Incrementalism Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Incrementalism is a theory of decision based on the premise that actors face broad organizational and cognitive limitations in real-life situations and must deal with a complex, uncertain world, the interpretation of which is often a matter of disagreement among them. While democratic interaction is, according to Charles Lindblom and Edward Woodhouse (1993), the most efficient way to decide, an intelligent approach to analysis that aims at simplifying rather than overcoming these limitations is invaluable. Incrementalism offers a multifaceted, flexible approach to this analysis.

Although Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom’s book Politics, Economics and Welfare (1953) introduced incrementalism as an analytical aid to decision making and it was expanded on in Lindblom (1959), its final version was tabled only in Lindblom’s (1979) article, “Still Muddling, Not Yet Through.”

Here Lindblom clarifies the multifaceted reality of incremental analysis by distinguishing among simple incremental analysis (limited to policies incrementally different from the status quo), disjointed incrementalism (a complex simplifying strategy limiting the analysis to familiar options, for which only limited consequences are explored; intertwining values and empirical elements, involving a remedial approach based on a trial-and-error strategy; and fragmenting the analytical work among many participants), and strategic analysis (encompassing the strategically thought and chosen stratagems that allow simplification of complex problems). The concept underwent a progressive refinement and was finally synthesized by Andrew Weiss and Edward Woodhouse (1992) as processes that (1) aid decision making by limiting analysis to familiar policies and to only some of the possible consequences they may carry, (2) employ trial-and-error methods, and (3) are more interested in remedying problems than in seeking positive goals. Incrementalism also tends to conflate values and policy goals with the empirical side of the problem (rather than order them sequentially) and to fragment the analysis among various partisan actors, each working on part of the issue.

There have been five main critiques against incrementalism. The first critique is that it is insufficiently goal oriented, but even a cursory glance to the literature will reveal that this is a baseless argument. Second is the charge that it carries an inherent conservative, proelite bias. One can refute this, however, by noting that bias depends on power distribution rather than on the model: the elites follow a pattern of decisions that favors them; incrementalism does not create this pattern. Third, incrementalism is said to be narrowly applicable, fitting only stable, noncrisis situations. Here it is worthwhile asking why nonincremental models would be better in unstable situations; crisis decision making is inherently difficult, regardless of the model chosen. Fourth, incrementalism is also charged with being vulnerable to threshold effects. Small marginal changes, which the model assumes can be easily reversed, cannot be altered if the threshold is surpassed, but this problem is common to all models of decision making. The final critique is that it is difficult to pinpoint the meaning of incrementalism, which has been applied to fields as diverse as budgeting, foreign policy, and city planning. This is a real problem; the wide array of meanings attributed to incrementalism depended both on Lindblom’s delay in specifying the concept and on the liberality with which other scholars applied it. In the 1990s, neoincrementalism attempted successfully to tackle these criticisms by distilling broadly accepted definitions, bringing more precision to the discussion, and distinguishing among incrementalism as an analytical tool, as disjointed incremental strategy, and as a small-step process that involves small sequential moves.

Bibliography:

Dahl, Robert A., and Charles E. Lindblom. Politics, Economics and Welfare. New York: Harpers, 1953.
Hayes, Michael T. Incrementalism and Public Policy. New York: Longman, 1992.
The Limits of Policy Change: Incrementalism,Worldview, and the Rule of Law. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2001.
Lindblom, Charles E. “The Science of Muddling-through.” Public Administration Review 19 (1959): 79–88.
“Still Muddling, Not yet Through.” Public Administration Review 39 (1979): 517–526.
Lindblom, Charles E., and Edward J.Woodhouse. The Policy-making Process. 3d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993.
Weiss, Andrew, and Edward J.Woodhouse. “Reframing Incrementalism: A Constructive Response to the Critics.” Policy Sciences 25 (1992): 255–273.

This example Incrementalism Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.