· · ·

Incrementalism: What it is, and when/how to implement it in decision governance

Incrementalism prioritizes pragmatic adjustments of the current state over transformational solutions, focusing on feasibility and continuity. What are the conditions in which it is interesting to implement incrementalism through decision governance, and what risks does that create? 

Incrementalism, a concept originating from public policy and administrative theory, is a decision-making approach characterized by making small, gradual changes rather than comprehensive or radical shifts. It was formally introduced by Charles E. Lindblom in his seminal article, “The Science of ‘Muddling Through” (1959). Incrementalism contrasts with rational models of decision-making, which advocate for exhaustive analysis and optimization of outcomes.

This text is part of the series on the design of decision governance. Decision Governance refers to values, principles, practices designed to improve the quality of decisions. Find all texts on decision governance here, including “What is Decision Governance?” here.

Under incrementalism, policymakers make decisions by building upon existing policies, modifying them incrementally to address new information or changing circumstances. This approach assumes that decision-makers operate under bounded rationality, which limits their ability to analyze all alternatives and predict all potential outcomes. 

How Incrementalism Influences Public Policies

Incrementalism influences public policy creation or modification by fostering adaptability and reducing risk. By focusing on small, manageable adjustments, policymakers can:

  1. Test Policy Changes: Small changes allow for the testing of policies in a controlled manner, enabling policymakers to observe the outcomes and make further adjustments as needed.
  2. Minimize Conflict: Incremental steps tend to be less controversial than sweeping reforms, making them politically feasible in diverse or polarized environments.
  3. Manage Complexity: Gradual adjustments accommodate the complexity of policy environments, where numerous stakeholders and variables make comprehensive solutions impractical.
  4. Build Consensus: Incremental changes can create opportunities for stakeholder engagement and consensus-building, facilitating smoother implementation.

These processes often manifest in public budgeting, urban planning, and regulatory adjustments, where incremental changes align closely with practical constraints and political realities.

Appropriate Circumstances for Incrementalism

Incrementalism can be suitable under specific conditions:

  1. High Uncertainty: In uncertain environments, incremental adjustments allow decision-makers to adapt to new information without overcommitting resources.
  2. Limited Resources: When resource constraints prevent comprehensive analysis, incrementalism provides a feasible pathway for policy evolution.
  3. Stable Contexts: Incrementalism works well in stable systems where existing frameworks require fine-tuning rather than overhaul.
  4. Consensus-Driven Decision Making: In organizations or systems requiring high levels of agreement among stakeholders, incrementalism facilitates progress while maintaining harmony.

For example, in public health policy, incrementalism allows for iterative improvements to vaccination programs, enabling adaptation to emerging data about disease patterns and population behavior.

Limitations of Incrementalism

Incrementalism may be unsuitable in certain scenarios:

  1. Crisis Situations: In crises requiring immediate and comprehensive action (e.g., natural disasters or financial collapses), incrementalism’s gradual approach may prove inadequate.
  2. Structural Issues: When existing systems are fundamentally flawed or inequitable, incremental changes may perpetuate inefficiencies or injustices.
  3. Innovative Needs: In fields demanding breakthrough innovations, incrementalism may stifle creativity and limit transformative potential.
  4. Stakeholder Resistance: In situations where stakeholders demand visible and substantial changes, incrementalism might appear as indecisive or insufficient.

For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, incremental adjustments were less effective in controlling the spread of the virus than decisive, large-scale public health interventions.

Aligning an Infrastructure Decision-Making Process with Incrementalism

It is assumed below that an organization uses a generic decision-making process with five stages: reaction, explanation, search, decision, and action. 

Suppose that the organization operates in a context which warrants incrementalism in its infrastructure investments. To align its decision-making process with incrementalism, the following guidelines can be applied at each stage.

  1. Reaction:
    • Establish protocols for identifying signals of required action (e.g., maintenance issues, stakeholder complaints, or regulatory changes).
    • Prioritize actions that build upon existing infrastructure plans or frameworks.
    • Avoid overreacting to isolated incidents; focus on patterns or trends that justify gradual responses.
  2. Explanation:
    • Use historical data and stakeholder input to frame the context of the problem.
    • Develop explanations that emphasize continuity with past decisions while identifying specific areas for incremental improvement.
    • Avoid framing problems in ways that necessitate radical departures from existing practices.
  3. Search:
    • Focus on identifying options that involve incremental changes to current systems or processes.
    • Limit the scope of analysis to manageable alternatives that can be implemented sequentially.
    • Ensure that proposed options are feasible within the constraints of available resources and expertise.
  4. Decision:
    • Commit to incremental options that address immediate priorities while leaving room for future adjustments.
    • Use decision criteria that emphasize feasibility, stakeholder acceptability, and alignment with long-term objectives.
    • Document the rationale for selecting an incremental approach to facilitate transparency and accountability.
  5. Action:
    • Implement changes in stages, allowing for evaluation and course corrections at each step.
    • Monitor the impact of incremental actions and collect data to inform subsequent decisions.
    • Communicate progress to stakeholders, emphasizing the benefits of the incremental approach in managing risks and uncertainties.

While incrementalism is not universally applicable, its emphasis on gradual adjustments makes it a potentially interesting approach for public policies that require continuity, as well as for organizations in which decision-makers prefer continuity over transformational changes. Aligning decision-making processes with incrementalism involves setting clear guidelines that emphasize adaptability, feasibility, and stakeholder engagement. 

Recent Topics in Research on Incrementalism

Since the 1990s, research on incrementalism in public policy has explored several questions. Same of these topics are likely to be of interest to any organization that implements incrementalism in its decision processes. For instance, path dependency is a consideration that will be important any time decision governance is failing to support transformational initiatives in an organization that may be need a significant change to become more competitive. Other topics, such as how incrementalism helps international collaboration, are interesting for organizations that can benefit from tighter relationships with their suppliers and partners, as in such cases, all involved need to set up shared decision governance.

  1. How does incrementalism interact with complex systems theory to address policy challenges in highly interconnected environments? Research has shown that incrementalism complements complex systems theory by enabling adaptive responses to emergent challenges. For example, urban planning studies have highlighted the use of incrementalism in managing transportation networks by implementing gradual improvements such as phased expansions of public transit systems, adjustments to traffic management policies, and stepwise upgrades to road infrastructure. These incremental adjustments allow policymakers to address pressing transportation needs while minimizing disruption and gathering data to inform future decisions (Walker & Salt, 2006).
  2. What role does stakeholder diversity play in shaping the effectiveness of incremental approaches? Stakeholder diversity can both enhance and complicate incremental approaches. Diverse perspectives improve the range of incremental options considered, but conflicting interests may slow down the decision-making process (Bryson et al., 2013).
  3. How can digital tools and big data analytics enhance or hinder incremental policy adjustments? Digital tools provide decision-makers with granular insights and predictive capabilities, enhancing incremental adjustments. However, reliance on data analytics can sometimes prioritize short-term efficiency over long-term systemic change. For instance, policymakers may focus on optimizing existing workflows or addressing immediate issues highlighted by analytics, while neglecting broader structural reforms that are necessary for sustainable development. This tendency can lead to “data-driven tunnel vision,” where decisions are guided primarily by what is immediately measurable, potentially overlooking qualitative or long-term impacts (Mergel, 2016).
  4. In what ways do political polarization and ideological shifts influence the viability of incrementalism? Polarization can limit the effectiveness of incrementalism by creating gridlock, as opposing political factions may block or delay incremental adjustments to policies, rendering progress nearly impossible. Conversely, ideological shifts often lead to demands for radical policy changes, which can disrupt the gradual and measured approach of incrementalism. For example, in highly polarized legislative bodies, efforts to make small adjustments to existing policies may fail due to the lack of bipartisan agreement, while ideological movements seeking transformative changes may view incrementalism as inadequate for achieving their broader goals (McCarty et al., 2006).
  5. Under what conditions does incrementalism contribute to or mitigate policy path dependency? Incrementalism can reinforce path dependency by building on existing policies, but it also mitigates it by allowing for gradual divergence from entrenched practices when new opportunities arise (Mahoney, 2000).
  6. How do international organizations and cross-border collaborations adapt incrementalism to global policy challenges? Incrementalism supports consensus-building in international contexts by fostering gradual alignment of policies across diverse political and cultural landscapes, as seen in climate change negotiations (Keohane & Victor, 2016).

Incrementalism remains a cornerstone of effective policymaking, particularly in contexts defined by uncertainty, complexity, and resource constraints. Its emphasis on gradual adjustments aligns well with pragmatic governance and operational continuity. However, it must be applied judiciously, recognizing its limitations in addressing crises, structural inequities, or innovation-driven domains. 

References
  1. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of ‘Muddling Through.’ Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
  2. Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
  3. Wildavsky, A. (1964). The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Little, Brown and Company.
  4. Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Island Press.
  5. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2013). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 944–59.
  6. Mergel, I. (2016). Big Data in Public Affairs. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 928–39.
  7. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. MIT Press.
  8. Beck, K., et al. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Agile Alliance.
  9. Mahoney, J. (2000). Path Dependence in Historical Sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–48.
  10. Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2016). Cooperation and Discord in Global Climate Policy. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 570–75.
Definitions
  • Incrementalism: A decision-making approach that focuses on making small, manageable changes rather than comprehensive reforms (Lindblom, 1959).
  • Bounded Rationality: A concept describing the limitations of human decision-making capabilities, including incomplete information and cognitive constraints (Simon, 1955).