Simon 1957b; Seidman 1970); the actual resources an organization has at its 

 disposal (such as personnel and money) (Fenno 1966; Lamb and Doerksen 1978; 

 Rourke 1976; Clarke and McCool 1985); and the expertise the organization has 

 or the information it can control in given policy areas (Benveniste 1977; 

 Rourke 1976; Clarke and McCool 1985). In this latter regard, the power to 

 control the flow and type of information that reaches decisionmakers leads to 

 the ability to define the range of feasible or acceptable alternatives, and 

 thus can have a direct and substantial impact on ultimate policy choices. 

 Power has also been examined from a political perspective; power, in this 

 view, derives (at least in part) from the extra-organizational support (e.g., 

 public, political, constituency, clientele) an organization is able to build 

 for itself and the goals it represents (Rourke 1976; Lamb and Doerksen 1978; 

 Clarke and McCool 1985). 



Power, moreover, is dynamic and fluid rather than static; it consists not 

 only of the actual resources an organization has at its disposal to pursue a 

 particular outcome, but its willingness to use those resources in a given 

 situation; the type of tactics it chooses; and the successes and failures it 

 has accumulated in the past in similar issues (Bachrach and Lawler 1981). 

 Keeping these facts in mind allows one to better predict the outcome from an 

 analysis of the power relationships involved, and has within it elements of 

 reputational or historical power that can be converted into influence. The 

 power to persuade is the key ingredient to influencing policy outcomes (Lamb 

 and Doerksen 1978; Neustadt 1980; Bachrach and Lawler 1981). All of these 

 notions of power have been incorporated into LIAM. 



3.7 SUMMARY 



The four assumptions that underlie LIAM have been examined and explained; 

 the first three of these contribute to the development of organizational 

 roles, while the fourth specifies the way in which these roles are assumed to 

 be played out in instream flow decisionmaking issues. In brief, they are as 

 fol lows: 



1. At the organizational level, decisions are made incrementally; that 

 is, internal organizational decisions are based in large part on 

 past experience, and new choices differ only marginally from past 

 policy stands; 



2. At the organizational level, decisions are also shaped by organiza- 

 tional process — standard operating procedures that have developed 

 over time and that determine the nature and functioning of the 

 organization's internal decisionmaking structure; 



3. Both incremental i sm and organizational process are reinforced by the 

 existence of organizational "psychologies" — intergroup solidarity 

 and cohesiveness — which also helps explain the persistent reliance 

 on incremental i sm and organizational process; 



4. At the system or intergroup level, decisionmaking between or among 

 is characterized by competition, bargaining, and compromise; the 



25 



