Dimensions, Decision Rules and Potential Trade-offs through Compensation: Probing the Poliheuristic Theory of Decision Making for Analyzing EU Health Policy

It is well-established that human decision makers hardly conform to ideal-type models of rational decision making whereby the most preferred alternative course of action is selected based on the calculated expected utilities of each alternative. Cognitive psychology has demonstrated that decision makers limit information processing to specific decision dimensions, i.e. aspects of alternatives that are particularly salient. This non-compensatory decision making has received much attention in foreign policy analysis in the context of Alex Mintz’ poliheuristic theory of decision making. It is claimed by Mintz and others that the poliheuristic theory is a “generic theory” of decision making, applicable to all kinds of decisions, yet in its original formulation the theory does not define its scope conditions. This paper draws on recent theoretical refinements in foreign policy analysis, with a view to probe the poliheuristic theory for analyzing EU policy making. In order to limit the scope of the analysis, policy making is understood as pre-market authorization of products deemed to have potential adverse effects on human health. Hence, human health “mimics” the domestic politics dimension of the poliheuristic theory in foreign policy analysis, which is crucial for its theoretical tenets. The research question then is: What are the scope conditions of non-compensatory decision making in authorization procedures of EU health policy? Within this scope, initial research led to the identification of several areas with pre-market authorization procedures such as pharmaceuticals, food and chemicals. In each field, different products/applications are regulated through different legislative acts, albeit the procedure and/or responsible agency remains the same; taking each product/application, the tentative N of the analysis is around 20 cases. As a preliminary argument, human health as salient dimension and unambiguous decision rules are necessary conditions for non-compensatory decision making, whereas ambiguity increases the likelihood of compensatory decision making.