Compare and contrast rational and incremental models of policy making.

The rational model of policy making is difficult to implement for a numerous reasons. Perhaps the greatest is that this model assumes that there is a unitary decision-maker, when in fact many people, institutions and interests are often involved. Also, policy objectives are often ambiguous and the model requires proactive administration whereas in practice public administrators tend to be reactive. Many critics have linked this to the American analogy of it being hard to think about draining the swamp when you’re fighting off the alligators. Therefore the concept of decision making under ‘bounded rationality’ can offer a framework for looking at policy making however it is an ideal type.

As identified by many critics, the rational model has many limits. These include limited human capacities; inadequate information; costs of analysis; evaluation difficulties; relationship between facts and values; an open system of variables; relationship between analysis and strategy; and, many different forms of policy making.

The policy cycle can perhaps provide a useful way of looking at the policy process. It builds on the rational model and implies different stages of policy making. Here stages of the policy process follow on from one another but the policy process does not terminate. Solutions define the context for the next problem; hence, the stages of policy process can be seen as a cycle.

The incremental approach was originally proposed by the economist Lindloom and attempts to correct the imperfections of the rational model and to illustrate how policy decision-makers actually behave. He touts the advantages of a ‘successive limited comparison mode over “the rational comprehensive method”’. This perspective accepts that political objectives may be purposely kept unclear with the intention of building political consensus and support. He argued that decision makers do not annually review all existing and proposed policies, highlight societal goals and research costs, as suggested by the rational model as impractical. Instead they take an incremental approach in which there is slow evolution of policies by cautious incremental changes.

The incremental approach is conservative in that existing policies, programs and expenditure are considered and attention is concentrated on new policies and on increases, decreases or modifications of established programs.  Perhaps this suggests that they do not totally remake policy every time they make a ‘policy-decision’, but in its place modernise existing policy. Therefore the question for decision-makers possibly would be “what steps can be taken in the general direction” rather than “what are the particular steps that are the best means to a specific objective”.

There are normative advantages in policy makers seeking to ‘muddle through’. Incrementalism allows decisions to be grounded in reality rather than abstract models which may not be realistic and acknowledges continuous relationships between problems and solutions.

 

Weimer and Vining’s “rationalist mode” is quite different from Lindloom’s rational method. Lindloom depicts his two methods as mutually exclusive from the beginning: the rational ‘root’ method is contrasted with the incremental ‘branch’ method. Concerning the root he states that “…starting from the fundamentals each time, building on the past only as experience is embodied in a theory, and always prepared to start completely from he ground up”. However, regarding the branch he says that it is “…continually building out from the current situation, step by step in small degrees”. These definitions highlight his point that the rational method has nothing to do with the incremental method.

At the centre of Weimar and Vining’s rationalist mode is the outline for deciding on policy alternatives. These authors advise limiting the number of alternatives to “between three and seven” – this is a contrast to Lindloom’s infinite possibilities. Lindloom’s ‘The Science of Muddling Through’ is against the rational approach on the basis that it is too narrow and too ‘information-intensive’ for practical use. Weimar and Vining have a different rational approach that possess’ many of the advantages that Lindloom claims are unattainable. Lindloom describes great differences in the ability to understand the essence of policy analysis problems; whereas Weimar and Vining stress techniques for bridging the gap and creating overlap in the knowledgeable base of these two groups.

Incremental decision-making has several limitations. It can lead to hyper-pluralism or gridlock as coordination becomes more difficult; it can produce circularity in policy-making; it is not compatible with large scale policy shifts; and, the small incremental steps used in policy making could lead to undesirable or unforeseen consequences.

While policy analysis cannot itself resolve conflicts or determine political priorities, analysis can inform choices even about high level strategic decisions. ‘Mixed scanning’ would allow the government to scan all of the policy options to see how far each option would have gone towards meeting their objective.

The sociologist Amitai Etzioni found fault with both the rational and incremental models of decision making. His ‘mixed scanning’ theory attempts to take a rational approach on a small set of decisions, whilst allowing other decisions to be made incrementally. The analogy is sometimes used of a weather satellite scanning the globe and sending back data to Earth. Areas that show no particular weather patterns are not analysed thoroughly. Rather the future forecast is a continuation of past forecasts. Places that show changes occurring, however, would get extra attention to gather data and analyse the information in order to project what will happen. Hence the term ‘mixed scanning’.

Whichever approach is used, certain pitfalls need to be avoided. These include: avoiding misplaced priorities due to unclear goals; avoiding confusing the public interest with that of the special interest or constituency; avoiding overly rigid adherence to rules; the oversimplification of reality; the over-quantification at the expense of qualitative factors; and, the reluctance to engage in policy and program evaluation and feedback.

This policy model is effective where as the incremental option may not be as in the case of the Falklands.

This method of policy making was and is still being used with the Europe issue – the stance being ‘wait and see’. Incrementalism is a continuous, exploratory process and the policy makers tend to operate within an existing framework and adjust their position in light of any feedback. The whole issue of the Falklands illustrates the inability of Whitehall to plan any long term policy and make decisions.

---