Organized anarchies
Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) analyzed organizations such as universities that are in a state of organized anarchy, which has three features. First, preferences are problematic: members are unsure what they want, and goals are discovered through action. Second, technology is unclear: the organization's own processes are poorly understood and it relies on trial and error. Third, participation is fluid: the time and attention participants devote to decisions vary. In such settings, the rational model of setting goals, comparing alternatives and choosing the best fits poorly. The model pushes the idea of bounded rationality, the limits of human calculation, to the level of the organization.
Four streams and decision styles
The model holds that four relatively independent streams flow through an organization: problems, solutions, participants and choice opportunities. Solutions exist before problems and may go looking for problems to which they can be attached. Choice opportunities such as meetings or budget cycles act as garbage cans into which the streams are dumped. Using a computer simulation, the authors distinguished three decision styles: resolution, in which problems are actually solved; oversight, in which a choice is made quickly before problems attach to it; and flight, in which a choice is made only after problems have moved to another choice opportunity. In the simulation, decisions that actually resolved problems were relatively rare. Padgett (1980) extended the model mathematically by adding hierarchy.
Extension to policy studies and critiques
March and Olsen (1976) developed the model through case studies, and the two later proposed the new institutionalism, which emphasizes political institutions (March & Olsen, 1984). Kingdon (1984) adapted the garbage can model to public policy agenda setting, creating the multiple streams framework. Bendor, Moe and Shotts (2001), however, argued that the original computer simulation did not behave as the verbal theory claimed and that its assumptions about participants were overly mechanical. Looking back after forty years, the original authors described the model as a perspective on decisions under ambiguity rather than a precise predictive theory (Cohen, March & Olsen, 2012). The garbage can model remains widely discussed in public administration and policy studies as a leading theory of the limits of bureaucratic rationality.
FAQ
- What is the garbage can model in simple terms?
- It holds that organizational decisions are not made by analyzing problems and picking the best answer, but when floating problems, solutions, people and opportunities to decide happen to meet. It was developed to explain organizations such as universities, where goals are vague and participants change often.
- What criticisms has the garbage can model faced?
- Critics argue that the original computer simulation did not work as the verbal theory described and that it assumes overly mechanical behavior. The original authors replied that the model is a perspective for understanding ambiguous situations rather than a precise predictive theory.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. The original article — the four streams and the computer simulation.
- March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget. Case studies of choice under ambiguity — the model applied to real organizations.
- Padgett, J. F. (1980). Managing garbage can hierarchies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 583–604. Adds hierarchy and formalizes the model — its mathematical extension.
- March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749. The same authors launch new institutionalism — how the model fed into political science.
- Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown. Adapts the garbage can to agenda setting — the multiple streams classic.
- Bendor, J., Moe, T. M., & Shotts, K. W. (2001). Recycling the garbage can: An assessment of the research program. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 169–190. A sharp critique: the original simulation doesn't match the verbal theory.
- Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2012). "A garbage can model" at forty: A solution that still attracts problems. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 36, 19–30. The authors look back after 40 years — responses to critics and later research.