Some concern themselves with the political nature of the decision-making unit. Thus Archibugi (2000) New Left Rev. 4 proposes replacing the state as decision-maker with ‘new flexible frameworks based on the rights of the global citizen, freed from territorial restrictions’. Meanwhile, Hinchcliffe (2001) TIBG 26, 2 observes that precautionary and participatory forms of decision-making predominate in environmental geography. Pickerill and Chatterton (2006) PHG 30, 6 value the consensus-based decision-making characteristic of alter-globalization (globalization which puts democracy, environmental justice, and environmental protection before economic considerations) activists; Herbert (2007) Pol. Geog. 26, 5 writes that, in contrast to ‘the anti-democratic tendencies within the WTO’, these activists hoped that their consensus decision-making would illustrate the merits of their cause. See Dengler (2007) Pol. Geog. 26, 4 on the formation and evolution of ad hoc organizational spaces of decision-making.

As to who makes the decisions, Trauger (2007) Tijdschrift 98, 1 reports on giving decision-making to the workers, which ‘enhances the employees’ job satisfaction and makes it more likely that opportunities will be spotted’ (Stam (2007) Economic Geog. 83, 1). Aitken in W. Craig et al., eds. (2002) explores the potential of Public Participation GIS to enable local issues to ‘jump’. See Viehe et al. (2006) Geografiska B 88, 2 on the DaisyGIS decision-making model.

It is argued that ‘satisficing’ (as opposed to ‘maximizing’) is a much more faithful account of the way people make choices: ‘people pick the alternative that satisfies a given level of aspirations without looking necessarily for the best possible option’ (Landemore (2004) J. Moral Philos. 1, 177). Medda and Nijkamp (2003) Integr. Assess. 4, 3 observe a tendency to favour simpler, model-free modes of planning based on satisficing or compromise. Moreover, ‘decision support models tend to be complex and difficult to understand, often resulting in their neglect by policy practitioners’ (Lootsma (1999) IIASA/DAS workshop); thus, Strauss (2008) J. Econ. Geog. 8 advocates economic decision-making that ‘combines insights from behavioural economics and cognitive science with both quantitative and qualitative methods, and the theorisation of context, embeddedness and the role of institutions’.