Incrementalism

A form of belief that change is best enacted gradually. This is in stark contrast to the notion that only sudden shifts or progressions can correct a particular problem. In terms of research, incrementalism seeks to build slowly on previous accomplishments and discoveries; such change, thus, addresses the problems at hand instead of attempting to overturn previous precedents or methodologies. In many ways, incrementalism is psychologically intuitive; human beings are generally risk-averse creatures and may thus seek to minimize their losses, even if this involves failing to maximize their possible gains.

Naturally, there has been much debate concerning the contributory effect of incrementalist policies. While proponents of incrementalism paint sudden progress as destabilizing and open to adverse consequences, critics argue that incrementalism is often too piecemeal and timely to serve any adequate purpose. Global warming lobbyists, for example, often argue that small change will come too late to actively save humanity from this increasingly dire threat. Only a revolutionary shift in daily practices and technological production can (in this viewpoint) reverse the current trend, and incrementalists are therefore both foolish and naive to think in merely gradualist terms.

Similar debates can be found throughout much contemporary political philosophy. The British scholar Edmund Burke famously favored small legislative enactments over grand shifts in government, eschewing the possible adverse effects of revolutionary ideologies. This stands in sharp contrast to political movements such as those founded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who argued that only a profoundly structural change could properly alleviate human suffering. According to their position, gradual legislation could [Page 251]only (at best) provide a band-aid over social wounds, which might temporarily stop the bleeding but would ultimately fail to save the patient.