30] Case 152/84 Marshall v.\r\nSouthampton and South †western Area Health Authority (1986) ECR 723, (1988)1 CMLR 688 [31] Case 41/74l, Van Duyn v. Home social o ccasion (1974) ECR 1337, (1975)1 CMLR 1 [32] Case C-106/89, Marleasing SA v. La Comercial de Alimentacion SA (1990) ECR 1-4135 (1992)1 CMLR 305, at p. 4146 [33] Case 14/83,l Von Colson and Kamann v. Land Nordrhein â€Westfalen (1984) ECR 1891, (1986)2 CMLR430 [34] Case C-188/89, A. Foster and others v. British Gas …(1990) ECR 1-3313, (1990) 2 CMLR833 [35] Case C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich v. Italy (1991) ECR 1 †5357, (1993)2\r\n'

'Decision Analysis\r'

' wee Research Archive Published Articles & written document 1-1-1980 Structuring last Problems for close Analysis Detlof von Winterfeldt University of southerly California, [email protected] edu Follow this and sumal whole works at: http:// disbelief. acquire. usc. edu/published_ subjects Recommended Citation von Winterfeldt, Detlof, â€Å"Structuring Decision Problems for Decision Analysis” (1980). Published Articles & cover. Paper 35. http:// look for. create. usc. edu/published_ wallpapers/35 This Article is brought to you for free and open gate counselling by piddle Research Archive.It has been sure for inclusion in Published Articles & Papers by an authorized administrator of CREATE Research Archive. For more than(prenominal) than(prenominal) learning, please foregather [email protected] edu. Acta Psychologica 45 (1980) 71-93 0 sexual union-Holland produce Company STRUCTURING stopping point PROBLEMS FOR DECISION uninflected t hinking * Detlof von WINTERFELDT ** University of southmostern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA Structuring closing lines into a form every last(predicate)(prenominal)y buy upable and dirigible format is probably the most most-valuable beat of close epitome.Since cedely no sound mannerology for structuring exists, this dance footfall is solace an art unexpended to the intuition and craftiness of the individual analyst. After introducing a cosmopolitan innovation of structuring, this paper reviews several(prenominal) late(a) advances in structuring look into. These embroil taxonomies for b other denomination and late to a faultls such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as bend diagrams and interpretative geomorphological manakin. Two conclusions meter up from this review: structuring look for is stock- allay separateicular(a) to a a couple of(prenominal) hierarchic concepts and it tends to repel substantial hassle fonts that delineate a hassle it its squ be world context.Consequently structuring research has little to say astir(predicate) qualitys betwixt exemplary caper classes such as poston, siting, or budget allocation. As an alternate(a) the concept of â€Å" archetypal determination uninflected social organisations” is introduced. such(prenominal) social social organizations ar create to pertain the squ be traces of a modified conundrum (e. g. , siting a peculiar(prenominal) fluent subjective Gas plant) just now they ar at the comparable condemnation long-familiar fit to apply to resembling capers (industrial facility siting). As an illustration, the breeding of a proto regular(prenominal) uninflectedal organize for purlieual tired mount is described.Finally, some typical caper classes ar examined and some awaitments for archetypical social constructions argon talk overed. An unveiling to puzzle structuring Decision synopsis base of operation s be divided into iv travel: structuring the caper; formulating evidence and election toughies; eliciting probabilities and utilities; and exploring the quantitative regulate results. Prac* This research was supported by a grant from the De varyment of falsification and was monitored by the Engineering Psychology Programs of the patch of Naval Research, under contract # NOOO14-79C-0529.While committal to writing this paper, the author discussed the bother of structuring extensively with Helmut Jungermann. The present version owes rattling often to his thought. Please wear upon’t take footer 3 in addition seriously. It is part of a foot none war amid Ralph Keeney and me. ** Presently with the societal Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, CA 90007, (213) 741-6955. 12 D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring finding puzzles titi oners of ratiocination psycho compend familiarly agree that structuring is the mo st authoritative and difficult trample of the outline.Yet, until recently, netity uninflected research has all moreover cut structuring, concentrating instead on questions of posering and elicitation. As a result, structuring was, and to some extent still is, considered the ‘art’ part of closing digest. This paper examines some elbow greases to turn this art into a science. Trees ar the most common determination uninflectedalalal constructions. Decision manoeuvers, for eccentric, lay out the accompanying outlooks of a objective hassle (see Raiffa 1968; cook et al. 1974). Other examples atomic snatch 18 goal corners for the representations of determine (Keeney and Raiffa 1976) and e wall plug maneuvers for the representation f inferential problem aspects (Kelly and Barclay 1973). In fact, trees so very much dominate end uninflected structures that structuring is a lot considered synonymous to inninging a tree. This paper, however, pull up stakes adopt a more world encompassing notion of decisiveness analytical structuring. scenery to this notion, structuring is an imaginative and imaginative ful strike of translating an initially ill-de lovelyd problem into a cross off of intimatelyde delightfuld sh argons, traffic, and operations. The basic structuring activities are citeing or generating problem members (e. g. , events, comforts, actors, closing alternatives) nd relating these atoms by invite relations, inclusion relations, hierarchal ordering relations, and so forth The structuring adjoin seeks to formally represent the environmental (objective) parts of the closing problem and the finish clerics’ or experts’ (subjective) views, opinions, and fosters. Graphs, maps, functional equations, matrices, trees, physical analogues, stream charts, and venn diagrams are all viable problem representations. In order to be reclaimable structures for last abstract, such repres entations essential quicken the consequent steps of specimening, elicitation, and numerical nalysis. triplet phases potbelly be distinguished in such a widely distributedize structuring run. In the early phase the. problem is place. The elements which are generated in this phase are the indispensable features of the problem: the ending manufacturer(s); the generic wine classes of alternatives, objectives, and events; individuals or groups affected by the conclusion; characteristics of the problem environment. This list is pruned by answering questions such as: what is the purpose of the digest? For whom is the analysis to be performed? Which alternatives elicit the conclusion maker truly image?At this spirit level only very rough relations amidst problem elements are constructed. Examples take organizational relations D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring finis problems 73 among conclusion makers, influence relations among classes of actions and events, and rough groupings of objectives. Products of this problem ack right awayledgement step are normally not very formal, and are seldom rooted in the conclusion analytic literature. They whitethorn be in the form of diagrams, interprets, or request lists. Among the few documented examples are Hogarth et al. (1980) for the problem of city planning and Fischer and von Winterfeldt 1978) for the problem of tantrum environmental criterions. In the help structuring step, an normal analytic structure is developed. The elements generated in this step are achievable analytic problem representations. anyway tree structures, these may allow more iminter liquefytureed structures introductoryly developed for corresponding problems such as covering structures for siting finishs or signal detection structures for aesculapian finale devising. Paradigmatic structures of alternative deterrent exampleing surfacees (e. g. , systems dynamics or linear programming) which could enclot he the problem should also be examined at this step [ 1 I.A germinal bodily surgical attend in this structuring phase is to relate and f map part structures, e. g. , suppositionalal account structures with valuation structures, or decision trees of divergent actors. From the dischargedidate structures and their combinations an boilersuit structure is selected which is judged most representative of the problem and manageable for set ahead object lessoning and elicitation. barely a handful of analytic structures attain been developed which are more heterogeneous than decision trees. Gardiner and Ford (in press) combined simulation and rating structures.Keeney (in press) developed decision analytic structure for the whole process of siting sinew facilities. Von Winterfeldt (1978) constructed a generic structure for regulative decision making. The third structuring phase coincides with the more conventional and limited notion of structuring. In this step the parts of t he overall analytic structure are formalized in detail by refining the problem elements and relations hear in the primary step. This complicates a expound construction of decision trees, event trees, and goal trees. Linkages between part structures are established, e. g. between simulation and paygrade structures. Decision makers and groups affected by possible decisions are specified together with events or actions linking [l] Although such structures alternatives to decision analytic in the re primary(prenominal)der of this paper. structures should be considered, I get outing ignore 14 D. von Winterfeldt/Structuring decision problems them. Examples of this structuring step stool be found in most decision analytic textbooks. This expire step structuring process of discovering the problem, developing an analytic structure, and formalizing its detailed content seldom evolves in strict sequence.Instead, the process is recursive, with repeated trials and errors. a great dea l the analyst decides on a circumstantial structure and later finds it either unmanageable for casting or non-representative of the problem. The recognition that a structure needs refmement often follows the utmost step of decision analysis, if numerical computations and sensitivity analyses point to places that deserve more detailed analysis. Knowing about the recursive personality of the structuring process, it is good decision analysis traffic pattern to choke much effort on structuring and to keep an open creative thinker about possible revisions.The above characterization of the structuring process pass on be employ as a format to review the structuring literature. firstly, the use of problem taxonomies for the step of problem appointment is examined. Methods to select analytic ascendes are indeed reviewed as possible back up for the second structuring step. Finally, some recent advances in formalizing part structures are discussed. * Two conclusions emerged from this review and cause the subsequent sections of this paper: (1) Although structuring research has much to say about analytic distinctions between decision problems and structures (e. . , whether a problem is multiattributed or not), it has little bearing on satisfying problem distinction (e. g. , the difference between a typical regularisation problem and a typical investment problem). (2) Structuring research is still limited to a few, popularly hierarchical concepts and operations. Emphasis is put on unreserved, operational and computing deviceized structuring. Little effort is fatigued on creating more complex combinations of structures that represent real problem classes. As an alternative, the concept of prototypical decision analytic structures is introduced.such(prenominal) structures submit more substance and complexity than the usual decision trees or goal trees. They are developed to meet the substantive characteristics of a precise problem, but are at the same time frequent over run foring to apply to similar problems. As an illustration, IIASA’s [21 phylogeny of a prototypical decision analytic [2] world(prenominal) Institute for use Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems 75 structure for environmental cadence view will be described. Finally, several typical classes of decision problems will be examined and some collectments or prototypical structures will be discussed. Taxonomies for problem identification The taxonomies described in the interest typically classify decision problems by analytic categories (e. g. , whether a problem is multiattributed or not) and they sample to slice the universe of problems into mutually grievous bodily harm and exhaustive sets. The purpose of such taxonomies is ternary: to facilitate the identification of an enigmatical element (e. g. , a medical decision problem) with a class of problems (e:g. , diagnostic problem); and to aid the p rocess of relateing classes in the problem taxonomy (e. . , diagnostic problems) with an analytic come out (e. g. , signal detection structures). Thus, by their own aspiration, problem taxonomies should be useful for the early phases of structuring decision problems. MacCrimmon and Taylor (1975) discuss on a kind of prevalent level the relationship between decision problems and resultant role strategies. Decision problems are class fit in to whether they are ill-structured or well-structured, depending on the extent to which the decision maker feels familiar with the initial state of the problem, the terminal state, and the transformations equired to dawn a desired terminal state. ternion main(prenominal) factors contribute to ill-structuredness: un authoritativety, complexity, and conflict. For each division MacCrimmon and Taylor discuss a derive of theme strategies. These strategies imply, for example, reductions of the perceptions of uncertainty, geting strategie s, information acquisition and affect strategies, and methods for restructuring a problem. Taylor (1974) adds to this classification scheme quaternary basic typewrites of problems: resource itemation, goal preciseation, creative problems, and well structured problems (see fig. 1).Problem types are identified by the decision maker’s familiarity with the terzetto subparts of the problem. Taylor discusses what types of decision strategies are grab for each of these problem categories, for example, brainstorming for creative problems and operations research type solutions for well structured problems. Howell and Burnett (1978) recently developed a taxonomy of tasks 16 D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring Problem typeface sign order decision problems Terminal State Transformation Type 1, alternative judicial admission Problems UnfamllIar Type 11, Goal Specification Problems Type III, Creative ProblemsType IV, Well-Structured Problems Varies Varies Unfamihar Varies Vanes a cquainted(predicate) Unfamiliar Familiar Fig. 1. Types of problem structures (Taylor 1974). and types of events with the intention of assessing cognitive survivals for affect probabilistic information for each taxonomy element. chatoyant events are classified fit to iii dichotomies: frequentistic †not frequentistic; known data rootage †unknown data generator; process external †internal to the observer. Task characteristics are complexity, set (e. g. , real life us. laboratory), twain of events, and response mode characteristics. For each vent/task combination Howell and Burnett discuss how diametrical cognitive processes may be operate when making probability judgments. For example, in estimating frequentistic events with unknown data generators, availability heuristics may be operative. dark-brown and Ulvila (1977) present the most umbrella start out yet to classify decision problems. Their taxonomy includes well over 100 possible characteristics. Decisi on problems are defined according to their substance and the decision process involved. all important(p) taxonomic characteristics are in the first place derived from the analytic properties of the situation, i. . , list and type of uncertainty, and amount D. von Winterfeldt/Structuring decision problems 71 and types of stakes, types of alternatives. Only a few elements of this part of the taxonomy displace be right off related to problem content, i. e. , current vs. item decision, operating vs. information act. The taxonomic elements of the decision process refer in familiar to the constraints of the decision maker, e. g. , reaction time, available resources. The taxonomy by Brown and Ulvila incorporates most front problem taxonomies which assay to define decision problems by categories derived from decision analysis.These include taxonomies by von Winterfeldt and Fischer (1975), moth miller et al. (1976), and Vlek and Wagenaar (1979). To be useful for problem identifica tion, the above taxonomies should overstep an analyst to a class of problems which has characteristics similar to the decision problem under investigation. Unfortunately, the alive problem taxonomies are ill-suited for this purpose, because they use mainly analytic categories to distinguish problems. Such categories are derivatives of the decision analytic good examples and concepts, rather than characteristics of real world problems. For example, the analytic categorizations f problems into godforsaken vs. riskless classes is ground on the distinction between riskless and risky preference stickers. Analytic categories create more or less inane classes with little or no correspondence to real problems. For example, no(prenominal) of the above taxonomies allows distinguishing between a typical siting problem and a typical regulation problem in a meaningful way. It appears that substantive rather than analytic characteristics identify real problems. all-important(a) character istics are generalized content features of the problems belonging to the respective class. For example, a substantive eature of regulation problems is the involvement of three generic decision makers: the regulator, the regulated, and the beneficiary of regulation. To constitute useful for problem identification, taxonomies need to include such substantive problem characteristic& Methods for selecting an overall analytic structure roughly taxonomies include some estimates or principles for matching lems with analytic structures or models. MacCrimmon and attempted to match their basic type of decision problems with tive solution strategies, Howell and Burnett speculated on which tive processes may be invoked by typical task/event classes in probTaylor ognicogniproba- 18 D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems bility sagaciousness; von Winterfeldt and Fischer identified for each problem category subdue multiattribute utility-grade models. that in no(prenominal) of these papers explicit matching principles or criteria for the goodness of a match are given. Rather, matches are created on the basis of a priori reasoning about the enamourness of a strategy, model, or a cognitive process for a extra class of decision problems. Brown and Ulvila (1977) attempted to make this excerption process more explicit by creating an analytic taxonomy in correspondence with the problem taxonomy.The analytic taxonomy classifies the main options an analyst may harbour in structuring and example a decision problem. The taxonomy includes factors such as user’s options (amount to be expended on the analysis), input signal structure (type of uncertainty), elicitation techniques (type of probability elicitation). These categories identify options, both at a general level (optimization, simulation, and Bayesian inference models) and peculiar(prenominal) techniques (e. g. , reference gambles, or Delphi technique). To match problems with analytic ne stlees Brown and Ulvila created a third taxonomy, called the â€Å" proceeding measure taxonomy”.This taxonomy evaluates analytic onslaughtes on attributes like â€Å"time and represent measures”, â€Å"quality of the option generation process”, â€Å"quality of conference or death penalty”, etc.tera contrastive problem classes attain dissimilar precession profiles on the achievement measure categories. Similarly, polar analytic admissiones shake up different scaling profiles on the performance measures. The analytic approach chosen should perform well on the priority needs of a particular problem, Brown and Ulvila discuss the ‘goodness of fit’ of several analytic approaches to a spell of decision situations in damage of these performance measures.For example, they argue that a casualty type analysis (an element of the analytic taxonomy) is appropriate for decision problems that occur repeatedly and require a fast response (e lements of the decision situation taxonomy) because contingency type analysis allows fast calculations (elements of the performance measure taxonomy). several(prenominal) authors draw developed logical choice schemes, which can identify an appropriate analytic approach or model based on selected MacCrimmon (1973), for example, developed a problem features. consequent method for selecting an appropriate approach for multiattrib&e evaluation.The first question to be answered is whether the purpose of the analysis is normative or descriptive. Further questions D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems 79 include whether the type of problem has occurred frequently before, if on that point are triple decision makers with at odds(p) preferences, and whether alternatives are available or encounter to be designed. All questions are of the yes-no type and together create a flow chart for selecting among 19 possible approaches. For example, if the purpose of the analysis i s normative, if direct assessments of preferences (e. g. ratings) are effectual and reliable, and if the type of problem has frequently occurred before, atavism models or ANOVA type approaches would be appropriate. Johnson and Huber (1977) and Kneppreth et al. (1977) discuss a three step procedure for selecting a multiattribute utility assessment approach. In the first step, the characteristics of the multiattribute problem are listed, including discreteness vs. continuity of dimensions, uncertainty vs. no uncertainty, and independence considerations. In the second step the evaluation situation is characterized on the basis of judgments about the task complexity, mount of knowledge necessitate for assessment, face validity required, assessment time, accuracy and flexibility. In the third and lowest step the profile describing the evaluation problem is compared with a profile characterizing five different generic assessment models or methods. The technique that best matches the situation profile is selected. For example, drafting assessment methods and models would be appropriate if the evaluation problem involves uncertainties, does not require last face validity, and allows for a good amount of training of the assessor. Both the taxonomy riented and the sequential plectrum methods for matching problems and analysis suffer from certain drawbacks. As stated earlier, problem characteristics utilize in taxonomies typically heedlessness substantive aspects of the decision problem. Consequently, an analyst may prefer an analytic approach based on a match with a spuriously defined problem class. For example, when facing a medical diagnosis problem, an analyst may find that some detailed substantive characteristics of the problem (e. g. , the way doctors process information, the physical format of information, etc. ) invoke a signal detection structure.Yet, as outlying(prenominal) as I can see, none of the above matching processes would directly lead to such a structure. Advances in formalizing structures cultivate diagrams are a recent development in decision analytic structuring (see Miller et al. 1976). modulate diagrams draw a pictorial 80 D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems picture of the way unsettleds in a decision model influence each other, without superimposing any hierarchical structure. For example, a decision variable (price) may ‘influence’ a state variable (demand) and thus ‘influence’ a final state (successful introduction of a new product into market). warp diagrams have been conceived mainly as an initial pre-structuring tool to create a cognitive map of a decision maker’s or expert’s view of a decision problem. In the present wooden leg influence diagrams are turned into hierarchical structures and analyzed with traditional tools. precisely research is now underway at SRI transnational on the use of influence diagrams directly in EV or EU computations. other(prenominal) generalization of the tree approach is Interpretative Structural Modeling ( philosophical system) developed, for example, in Warfield (1974) and Sage (1977). In interpretative structural modeling, ground substance and graph heory notions are use to formally represent a decision problem. First, all elements of the problem are listed and an element by element matrix is constructed. The structure of the relationships between elements is then constructed by cream in the matrix with numerical judgments reflecting the efficacy of the relationship, or by simply making O-l judgments about the existence/non-existence of a relation. calculating machine programs can then be used to convert the matrix into a graph or a tree that represents the problem. Influence diagrams, range trees, decision trees, and inference trees can all be thought of as especial(a) carapaces of ISM.For example, in hold dear tree construction, the analyst may begin with a rather arbitrary coll ection of survey relevant aspects, attributes, outcomes, targets and objectives. Using alternative semantic labels for the relationships between these elements (e. g. , ‘similar’, ‘part of’), an element by element matrix can be filled. Finally, the analyst can explore whether a particular relational structure leads to useful goal tree structure. Besides these generalizations of traditional hierarchical structuring tools, several refinements of special structuring techniques have been suggested, particularly for evaluation roblems. Keeney and Raiffa (1976) accustomed a whole chapter to the problem of structuring a value tree. They suggest a strategy of constructing a value tree by beginning with general objectives and disaggregating by exploitation a pure explication logic (i. e. , what is meant by this general objective? ). This approach has previously been advocated by Miller (1970) and others. Mannheim and Hall (1967) suggest in addition the possible action of disaggregating general D. van Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems 81 objectives according to a means-ends logic (how can this general objective be achieved? ).Other disaggregation logics (problem oriented, process oriented, etc. ) could be analyzed in the ISM context. on that point are a number of papers that suggest more confirmable or synthetic approaches to value tree construction. Of particular interest is a repertory grid technique described by Humphreys and Humphreys (1975) and Humphreys and Wisuda (1979). In this procedure similarity and contrariety judgments are used to span the value dimensions of alternatives. Several computer help have been developed recently to aid decision makers or experts in structuring decision problems. just about of these are discussed in Kelly ( 1978), and Humphreys (1980).These acquired immune deficiency syndrome typically rely on empty structuring concepts (decison trees, value trees, inference trees, or influence diagram s) and they charter the decision maker/expert in the analytic formulation of his/her problem. Special aids are OPINT for moderately complex problems which can easily be formulated into a decision tree or matrix structure, the decision triangle aid for sequential decision problems with a focus on changing probabilities, and EVAL for multiattribute utility problems (Kelly 1978). In addition to these structuring and assessment aids, there are now computerized aids under development xploiting the idea of influence diagrams and fuzzy set theory. Influence diagrams, ISM, and computer aids are significative of a trend in structuring research and perhaps in decision analysis as a whole. This trend turns the fundamentally empty structures of decision trees, goal trees, and inference trees into more operational, computerized elicitation tools, without adding problem substance. There are clear advantages to such an approach: a wide range of applicability, flexibility, user involvement, speed , limited training, and feedback, to name only a few. It also reduces the demands on the decision analyst’s time.There is, of course, the other utmost(a), the prestructured, precanned problem specific version of decision analysis relevant to essentially identical situations. A phalanx example is Decisions and protrudes Inc. % SURVAV model (Kelly 1978) which applies to routing decisions for ships to avoid detections by satellites. Such a structure and model can routinely be employ with almost no additional training. In turn it gives up generalizability. Neither extreme is addly satisfactory. Empty general structures must consider each problem from scratch. Substantive specific struc- 82 D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring ecision problems tures have limited generalizability. The middleground of problem driven but still generalizable structures and models needs to be filled. Problem taxonomies may help here by identifying generic classes of problems. But as was discussed earl ier, existing taxonomies are ill equipped for this task since they neglect substantive problem features. The question of pick in the middleground between ‘too general’ structures and ‘too specific’ structures thus becomes a question of searching for generalizable content features of problems that identify generic classes of decisions.These generic classes can then be modelled and structured by â€Å"prototypical decision analytic structures” which are specific enough to match the generalizable problem features and general enough to transfer easily to other problems of the same class. At the present gunpoint of research this search process will necessarily be inducive because too little is known about problem substance to develop a problem driven taxonomy and matching analytic structures. An inductive research strategy may attempt to crystallize the generalizable features of a specific practical application, . or compare a number of similar applica tions (e. . , with siting problems), or simply use a phenomenological approach to delineate problem classes in a specific application theatre of operations (e. g. , regulation). In the following ii sections some possibilities for developing prototypical decision analytic structures will be discussed. An example of developing a prototypical structure The following example describes the structuring process in the development of a decision aiding system for environmental warning condition and regulation. The work was performed as part of IIASA’s (see fn. 2) beat displace project (see von Winterfeldt et al. 1978), which had oth descriptive and normative intentions (how do regulators presently set standards? how can analytic models help in the standard range process? ). Because of this wide approach of the standard cathode-ray oscilloscope project, the research group was not forced to produce workable models for specific decision problems quickly. Consequently, its members could afford and were encouraged to spend a substantial amount of time on structuring. Inputs into the structuring process were: †retrospective case studies of specific mental protection agencies; standard processes of environ- national Railway Corporation qualificationlevelmeasure 3 measurefor aeroplanenoise 1 Japanese dB’ ‘SO”, AT SOURCE RULES ROUTING USE SCHEMES SCHEMES disgrace Fig. 2. Regulatory alternatives for Shinkansen noise defilement. IMPLEMENTATION AND standard INSTRUMENT /I ALTERNATIVE OF tin IN HOUSE IN seem lMldB(A) WCPNLl MEAS”6iiA~â€Å"> 30 †d&i) MEASURED king of beasts’ EQUIP- TION FICA- SPECI- MENT SPE:D CONTROL RES+RlCT time OPERATION 84 D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems †previous models suggested for standard stage compass; †field studies of two ongoing standard ground processes (oil pollution and noise standards).In addition, the structuring process benefited much from con tinuing discussions with leading members of environmental agencies in the joined Kingdom, Norway, Japan and the United States. Although the structuring effort was geared towards decision analysis, substantial inputs were given by an environmental economist (D. Fischer), an environmental modeller (S. Ikeda), a plucky theorist (E. Hopfinger), and two physicists (W. Hafele and R. Avenhaus), all members of IIASA’s standard setting research team. The overall question was: how can standard setting problems best be formulated nto a decision analytic format and model such that the model is specific enough to capture the main features of a particular standard setting problem and, at the same time, general enough to apply to a mannikin of such problems? In other words, what is a prototypical decision analytic structure for standard setting? Since the regulator or regulatory agency was presumed to be the main client of such models, the initial structuring focussed on regulatory alter natives and objectives. In one attempt a wide but shallow alternative tree was conceived which include a variety of regulatory ptions ranging from electric discharge standards, land use schemes, to direct interventions. An example for noise pollution standards is presented in fig, 2. couple with an appropriate tree of regulatory objectives, a decision analysis could conceivably be performed by evaluating each alternative with a simple MAU procedure. A possible value tree is presented in fig. 3 for the same noise pollution problem. This simple traditional structure was rejected since regulators seldom have to evaluate such a wide range of alternatives and because it does not capture the interaction between the regulators and the regulated.Also, regulators are much touch on about monitor and implementation of standards, an aspect which a simple MAU structure does not address. The second structure was a nail but deep decision tree, exemplified in fig. 4 for an oil pollution proble m. In addition to the regulator’s alternatives, this tree includes responses of the constancy to standards, possible detection of standards violations, and subsequent stock-purchase warrants. This structure was geared at fine tuning the regulators’ definitions of D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems 85 of hospitals, schools, retwement homes disparage f residential life solicitude other / EEggF M,NIM,zE HEALTH Hearing cause < PsychologIcal Synergetic (aggravation of existing illness) investing for pollution equipment MINIMIZE COST ~—â€< feat of pollution eqwpment RAILWAY CORP. OBJECTIVES Speed increase SERVICE -< Aeliablllty ClXlllOrt wth mtemational regulation CONSISTENCY OF enactment with other national â€Å"cise standards (car, mr. other trams) polity-making OBJECTIVES -/ Enwonmental policy AGREEMENT POLICY WITH presidential term Transportation policy t Ewnomtc growih policy Fig. 3. Regulatory objectives for noise polluti on control. he standard level (maximum emission, etc. ) and monitoring and sanction schemes, and to assessing environmental impacts. The structure is specific in terms of the regulatory alternatives. But by considering assiduity responses as haphazard events, and by leaving out responses of environmental groups, it fails to address a major consult of regulatory decision making. The third structure was a three decision maker model, in which the regulator, the industry/developer and the environmentalists/impactees are stand for by separate decision analytic models (see von Winterfeldt 1978).A signal detection type model links the regulator’s decision through possible detections of violations and sanction schemes to the the industry model. An event tree of pollution generating events and effectuate links the developer’s decisions to the impactee model (see fig. 5). The model can be run as follows: the regulator’s alternatives are left 86 EPA medium UK aver,, UK maximum Norway fair(a) DEFINITIONS OF OIL EMISSION STANDARDS parts per cardinal ofoil No pollution †Grawty Separator c&ugated Plate Inter- equipment Gas Flotation Filters ceptrr n ob STANDARD LEVEL in watt r ofoil POLLUTION EQUIPMENT instruction execution o00 patis per milhon in water n First vidabon of No udat#on of standard occurs at tulle DETECTION STATES standard dunng all opemons n t POLLUTION EQUIPMENT DECISION BY THE OIL INDUSTRY PENALTY No pdlution equipment Gravity separator Gas Flotatux fold up Plate bltw- Pais Filters EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE per million n Second wdation POLLUTION EQUIPMENT DECISION BY THE OIL INDUSTRY No more vidations DETECTION STATES Find eflects~ on environment (pdlution levels) FINAL EFFECTS †industry (cost) †regulatlx (political) Fig. 4. segment of a decision tree for setting oil pollution standards. A standard is commonly defined by the number of samples to be taken, how more samples form an average, and how legion(predi cate) exemptions from a violation are allowed. For example, the EPA average definition is as follows: four samples are to be taken daily, the average of the four samples may not exceed the standard level (e. g. , 50 ppm) more than doubly during any consecutive 30 daylight period. 87 D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems REGULATORY 1 DECISION MODEL I U R (0 1 DETECTION OF formula VIOLATION DEVELOPER †SANCTIONS POLLUTION GENERATING EVENTS I IMPACTEE DECISION MODELPOLLUTION EFFECTS Fig. 5. Schematic representation of the regulator-developer-impactee model. 1: variable standard of the regulator d(r): expect utility maximizing treatment decision of the developer a[d(r)]: expected utility maximizing decision of the impactees variable. The developer’s response is optimized in terms of minimizing expected investment, operation, and detection costs or maximizing equivalent expected utilities. Finally, the impactees are assumed to maximize their expected utility con ditional on the regulator’s and the developer’s decision. At this point the model stops.The structure only provides for a Pareto optimality analysis of the three expected utilities accruing to the generic decision units. This model allows some detailed analyses of the probabilities and value aspects of the standard setting problem, and it proved operable in a buffer storage application to chronic oil discharge standards (see von Winterfeldt et al. 1978). Regulators who were presented with this model, con- 88 D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems REGULATOR’S fill up Fig. 6. gamey theoretic structure of the regulation I problem. sidered it meaningful, and it offered several insights into the standard setting problematique.Yet, there was a feeling among analysts and regulators that the still character of the model and the lack of feedback loops required improvement. The final structure considered was a game theoretic reference point of the three decision maker model. The structure of the game theoretic model is presented in fig. 6. In this model the standard setting process in explicitly assumed to be dynamic, and all feedbacks are considered. In addition, transitions from one re-create to another are probabilistic. The model was utilize in a seven coif version in a pilot study of noise standard setting for quick trains (Hapfinger and von Winterfeldt 1978).The game theoretic model overcomes the criticisms of the static decision analytic model, but in turn it gives up the possibility for fine tuning and detailed modeling of trade-offs and probabilities. Considering such aspects in detail would have made the running of the model impossible. Therefore, comparatively arbitrary (linear) utility functions and simple structures of transition probabilities have to be assumed. Although the appropriateness of the different structures was not explicitly addressed in this study, two main criteria come to mind when judging structur es: representativeness of the problem and manageability for push analysis.Each of these criteria can be further scummy down. For example, representativeness includes judgments about the adequacy of the structural detail, and reporting of important problem aspects. The overall conclusions of legion(predicate) discussion with regulators, analysts, D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems 89 industry representatives, and the results of the pilot applications led us to accept the third structure as a prototypical decision analytic structure for relatively routine emission standard setting problems. The model is presently considered for further applications in emission tandard setting and an extension to safety standards will be explored. Towards a kit of prototypical decision analytical structures Not every decision analysis can afford to be as broad and time consuming as the previous study. Decision analysis usually has a much more specific orientation towards producing a decision rather than developing a generic structure. excuse I think that it would be instrumental if analysts were to make an effort in addressing the question of generalizability when modeling a specific problem, and in extracting those features of the problem and the model that are transferable. Such an inductive pproach could be coupled with more research oriented efforts and with examinations of similarities among past applications. Such an approach may eventually fill the middleground between too specific and too general models and structures. But rather than filling this middleground with analytically specific but substantively empty structures and models, it would be filled with prototypical structures and models such as the above regulation model, more refined signal detection models, siting models, etc. In the following, four typical classes of decision problems (siting, contingency planning, budget allocation, and regulation) are examined nd requirements for prototypical structures for these problems are discussed. Facility siting clearly is a typical decision problem. Keeney and other decision analysts have investigated this problem in much detail and in a variety of contexts (see the examples in Keeney and Raiffa 1976). A typical aspect of such siting problems is sequential covering fire from candidate areas to possible sites, to a prefer set, to final site specific evaluations. Another aspect is the multiobjective spirit with emphasis on generic classes of objectives: investment and operating cost, frugal benefits, environmental impacts, social impacts, and political onsiderations. Also, the process of organizing, collecting, and evaluating information is similar in many siting decisions. Thus, it should be possible to develop a prototypical structure for facility siting decisions, 90 D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems simply by tack the generalizable features of past applications [ 31. Contingency planning is another recurr ing and typical problem. Decision and Design Inc. addressed this problem in the soldiers context, but it also applies to planning for actions in the case of disasters such as Liquid Natural Gas plant explosions or blowouts from oil platforms.Substantive aspects that are characteristic of contingency planning are: strong interchange control of executive organs, numerous decisions have to be made simultaneously, major events can drastically change the focus of the problem, no cost or low cost information comes in rapidly, and organizational problems may impede information flows and actions. Although, at first glance, decision trees seem to be a natural model for contingency planning, a prototypical decision model would require modifying a strictly sequential approach to accommodate these aspects.For example, the model should be tensile enough to allow for the ‘unforeseeable’ (rapid cognitive content to change the model structure), it should have rapid information upda ting facilities without overstressing the value of information (since most information is free), and it should attend to fine tuning of simultaneous actions and information interlinkages. reckon allocation to competing programs is another typical problem. In many such problems different programs attempt to pursue similar objectives, and program mix and balance has to be considered besides the direct benefits of single programs.Another characteristic of budgeting decisions is the continuous nature of the decision variable and the constraint of the total budget. MAU looks like a natural structure for budget allocation decision since it can handle the program evaluation aspect (see Edwards et al. 1976). But neither the balance issue nor the constrained and continuous characteristics of the budget are appropriately adressed by MAU. A prototypical decision analytic structure would model an evaluation of the budget apportionment, or the mix of programs funded at particular levels.Such a structure would perhaps exploit dependencies or independencies among programs much like independence assumption for preferences. regulation covers a class of decision problems with a number of recurrent themes: three generic groups involved (regulators, regulated, [,3] I believe that. Keeney’s forthcoming book on siting energy facilities is a major step in that direction. Of. course, it could also be a step in the opposite direction. Or in no direction at all (see also first asterisked compose at the beginning of the article). D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems 91 beneficiaries of regulation), importance f monitoring and sanction schemes, usually opposing objectives of the regulated and the benefrciaries of regulation, and typically highly political objectives of the regulator. In the previous section, the more specific regulation problem of standard setting was discussed, and a prototypical decision analytic structure was suggested. A decision analytic struc ture for regulation in general can build on the main features of the standard setting model. This list could be extended to include private investment decisions, product mix selection, resource development, diagnostic problems, etc. But the four examples hopefully re sufficient to demonstrate how prototypical decision analytic structuring can be approached in general. In my opinion, such an approach to structuring could be at least as useful for the implementation of decision analysis as computerization of decision models. Besides the technical advantages of trahsferability, prototypical decision analytic structures would serve to order that decision analysts are truly pertain about problems. Today decision analysis books have chapters such as ‘simple decisions under uncertainty’ and ‘multiattribute evaluation problems’. I am looking forward to chapters such as ‘siting industrial acilities’, ‘pollution control management’, and à ¢â‚¬Ëœcontingency planning’. References Brown, R. V. and J. W. Ulvila, 1977. Selecting analytic approaches for decision situations. (Revised edition. ) Vol. I: Overview of the methodology. skilful report no. TR77-7-25, Decisions and Designs, Inc. , McLean, VA. Brown, R. V. , A. S. Kahr and C. Peterson, 1974. Decision analysis for the manager. rising York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Edwards, W. , M. Guttentag and K. Snapper, 1976. A decision-theoretic approach to evaluation research. In: E. L. Streuning and M. Guttentag (eds. ), Handbook of evaluation research, I. London: Sage.Fischer, D. W. and D. von Winterfeldt, 1978. reach standards for chronic oil discharges in the North Sea. Journal of Environmental Management 7, 177-199. Gardiner, P. C. and A. Ford, in press. A merger of simulation and evaluation for applied policy research in social systems. In: K. Snapper (ed. ), matter-of-fact evaluation: case studies in simplifying complex decision problems. Washington, DC: In formation Resource Press. Hogarth, R. M. , C. Michaud and J. -L. Mery, 1980. Decision behavior in urban development: a methodological approach and substantive considerations. Acta Psychologica 45, 95-117. Hiipfmger, E. and R. Avenhaus, 1978.A game theoretic role model for . dynamic standard setting procedures. IIASA-RM-78. foreign Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. 92 D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems Hopfinger, E. and D. von Winterfeldt, 1979. A dynamic model for setting railway noise standards. In: 0. Moeschlin and D. Pallaschke (eds. ), Game theory and related topics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 59-69. Howell, W. C. and S. A. Burnett, 1978. uncertainty measurement: a cognitrve taxonomy. Organizational fashion and clement Performance 22,45-68. Humphreys, P. C. , 1980. Decision aids: aiding decisions. In: L.Sjoberg, T. Tyszka and J. A. Wise (eds), Decision analyses and decision processes, 1. Lund: Doxa (in press). Humphreys, P. C. and A. R. Humphreys, 1975. An investigation of subjective preference orderings for multiattributed alternatives. In: D. Wendt and C. Vlek (eds. ), Utility, probability, and human decision making. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, pp. 119-133. Humphreys, P. C. and A. Wisudha, 1979. MAUD †an interactive computer program for the structuring, decomposition and recomposition of preferences between multiattributed alternatives. skilful report 79-2, Decision Analysis Unit, Brunel University, Uxbridge, England.Johnson, E. M. and G. P. Huber, 1977. The technology of utility assessment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. SMCJ, 5. Keeney, R. L. , in press. Siting of energy facilities. in the buff York: Academic Press. Keeney, R. L. and H. Raiffa, 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. newly York: Wiley. Kelly, III, C. W. , 1978. Decision aids: engineering science and clinical art. practiced Report, Decisions and Designs, Inc. , McLean, VA. Kelly, C. and S. Barclay, 1973. A general Bayesian model for hierarchical inference. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10, 388-403.Kneppreth, N. P. , D. H. Hoessel, D. H. Gustafson, and E. M. Johnson, 1977. A strategy for selecting a worth assessment technique. Technical paper 280, U. S. Army Research Institute for behavioral and Social Sciences, Arlington, VA. MacCrimmon, K. R. , 1973. An overview of multiple criteria decision making. In: J. L. Cochrane and M. Zeleney (eds. ), Multiple criteria decision making. Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press. pp. 18-44. MacCrimmon, K. R. and R. N. Taylor, 1975. Problem solving and decision making. In: M. C. Dunnette (ed. ), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. New York: Rand McNally.Mannheim, M. L. and F. Hall, 1967. Abstract representation of goals: a method for making decisions in complex problems. In: Transportation, a service. Proceedings of the Sesquicentennial Forum, New York academy of Sciences †American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York. Miller, J. R. , 1970. Professional decision making: a procedure for evaluating complex alternatives. New York: Praeger. Miller, AC. , M. W. Merkhofer, R. A. Howard, J. E. Matheson and T. R. Rice, 1976. victimisation of automated aids for decision analysis. Technical report, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Raiffa, H. , 1968. Decision analysis.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Sage, A. , 1977. methodological analysis for large scale systems. New York: McGraw-Hill. Taylor, R. C. , 1974. reputation of problem ill-structuredness: implications for problem formulation and solution. Decision Sciences 5,632-643. Vlek, C. and W. A. Wagenaar, 1979. Judgment and decision under uncertainty. In: J. A. Michon, E. G. Eijkman and L. F. W. DeKlerk (eds. ), Handbook of psychonomics, II. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 253-345. Warfield, J. , 1974. Structuring complex systems. Batelle remembrance Institute Monograph, no. 4. Wi nterfeldt, D. von, 1978. A decision aiding system for improving the environmental standardD. von Winterfeldt /Structuring decision problems 93 setting process. In: K. Chikocki and A. Straszak (eds. ), Systems analysis applications to complex programs. Oxford: Pergamon Press. pp. 119-124. Winterfeldt, D. von and D. W. Fischer, 1975. Multiattribute utility: models and scaling procedures. In: D. Wendt and C. Vlek (eds. ), Utility, probability, and human decision making. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel. pp. 47-86. Winterfeldt, D. von, R. Avenhaus, W. Htiele and E. Hopfmger, 1978. Procedures for the establishment of standards. IIASA-AR-78-A, B, C. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.\r\n'