Political And Administrative Studies: Incrementalism And Public Policy

Change is a part of life and a part of every society, it is a source of development or failure, and it is an important aspect of formulating public policies and improving the state of policy problems, though change tends to be a difficult process and sometimes lengthy and tedious, especially when it comes to policy. To address and change a select policy problem, Policies change in a variety of different ways. As has long been recognized, some policies are new and innovative, while others are merely incremental refinements of earlier policies (Bennett & Howlett, 1992, p. 275).

The concept of Incrementalism was first developed in the 1950s by the American political scientist Charles Lindblom in response to the then-prevalent conception of policy making as a process of rational analysis culminating in a value-maximizing decision (Hayes, 2013), and is still commonly and widely used by policer makers worldwide to effect change. According to Lindblom, policies are often made in a reactive fashion (Mintrom & Norman, 2009, p. 654) to the policy problems. Incrementalism was therefore defined as “a series of evaluative processes aiding decision-making by limiting analysis to familiar policies and to a subset of possible consequences, employing a trial and error approach, and tending towards problem remediation rather than positive goal attainment” (Howlett & Migone, 2011, p. 55).

Simply put; Incrementalism argues that when confronted with deficiencies in current policy, the most likely, and reasonable, organizational response is minor adjustment to what already exists (Atkinson, 2011, p. 14). Lindblom argued that incrementalism works well in situations where the variables that decision makers take into account are continuous and there are no thresholds or sharp discontinuities (Atkinson, 2011, p. 11).

Public policies, like other state actions, are driven by social pressures (Bennett & Howlett, 1992, p. 275), such as pressure from civil servants, consultants and other policy specialists who have the ability to shape the intellectual premise and performance measures employed by policy makers (Bennett & Howlett, 1992, p. 275). Policy makers often prioritize positive outcomes and highly avoid making risky policies that may have significant backlash from their societies and important stakeholders. Risk aversion among decision makers presents a major challenge for actors seeking to promote significant policy change (Mintrom & Norman, 2009, p. 653). Numerous experimental studies have determined that most people are loss averse, that is they are less willing to risk losing what they already have than to risk gaining an equal amount (Atkinson, 2011, p. 14) and policy makers are no different. Policy makers are subject to influence both from inside and from outside their various policy avenues, and are motivated by their own interests and agendas, they interact with each other with the hope of gathering support for their policy preferences (Mintrom & Norman, 2009, p. 654).

Policy makers often shy away from making drastic changes in public policies, as changes in policy often generate losses for some and gains for others (Atkinson, 2011, p. 15), and thus often opt for the incremental method of policy change to avoid any adverse risks. While in his publications Lindblom did not directly address accountability but it seems reasonable to argue that incremental decisions, to the extent that they reduce risk, may be particularly attractive to those who are obliged to explain and justify their decisions (Atkinson, 2011, p. 16). Developing new policies is a tedious process requiring consultation with many the stakeholders, lengthy research and analysis, and review before it is finally scrapped or implemented, and even after implementation it still faces challenge of rejection after implementation. This why policy makers often opt to make changes to existing policies to adapt them to meet the new policy problems, which saves a them time and resources.

The key is to see how a series of small changes could, over time, produce similar results as a more dramatic, immediate change (Mintrom & Norman, 2009, p. 655). Policy development involves a multitude of decisions and decision making processes, which can be divided into 3 types;

• Routine Formulation: A repetitive and essentially changeless process of reforming similar proposals within an issue area that has a well-established place on the agenda of government (Juma & Onkware, 2015, p. 834)
• Analogous Formulation: Treating a new problem by relying on what was done before and developing proposals for similar problems in the present (Juma & Onkware, 2015, p. 834)
• Creative Formulation: Treating any problem with an essentially unprecedented proposal, which represents a break from past practice (Juma & Onkware, 2015, p. 834)

For policy change, policy makers often practice the ‘Routine Formulation’ model of decision making as well as the ‘Analogous Formulation’ model of decision making as both entail incrementing existing policies to meet new policy problems. This ensure a continuation of past government activities with addition of incremental modifications. The ‘Creative Formulation’ model of decision making and policy formulation is often tedious and time consuming, as well as costly and it is very difficult to start new policies from scratch. The uncertainty and the consequences of new or different policy cannot be fully predicted hence it is considered a safe approach to continue the ongoing policy with only certain modifications by increasing some targets (khawaja, 2013, p. 60).

Comprehensive alternatives are typically ignored because they are impractical in their political requirements or unpredictable in their consequences (Atkinson, 2011, p. 10). Due to the many costs, political propositions, labor of research and time constraints, policy makers cannot identify the full range of policy alternatives and their resultant outcomes. Policy development can be looked at as a form of problem solving, and when it comes to that aspect, people are naturally pragmatic: they solve their problems based on practical considerations and rarely search for the ‘one best way’. They normally don’t go any further in their search when they find a feasible solution that will work. Taking all these factors into account it is quite clear why policy makers tend to generally accept the legitimacy of established programs and tacitly agree to continue previous policies. Incremental changes permit responses to events that threaten a social system with a minimum of alteration or dislocation of the system (Anyebe, 2018, p. 10). When it comes to policy development, policy makers tend to make decisions on satisfactory information as opposed to searching in-depth for the optimum amount of information. It may be due to issues of cost, time and energy, which leads policy makers to satisfice, as well as due to the crippling fear of the unknown.

Therein lives the strong fear of unknown consequences of changing existing policies into completely new ones, and possible resultant backlash from the society. There is also a resistance to drifting away from the already existing government plans for that period, and the fear of drifting away from the current status quo which has a significant pull on policy direction. Going against the current status quo has possible strong negative consequences and backlash for the policy makers, as well as a possible strong change and welcoming reception, but the risk of strong backlash is enough to deter going against the status quo. Decision-makers, who must respond to problems in the absence of certainty regarding outcomes or agreement over core values, will typically, engage in a local search for options (Atkinson, 2011, p. 10). This search process results in small adjustments from the status quo premised on what is practical and what is possible (Atkinson, 2011, p. 10).

And while it may be dangerous to extrapolate too far from the laboratory, the tendency to follow customary policy, re-elect incumbents, purchase that same products and stay in the same job are all behaviors that speak to our preference for the status quo (Atkinson, 2011, p. 15). Often transition costs are very high and there are positive returns to continued investment in particular technologies or decision strategies (Atkinson, 2011, p. 15). Since the benefits and costs of present arrangements are known to the policy actors, unlike the uncertainties surrounding new arrangements, agreement on major changes is more difficult (Howlett & Migone, 2011, p. 56). The result is typically either continuation of the status quo or agreement to make only small changes to it, and secondly, the standard operating procedures of bureaucracies also tend to promote the continuation of existing practices (Howlett & Migone, 2011, p. 56). Nonetheless, it can be argued that ideally policy makers should develop policies using the rational comprehensive model to develop policies that are concrete and representative. It is a very useful tool of analysis that helps to develop clear cut decisions. It would result in better decisions leading to highly effective policy development. Policy makers using this method are expected to take the following steps (Anyebe, 2018, p. 16):

• Identify all the value preferences currently existing in a society
• Assign each value a relative weight
• Discover all the alternative policies available to accomplish these values
• Know all the costs and consequences of each alternative policy
• Select the best alternative which is also the most efficient in terms of the costs and benefits of social values

However, we have long known that a fully rational decision-making process is no more than an ideal, at best ( Knaggård, 2014, p. 22). Taking all these steps into account it is clear why policy makers often go for the incremental model and why they generally accept the legitimacy of established programs and tacitly agree to continue previous policies as it saves time and costs as opposed to doing all the steps necessary for the rational comprehensive model. Lindblom argued that earlier ‘rational models’ of decision-making required a separation between ends and means in the calculus of decision-making which was unworkable in practice not only due to the time, information, and cognitive constraints, but also because it assumed policy-makers could both clearly separate means from ends in assessing policies and then agree upon each (Howlett & Migone, 2011, p. 55).

Routine administration is dominated by a short-term pressure to act; urgency takes precedence over importance and consequently, there is too little time for longer-term thinking or strategic planning (Burrows & Gnad, 2018, p. 13). For all its faults, the synoptic model and the belief that advances in knowledge and technology can help solve social problems still remains an ideal in complex modern societies (Saint-Martin & Allison, 2011, p. 20). But despite how good the rational comprehensive model is on paper, the reality is much messier and characterized by ‘muddling through’ (Allison & Saint-Martin, 2011, p. 2).

As an alternative to the Rational Comprehensive Model of policy making, the policy makers opt for incrementalism as it is cost and time saving as well as politically expedient. Incrementalism is classified as politically expedient because it is easier to reach agreement when the matters in dispute among various groups are only limited modifications of existing programs rather than policy issues of great magnitude or of an all-or-nothing character (Anyebe, 2018, p. 15). Because policy makers operate under conditions of uncertainty about the future consequences of their actions, incremental decisions tend to reduce the risks and cost of uncertainty (Anyebe, 2018, p. 15). When policy-makers are unable to find or use scientific knowledge for their decisions, they tend to rely more on political knowledge of what works and what can politically be agreed on ( Knaggård, 2014, p. 23). Decision making under certainty is possible only in the examples in textbooks, real life decision-making is always more or less uncertain ( Knaggård, 2014, p. 23). In the concept of Botswana there is the existence of the National Development Plans, which prioritize building the economy and improving the quality of life for all Batswana. The National Development Plans for Botswana have been incrementally improved from their inception to the current NDP 11 framework. They have all been made with the aim of improving the economy and environment of Botswana and livelihood of its people.

Each plan from the first NDP to the current NDP 11 has a magnitude of policies that address specific problems in the nation and they are constantly revised and adapted to meet the rising challenges. Even the vision goals, from ‘vision 2016’ to the latest ‘vision 2036’ encompasses a number of goals and pillars that mandate the improvement of quality of life for Batswana through improvement and adaptation of policies to meet the rising policy problems, such as the Education status in Botswana, improvement of education levels of Batswana, the levels of poverty and unemployment in the country to the once prevalent problem of HIV & AIDS that has been a major problem for many years. There has been creation of a multitude of policies and strategies to fight the HIV & AIDS epidemic, all of which have been revised and improved to the current ‘Treat all’ initiative pioneered by the Government. In light of all the above, it is quite clear that this concept of incrementalism is highly present in some of the public policy reforms in Botswana such as; The National Policy on Education of 1966 to its updated versions being The Revised National Policy on Education. Since Botswana’s Independence, education has been prioritized as a key development priority for Botswana.

The mandate of the policy is to produce skilled human resources through provision of education and training opportunities. The Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE), Government Paper No. 2 of April 1994, has guided the program activities of the Ministry of Education in terms of curriculum reforms and ongoing improvements in the education system since NDP 8. In NDP 9 going on to NDP 10, Government continued with the implementation of the Revised National Policy on Education, in line with the commitment of Vision 2016 of “an educated and informed nation”. Cost sharing was introduced in the provision of education, as Government could no longer sustain the increasing level of expenditure on education alone. However, Government had planned to have safety nets to ensure that children who come from needy backgrounds are not denied education. The tertiary education sector was further expanded with the increase in the University of Botswana student enrolment from 10 000 to 15 000 students. Furthermore, a second university was planned for NDP 9 and carried on to 10, to offer programs for which many students are placed externally. NDP 11 has also prioritized education and has strategically continued the progress from the previous National Development Plans. To add onto the aforementioned incremental policy changes in the context of Botswana, we will look into the annual budget speech focusing on the National Education Policy. The Education Policy has existed since 1966 and has been revised and allocated more and more resources to meet the rising policy challenges. For the 2017 budget speech the proposed Ministerial Recurrent Budget for the 2017/2018 financial year amounts to P39. 66 billion, this represents an increase of P2. 32 billion or 6. 2 percent over the 2016/2017 revised budget (Matambo, 2017, p. 11). It was proposed that the Ministry of Basic Education be allocated the largest amount of P6. 80 billion or 17. 2 percent of the total Ministerial Recurrent Budget (Matambo, 2017, p. 11).

This was in line with the commitment made by Government to improve education through the implementation of the Education and Training Sector Strategic Plan. The ETSSP seeks to refocus education and training towards fulfilment of a more diversified and knowledge-based economy, through strengthening the match between qualifications and labor market requirements, thereby ensuring that education outputs are more closely aligned to future employment needs. Government has invested significantly in education and skills development over the past decades, with more than 25 percent of the total annual budget allocated to education and training. In the 2018 budget speech there has been an increase in the allocated budget for education as a part of the national education policy development. An amount of over P15 billion has been proposed for education and training in the 2018/2019 budget. Of the 2018/19 budget the largest share amounting to P7. 97 billion or 17. 7 percent of the total Ministerial Recurrent Budget, is proposed for allocation to the Ministry of Basic Education (Matambo, 2018, p. 14). This will primarily deliver on Government’s firm commitment to prioritize human capital development, as indicated in the National Development Plan 11. This is a clear example of an incremental increase from the 2017/18 budget to the 2018/19 budget, which is an increment of 0. 5% from the previous budget for education. Feeding more and more of the total budget to the education sector is a step towards achieving the required state of education in the nation. Incrementalism serves as a method of budgetary calculation (Good, 2011, p. 43). The Incremental method of budget calculation focuses on small increments to an existing base of spending (Good, 2011, p. 43).

To continue on the context of Botswana, we will look into the other prevalent policy problem of poverty and how the administrators have worked towards fixing it. Since Independence in 1966, there has been a notable transformation of the country’s economy from least developed, to one of an upper middle-income status. Poverty levels among Batswana had been reduced from as high as 59 percent in 1985/86 to 47 percent and 30 percent in 1993/94 and 2002/03. In 2000, the Government of Botswana, along with other governments, signed the Millennium Declaration, which had poverty eradication as a priority goal, which was a step towards the mandate of poverty eradication. Most importantly, the declaration committed Botswana to alleviating extreme poverty and its related socio-economic problems. The proportion of people living below the Poverty Datum Line fell from 49 percent in 1993/94 to 30 percent in 2002/03, and is estimated to have declined further to 23 percent by the end of NDP 9. Poverty eradication was added as a goal to the ‘vision 2016’ mandate as a step towards reduction of poverty in Botswana. To continue its fight against poverty and alleviate its impact, the Government adopted the National Poverty Reduction Strategy in 2003. The Government took a bold policy decision during NDP 10 to shift from poverty reduction to poverty eradication. With each improvement from the previous poverty policies, there has been a visible reduction in the countries poverty levels. The Poverty Eradication Program has benefited vulnerable members of society and has contributed to reducing poverty from 19. 3 per cent in 2009/10 to 16. 3 per cent in 2015/2016. Nonetheless, significant pockets of poverty remain, especially in rural areas.

The country has successfully shifted to being an upper middle income country. The policies will continue to be improved throughout the NDP 11 goals and the ‘vision 2036’ goal, as well as through the achievement of Sustainable Development goal number 1, which states “No Poverty”. Poverty eradication has been framed under the theme of ‘Leave No One Behind’ and is the principle at the core of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Incrementalism when properly practiced clearly has a large impact on improvement of policies and status of policy problems. Even though incrementalism is very often used to safely continue existing policies and save time and resources, it has been criticized by others. Early critics made the point that the rationality and efficacy of this kind of strategy is deeply contextual (Atkinson, 2011, p. 14).

Other critics argued that Incrementalism may be rational, but that does not invariably make it the most appropriate response (Atkinson, 2011, p. 14). It was also argued that conflicts can arise with the incremental model if there is a major policy shift and it was deemed to be too conservative and too focused on the current order of things and serves as a barrier to innovation which is often necessary for effective policies (Anyebe, 2018, p. 15). Despite this criticism the methods by which bureaucrats identify options and the procedures and criteria for choice are often laid out in advance, inhibiting innovation and perpetuating existing arrangements, thus the further use of the incremental model. Its relevance has not diminished, because slow, uneven progress characterizes most policy change in most political systems (Atkinson, 2011, p. 12). It remains the most important model in terms of its frequency of appearance in non-punctuation periods of policy making characterized by marginal adjustment to the status quo (Howlett & Migone, 2011, p. 59).

This style is best suited to situations in which the policy context is relatively simple, and the constraints on decision makers are relatively high (Atkinson, 2011, p. 11). Under other circumstances, particularly those in which the problems are complex, decision makers often abandon incrementalism, not for a return to synoptic decision models, but for ones that acknowledge the presence of multiple actors whose choices cannot be counted on to achieve coordination via mutual adjustment (Atkinson, 2011, p. 11).

In conclusion, taking all the aforementioned information into consideration it is crystal clear why public policy makers generally accept the legitimacy of established programs and tactically agree to continue previous polices. It saves time, costs, resources and energy and avoids negative reception from stakeholders for an unwanted or badly implemented new policy. Like most things incrementalism is not perfect and has its disadvantages as well as its advantages, but the important thing is that it works to effectively get the desired change in policy even if it is slow. It sustains and pushes the government’s agendas, budgets and plans for that allocated time period. Incrementalism is a practice that is present in many bureaucratic societies in the world and reduces risks and costs of uncertainty. In as much as incrementalism may be praised and widely used, as well as its many criticisms, it is in the end all up to the policy maker as to what approach to pick when preparing policies to effect the change they desire. What is rational for administrators to do depend on the situations in which they work and by assessing degrees of complexity in decision situations, thus decision makers may be better able to adopt a strategy to fit the situation at hand (Forester, 1984, p. 23).