Public Policy-Making Process: Lindblom's Incremental Model

Introduction

Public policy-making — the policy-making process that occurs in governmental organizations — is a complex process that involves many organizations and entities and encompasses several distinct stages. Charles Lindblom published an article entitled "The Science of Muddling Through" in 1959, which is "one of the most highly cited articles in the Social Science Citation Index" (Weiss and Woodhouse, 1992, p. 267; as cited by Kantor, 2000) and continues to generate debate and insights into policy-making that are valuable to analysts (e.g., Lessman, 1989; Weiss and Woodhouse, 1992; Albaek, 1995).

The Nature of Policy

Lindblom argued that the process of policy development is both systematic and rational, and that "policy makers are constrained in their ability to develop policies on a blank sheet of paper. As a result, they pursue an approach which makes incremental changes to existing policies." (Kantor, 2000) Lindblom further suggested that "with skill, this type of policy-making can result in better outcomes than attempts at comprehensiveness." (Kantor, 2000)

Others have confirmed that "incrementalism is the only realistic approach, as the rational-comprehensive ideal would paralyze the policy process due to the costs of undertaking the necessary research, consultation, etc. required to attain completeness (John, 1998)." Lindblom held that since policy-makers do not generally have all the required information, comprehensiveness is not realistic in the ideal sense. Furthermore, policy-makers deal with constraints on resources such as time limitations, and a single agreed-upon policy objective is rarely achieved. Lindblom held that intentional incompleteness was much preferred to the "inevitable, unplanned oversights which occur when policy-makers aspire to the rational-comprehensive ideal (Lindblom, 1979)." (Kantor, 2000)

Lindblom acknowledged that issues were sometimes intentionally ignored within the incrementalist view, to be addressed through later policy revisions, and that policy-making is "serial and remedial, never producing once-and-for-all solutions to social problems (Lindblom, 1965)." He held that "incremental policy development delivers good outcomes when there are multiple decision makers within the system who represent a diversity of views. These decision makers protect particular values within the policy process and ensure that the serial process outlined above does not overlook important concerns. This ensures that no major value is neglected and that policy decisions are broadly acceptable to all stakeholders." (Kantor, 2000)

Lindblom and Woodhouse argue that some problems are too complex for human beings to fully conceive, comprehend, or perceive. They state that "there is a deep and persistent unwillingness in Western culture to acknowledge difficulties." These authors further hold that the failure to take human limitations seriously makes it impossible to assess the "magnitude of the task facing a political system. Unless political action accounts for the inability to fully comprehend complex problems, policy making will not fare well." Some of the social limits they identify as defining cognitive limitations include the existence of arbitrary standards, inadequate schooling, and a lack of competition of ideas in the media. (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993)

Lindblom and Woodhouse stress "the need for balance between analysis and the exercise of power. Policy making is by definition an exercise of power, in that it involves the use of authority. The role of analysis is to keep that power in check, not to replace it." They hold that the best path to truth is the competition of ideas, and that democracy opens up the marketplace of ideas, providing the best opportunity for policy-making that is both reasoned and informed. The problem is that competition may result in both reason and contention, raising the question of where the balance lies between the "power of politics and the politics of analysis." (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993)

Different Kinds of Policy Analysis

Lindblom and Woodhouse explain that policy studies cannot be considered a "linear, step-wise process" but rather exist in an environment in which policy may arise from compromise, as a byproduct of other actions, emerge gradually, or even come into being through inaction and precedent. As they state: "Policy making is a complexly interactive process without beginning or end." (p. 11)

In Lindblom's 1959 work, the term "watchdog" was used to describe the representation of a particular value or interest within the system. Lindblom stated: "Almost every interest has its watchdog. Without claiming that every interest has a sufficiently powerful watchdog, it can be argued that our system often can assure a more comprehensive regard for the values of the whole society than any attempt at intellectual comprehensiveness." (Lindblom, 1959, p. 85)

Group interaction is identified by some scholars as the primary driver of public policy. The argument holds that the individual has little effect on policy-making; however, groups are able to succeed in effecting policy change due to their size, political effectiveness, and financial resources. This dynamic shapes how agricultural policy in the United States is debated, how the legislative agenda is set, and how administrative regulations are announced and programs administered.

One prominent group model of public policy-making is the "Iron Triangle," which identifies three points of power in the policy process (in this case, agricultural policy):