Incrementalism

Incrementalism is a theory of public policy making originally developed by Charles E. Lindblom. Lindblom rejected the prevalent idea of policy making as a process of rational analysis culminating in a value-maximizing decision, arguing instead that policies result from a pluralistic process of interaction and mutual adaptation among a multiplicity of actors advocating different values, representing different interests, and possessing different information. Incrementalism falls within the pluralist tradition in political science, strongly resembling both interest group theory and the bureaucratic politics approach of foreign policy making, differing from these two models primarily in its prediction that policymakers will build on past policies and so focus on incremental policy alternatives. Incrementalism has been fruitfully applied to explain domestic policy making, foreign policy making, and public budgeting.

Lindblom regarded rational decision making as an unattainable ideal. To function properly, rational-comprehensive decision making must satisfy two conditions that are unlikely to be met for most issues: agreement on objectives and a knowledge base sufficient to permit accurate prediction of consequences [Page 441]associated with available alternatives. Where these conditions are unmet (and they will be unmet, according to Lindblom, for most policy issues), the rational method provides no guidance whatever for policy-makers. Incrementalism circumvents these problems, producing defensible policies where the rational method is paralyzed.

Incrementalism is remedial in orientation, emphasizing the amelioration of concrete problems rather than the pursuit of abstract ideals such as social justice. Affected publics bring problems to government through a process Lindblom termed the social fragmentation of analysis. No one actor possesses information sufficient to make a rational policy decision, and problems are often addressed without ever being fully defined.

Incrementalism builds on past policies. Because limitations on both time and information preclude examination of more than a few options, policymakers typically focus on alternatives differing only marginally from previous policies. This narrow focus confines attention to options that are well understood and politically feasible.

In practice, policymakers do not identify objectives and then examine alternative means as called for by the rational ideal. To the contrary, means and ends are typically considered simultaneously inasmuch as different policy alternatives represent different trade-offs among contending values.

Incremental outcomes are virtually inevitable given the need to bargain over a limited number of alternatives that differ only marginally from past policies. Large change is nevertheless possible through the accumulation of incremental steps resulting from repeated policy cycles. This serial nature of the policy process represents yet another advantage of incrementalism, according to Lindblom; it permits policy-makers to learn through a process of trial and error, converging on a solution gradually through a process of successive approximations.

Because Lindblom believed most policy issues exhibit conflict over objectives and inadequate information, he expected that departures from incrementalism would be rare. The knowledge base will be sufficient to permit rational decision making only for minor technical or administrative decisions. Wars, revolutions, or other grand opportunities may serve as catalysts for major policy shifts, but the eventual consequences of these dramatic departures will be unpredictable.

Political scientist Charles O. Jones argued that an aroused mass public opinion demanding action on a particular problem can prod policymakers to enact non-incremental policies. An aroused mass public will not always produce policy escalation, however. Where policymakers with a long-term interest and expertise in an issue disagree among themselves, non-incremental policy making is effectively precluded by conflict over objectives and the inadequacy of the knowledge base. Under such circumstances, policy-makers may distract mass public opinion through a symbolic drama, while negotiating an incremental solution to substantive issues out of public view.

...