Abstract:This study attempts to understand to what extent the actual priority setting in the municipalities of Türkiye as a developing country aligns with idealised rational models based on theoretical principles and successful cases in developed countries. For that purpose, the study examines the cases of priority‐setting process of service provision in Turkish municipalities through an exploratory qualitative research method involving focus group meetings with the representatives of 30 municipalities and field observation in two municipalities. The findings reveal key aspects of the prioritisation process, including approaches taken by the municipalities, citizen and stakeholder engagement, the role of managers, criteria used for the assessment of alternatives, and evaluation methods. The analysis identifies two distinct patterns, that is the idealised rationalist versus pragmatic, in all the key aspects examined. These findings contribute to a better understanding of what aspects of idealised rationalist and pragmatical decision‐making processes are distinct from each other, and to a more comprehensive international perspective in public organisations, especially in which top manager such as the mayor is elected into office in developing countries. The study cautions against uncritical acceptance of oversimplified rationalistic as well as universalistic assumptions behind priority‐setting models and advocates for a more substantiated and contextualised understanding of decision‐making processes. Points for practitioners Adopting a priority‐setting approach (technique, method, or criteria) necessitates considering the unique conditions and challenges of one's organisation and the local context. It is imperative to blend theoretical principles with practical realities to achieve optimal decision‐making and superior outcomes. Priority setting in public organisations of developing countries diverges from idealised rational models used in developed countries due to contextual factors like culture and limited resources. Policy advisors from international organisations and developed countries should endorse knowledge and experience sharing that acknowledges both ideal and practical realities. Concurrently, practitioners in developing countries must critically assess the applicability of advised models to their specific context before adoption. If the mayor takes a dominant role in the priority setting that outweighs institutional strategies and priorities, effective prioritisation among alternatives may be hindered. To rebalance power, it is crucial to foster an organisational culture that embraces participative decision‐making and professionalism and implements mechanisms such as auditing, transparency, and accountability.

A quantitative priority-based approach using a multi-criteria decision-making model for sustainable coastal city development

Assessment of an effective quantitative model with multi-criteria decision-making method for sustainable campus

Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Smart City Evaluation and Ranking

Multi-criteria decision making for water resource management: a case study of the Gediz River Basin, Turkey

Comparative Evaluation of Multi‐Criteria Decision Making Methods for River Hydromorphology Assessment: Case Study of the Saz‐Çayırova Basin, Türkiye

Prioritisation in municipal service delivery management: An exploratory qualitative research study in Turkish municipalities

Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model and Expert Choice Software for Coastal City Vulnerability Evaluation

Evaluating lake water quality with a GIS-based MCDA integrated approach: a case in Konya/Karapınar

A Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach for Urban Water Features: Ecological Landscape Architecture Evaluation

Flash flood potential prioritization of sub-basins in an ungauged basin in Turkey using traditional multi-criteria decision-making methods

Determining the most appropriate stormwater management strategies within the development of urban landscape infrastructure using the TOPSIS method: applications to Rize city

An Analytical Hierarchy Process Approach for Prioritization of Objectives and Parameters for an Integrated Urban Water Management

Analyzing Coastal Vulnerability Using Analytic Hierarchy Process and Best–Worst Method: A Case Study of the Marmara Gulf Region

Land-Use Suitability Assessment Using Delphi and Analytical Hierarchy Process (D-AHP) Hybrid Model for Coastal City Management: Kuala Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia

Identifying erosion risk criteria for coastal city sustainability by using a Hyper-Delphi-hierarchy model: a case study of Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia

A GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making approach (GIS-MCDM) for determination of the most appropriate site selection of onshore wind farm in Adana, Turkey

Prioritizing sponge city sites in rapidly urbanizing watersheds using multi-criteria decision model

An integrated fuzzy-rough multi-criteria group decision-making model for quantitative assessment of geoheritage resources

Delineation of environmentally sustainable urban settlement using GIS-based MIF and AHP techniques

Comparative evaluation of spatiotemporal variations of surface water quality using water quality indices and GIS

Modeling climate change adaptation for sustainable coastal zones using GIS and AHP