Notes on The Policy Making Process (3rd Ed.)
Lindblom, C. E., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1993). The policy-making process. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
These are class notes from early on in my Ph.D. program - they seem a little naive to me now, but could still be a useful summary to new readers. I'll update them eventually! |
Summary of Incrementalism Policy Theory
Public policy is fundamentally about decision making: policies are ultimately choices backed by the coercive power of the state (Smith & Larimer, 2009). Key questions for the development of policy theory are: who makes decisions, how do they make them, and what are the factors affecting the decision parameters?The natural place to start developing a model of policy decision making was the classical scientific approach to problem solving: define the problem, gather information, develop a set of alternative solutions, analyze or test the solutions, and select the best solution based on a set of known criteria. The warrant of this rational approach, and the underlying positivistic method lies deep in the development of our Western society, Enlightenment principles, capitalism as the dominant mode of economic production, and the way in which we are educated. In many ways, people value the neutrality and “fairness” of a rational policy making ideal and the notion that policy makers should seek the best solution, rather than one than maximizes the interests of a particular group. The original conception of policy science proposed by Lasswell drew heavily from a rational ideal, and his policy stages model is a direct translation from the scientific model of decision making.
Several important models of policy making have been developed. One group of models essential identify important sets of actors and institutions as dominant in the decision making process (administrative policy making, elitism, corporatism, institutionalism) the other focuses on the limitations of decision making (incrementalism).
Decision making is both a particular step of the policy stages model, and something that occurs in all policy stages. The various theories covered below tend to focus on the agenda setting, formulation and decision making stages; however, the importance of decision making in implementation
Incrementalism is a theory developed out of the realization that truly rational decision making is practically impossible given the complexity of the policy environment. That is not to say that policy actors do not have the intent to be rational: their decisions are goal orientated and there are processes followed to achieve those goals. But there are many factors that work against scientific rationalism.
Herbet Simon, while discussing about rationality in administrative organizations, identified three reasons for departures from complete rationality in decision making. First, rationality requires that all alternatives are known beforehand; yet in reality, only a few alternatives can ever be specified. Second, rationality requires a complete knowledge of the consequences resulting from each alternative; yet the complexity of most policy problems make this an impossibility. Third, imagining future consequences implies some level of value judgment in the decision; yet values can never be anticipated or completely defined (Simon, 1997, p. 93).
Simon introduced the idea of “bounded rationality” in decision making: humans desire true rationality, but due to cognitive limitations and the incompleteness of knowledge our decision making behavior is “satisficing” rather than maximizing benefits over costs.
Charles Lindblom adopted Simon’s ideas about decision making and applied them to the policy process. He claimed that policy makers “muddle through” by making incremental adjustments to policies rather than engaging in a comprehensive and rational process and articulating clearly defined policy goals. Instead, successive comparisons are made to already existing policies and policy makers seek agreement where they can or where they have specific knowledge. Political agreement is emphasized as a strategy, rather than clearly defining policy goals, policy instruments and criteria to measure success. Incrementalism is a result of several issues (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993).
First, while democratic political systems provide much opportunity for political exchange, ensure significant liberty and wide participation in policy-making, they are cumbersome and troublesome in a number of respects: elections are inefficient and lack dynamic feedback for real-time public input; the public vote on superficial characteristics; political leaders have little accountability; partisan concerns result “safe” policy areas that maximize re-election possibilities; and the system allows more opportunity to delay policy rather than advance it. These issues reduce policy responsiveness, that is, the ability of a political system to translate citizen need into policy action.
Second, human cognitive ability cannot fathom the very large number of variables and interrelationships that constitute policy decisions: Cause and effect relationships are not apparent; consequences of actions are not predictable; irrational preferences, selfishness, fears, desires and values are not apt to ‘modelling’ or analysis; regardless of analytical power, conflicting beliefs negate the possibility of a single solution (one person’s problem is another person’s solution); expertise and absolute truth are subjective and value orientated; and while analytical methods are possible (supercomputer social simulations) they lack responsiveness and require high level agreement in problem definition.
Third, many policy tasks are essentially delegated to administrative agencies, interest groups, and businesses, especially in technically complex policy areas. Certain interest groups and businesses bring significant organizing ability, financial resources and technical expertise, thus exerting significant influence over policy making as decision makers in the executive and legislative branches rely heavily upon the advice of these experts. On the other hand, bureaucrats may bring technical expertise, but tend to favor continuation of existing practice, stability and policies that favor the organization.
Incrementalism can be viewed as a consequence of pluralistic systems that value stability, as found in the United States. With power shared over three branches of government, and significant policy influence possible with sufficient organization and resources, policy makers end up “satisficing” and agreeing on small changes rather than large transformations. Given the complexities and pluralism prevalent in the United States, Lindblom identified incrementalism as a preferred approach for policy making that emphasizes what is possible rather than what is maximal.
From a theoretical perspective, there are several issues with incrementalism as a policy theory:
- First, while it predicts the type of policy change based on certain assumptions about the system and the individual, it falls short of the policy theory criteria specified by Blomquist (2007): incrementalism lacks a detailed description of collective action, institutions, and the boundaries and scope of the theory. In fact, there is justification for labeling incrementalism as more descriptive metaphor rather than scientific theory. The idea seems conceptually intuitive, yet it cannot predict the degree of incrementalism in any policy area (Smith & Larimer, 2009), and there is little agreement over how to operationalize the “increment” other than by examining budget change. Assuming that an increment can be operationalized, there is no objective standard to determine a value for what counts as an increment and what does not. (See Howlett and Ramesh page 147 on policy change types)
- Second, incrementalism relies upon a relatively stable policy landscape, rather than situations where significant new information, problem redefinition or crisis is introduced (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003). Therefore, it cannot account for agenda change as agendas exhibit sharp discontinuous changes in crises, elections, and when new technologies emerge (Kingdon, 1995). In the same sense, incrementalism cannot predict the end of policies.
- Third, empirical evidence suggests that policies are subject to relatively frequent punctuations, as expressed in the punctuated equilibrium model developed by Baumgartner and Jones (1993).
- Finally, as Lindblom advanced the idea of incrementalism as a normative solution, there are several normative critiques identified. Incrementalism does not incorporate ambitious policy goals, but instead encourages “aiming low.” It promotes short-sighted decision making that may have adverse long term consequences (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003), for example, Scott (2010) uses incremental policy making to explain the unfortunate decisions made in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, which prolonged both exit and victory.
References
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Blomquist, W. (2007). The policy process and large-N comparative studies. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 261-289). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Lindblom, C. E., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1993). The policy-making process. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Scott, R. J. (2010). The science of muddling through revisited. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 12(1), 5-18.
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2009). The public policy theory primer. Boulder, CO: Westview.
No comments:
Post a Comment