The incremental model

Misgivings about the relevance and usefulness of the rational model led to efforts to develop a theory of policymaking that avoids many of the difficulties of the rational comprehensive approach. Charles Lindblom is the leading protagonist of the approach that has several names:

disjointed incrementalism, successive comparison or simply incremetalism. Essentially, the incremental method can be summarized as follows (Etzioni, 1967: 386-387):

1. Rather than attempting a comprehensive survey and evaluation of all alternatives, the decision-maker focuses only on those policies that differ incrementally from existing policies;

2. Only a relatively small number of policy alternatives are considered;

3. For each policy alternative, only a restricted number of ‘important’ consequences are evaluated;

4. The problem confronting the decision-maker is continually redefined. Increlmentalism allows for countless ends-means and means-ends adjustments, which, in effect, make the problem more manageable;

5. Thus, there is no one decision or ‘right’ solution but a ‘never-ending’ series of attacks on the issues at hand through serial analysis and evaluation;

6. As such, incremental decision-making is described as remedial, more focused on the alleviation of present, concrete social imperfections than to the promotion of future social goals.

In Lindblom’s view, policymakers develop policies through a process of making successive limited comparison with earlier decisions (1959). He (1959: 81) argued that policymakers work through a process of ‘continually building out from the current situation, step-by-step and by

small degrees’, unlike the rational approach, which starts ‘from fundamentals anew each time…and [is] always prepared to start completely from the ground up’. Policies thus arrived at only marginally differ from those that already exist. In other words, the departures from the status quo are incremental. The test of good policies, therefore, is not whether or not the policy maximizes the values of the policymaker; rather it is whether the policy secures agreement of the interests involved (Lindblom, 1959).

Although they fell by far short of appreciating the realities in the third world, Howlett and Ramesh (1995) advanced two important reasons to demonstrate why policies should not vary significantly from the status quo. Primarily, since bargaining requires distribution of limited resources among various participants, it is easier to continue the existing pattern of distribution rather than trying to attribute values to radically new proposals. Unlike the uncertainties surrounding new arrangements that may make agreement on the changes difficult, the policymakers are presumed to know the benefits and costs of the present arrangement. Second,

‘the standard operating procedures that are the hallmark of bureaucracy tend to promote the continuation of the existing practices. The methods by which bureaucrats identify options and the methods and criteria for choices are often laid out in advance, inhibiting innovation and perpetuating the existing arrangements’ (Howlett and Ramesh, 1995: 142).

Furthermore, policymakers adapt objectives to available means rather than striving for a predetermined or fixed objective. Means and ends are simultaneously chosen in the incremental approach. The model, therefore, views policymaking as a pragmatic exercise concerned with solving concrete problems rather than achieving lofty goals. More importantly, the means chosen for solving problems are discovered through a trial-and-error approach rather than through the comprehensive evaluation of all possible means, and ‘policy does not move in leaps and bounds’

(Lindblom, 1959; Howlett and Ramesh, 1995). Policymakers simply consider only familiar alternatives for appropriateness and stop the search after an acceptable alternative has been found.

There have, nevertheless, been criticisms leveled against the incremental method (Etzioni, 1967³; Dror, 1968; Milne, 1972; Saasa, 1985; Anderson, 1997). Before considering the applicability, validity and relevance of the incremental model to the Third World policymaking

3 Amitai Etzioni suggested an alternative approach, mixed-scanning, to both rational comprehensive and incremental approaches in 1967. His model has not been dealt with here.

circumstances, we will enumerate the criticisms generally made of the model. First, incrementalism suggests that the most powerful interests in the society will make most policy choices, and therefore, ‘the demands of the unprivileged and politically unorganized would be underrepresented’ (Etzioni, 1967: 387). This would thus mean powerful interests have the most to gain from policies that differ marginally from the status quo. Second, the model is criticized for being inherently conservative and pro-inertia, for its suspension of large-scale change and innovation. As Etzioni (op. cit.) noted, incrementalism disregards basic societal innovations, as it focuses on the short run and seeks no more than limited variations from past policies and programs. Third, Lindblom’s model seems to be a characteristic of policymaking in a stable environment, ‘where all relevant parties have a more or less clear image of the expected results of a certain policy’, and it is a typical policymaking process of advanced countries like the US (Dror, 1964: 154; Etzioni, 1967: 387). Last, according to Etzioni (op. cit) major strategic decisions are different from day-to-day operational decisions, a distinction that incrementalism has not adequately taken into account.

The preceding criticisms are of a universal nature and perhaps may not necessarily appreciate developing countries’ policymaking realities. Very few writers in the field of policy delved into the subject to comprehend whether some of the policymaking models, developed based on Western socio-economic circumstances are indeed practicable. Incrementalism is unsuitable for a developing state with a mass leader and small political elite who have high aspirations for rapid and radical socio-economic transformations through centrally guided social changes (Dror 1964, 1968). The following series of problematic issues were raised to address the difficulties of using the incremental model in guiding policymaking in developing states (Milne, 1972; Saasa, 1985).

1. Because of a high desire and motivation to catch up, policy reforms in most developing countries show a radical departure from the past to meet the requirements of rapid socio-economic changes. Policymakers in developing countries would, therefore, conceive of incrementalism’s limited usefulness, because it apparently promotes inertia and discourages innovation.

2. Most developing countries are perhaps unable to secure a sufficient degree of consensus envisaged, which is essential to make the incremental model feasible.

3. Stability has been presented as a necessary and desirable criterion for incrementalism to succeed. In developing countries, where grand and fundamental policy reforms are often launched, war and natural calamities continually disrupt normal life, and amidst resource scarcities, it would be unrealistic to conceive of the suitability of incrementalism.

Lindblom (1959) himself admitted that his model is applicable only ‘to relatively stable countries such as the United States’.

In a more general sense, the incremental approach has been found appropriate neither on descriptive nor prescriptive grounds (Turner and Hulme, 1997). On a prescriptive basis incremental solutions are not the requirements for development problems that deserve major and urgent attention, and on descriptive grounds incrementalism fails to incorporate enough of the extra-rational components which impinge on the policymaking process in developing states (ibid.).