Charles Lindblom’s theory of incrementalism is argued to be the model that is used for policymaking when the rational ideal breaks down. However, because the conditions necessary for rational decision-making to take place is quite unlikely or even impossible, it is inevitable that policymakers will have to turn to incrementalism. In other words, incrementalism helps to explain the “realistic” way in which policy making occurs. In an ideal world, legislators would be able to know all the possible alternatives and potential consequences for each. Incrementalism, however, does not require “calculated choice among alternatives.” Instead, various actors must work together to implement gradual change over time as they gain more experience and knowledge. Incrementalism is a continuous cycle in which there is always room for adjustments in the subsequent cycle. In this paper, I will describe Lindblom’s theoretical model of disjointed incrementalism as well as explain why this model is “superior” when compared to the rational decision-making process. Furthermore, I will apply Lindblom’s incrementalism to the policy evolution of the Food Stamp Program (FSP).
Rational decision-making is an unrealistic route to policy making for several reasons. In today’s world, it is quite impossible to reach unanimity on objectives. Each individual or group is always looking to pursue their own interest. However, modern decision making is characteristically pluralistic and contentious. The policy process consists of many groups, with different information, ideas, and interests. For example, in terms of the Food Stamp Project, there was conflict between players who wanted to lower costs by lowering benefits or decreasing the number of those who were benefitting and those who wanted to increase benefits which would raise costs. With this in mind, it is fair to say that policies arise from a series of compromise and bargaining between these groups. Even if there was a situation in which people agreed on objectives, it would still be insufficient. For example, everyone favors a clean environment and better healthcare, but people differ in terms of prioritizing each of these concerns. Furthermore, there is always a dispute in regard to how much resources should be allocated to a certain program relative to others. This produces a tradeoff or opportunity cost. If more resources are apportioned to one policy, there will be less resources going to another policy. Secondly, there is inadequate information which is necessary to predict the consequences for each alternative when using the rational model. There is not enough research nor knowledge that can give rise to certainty over outcomes. As a result, policymakers turn to incrementalism to reform policies because it is “much less demanding than the rational method, requiring neither comprehensive information nor agreement among policy makers on objectives.”
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Incrementalism consists of agenda setting, policy adoption, and policy implementation. The first step to agenda setting is to identify the problems that must be addressed and resolved. Lindblom describes this process to be “remedial” in the sense that “it focuses on concrete problems to be alleviated rather than on abstract ideals to be attained. The process moves away from problems rather than toward ideals, which cannot be specified with sufficient precision.” Policymakers are merely trying to relieve the concerns that have risen rather than aim to improve the policy or reach higher goals. The Food Stamp Program (FSP) development began in the 1930s to address the problem of surplus agricultural yields which was occurring at the time of the Depression era. The goal was to distribute surplus agricultural food to the unemployed and their families in order to raise farm prices. The identification of this problem helped to bring about the Food Stamp Plan that was in effect in May of 1939. The initial objective was not necessarily to help the hungry or poor but, rather, to simply create a more systematic disposal system that would allow for the increase in farm prices. This change in objective from helping to increase farm prices to reduce hunger shows the development and evolution of the program over time. Priorities had shifted and thus policy had to adjust to that change. Agenda setting also deals with social fragmentation of analysis. As mentioned previously, this is the idea that there is a collection of people who all have differing opinions and concerns when it comes to policymaking. These actors each bring valuable information that can be used to examine the problem. Actors may differ completely on an issue or disagree in the degree of help the government should provide. When the War on Poverty was announced, the priority shifted and a new national policy objective was announced to “raise the levels of nutrition among low income households.” This promoted the creation of the Food Stamp Act of 1964. Claffey and Stucker emphasize that there “is a vast difference between a program intended to eradicate hunger and one that will help a family to feel less hungry. Everyone affiliated with the program—from policymaker to administrator to recipient—will have a different attitude about the benefits derived from such a program, depending on the objectives.” This goes to show that there are actors with opposing objectives and opinions in terms of the extent of help the government should provide to the hungry. Some people hold the belief that too much aid will make people too reliant. Another example of how different actors had to work together is shown by The Food Stamp Act of 1977. “For reformers, it included stringent clauses to control waste, fraud, error, and abuse. For those in need, both current and potential program participants, the purchase requirement was eliminated altogether. Further to appease budget watcher, a cap was fixed on total program expenditures.” The Food Act of 1977 shows the negotiation that took place between groups. Each group differed on the margins in regard to the past Food Stamp Act and took the action to create incremental changes which brought about the updated version. However, this cap on the budget was not as successful as the policymakers had hoped. It later prompted for the Food Stamp Act of 1981 which focused on budget restraint and the expectation for the Food Stamp Project to provide help to those who truly needed it. The Food Stamp Act of 1939, 1964, 1977, and 1981 illustrates how incremental change took place. Policymakers did not aim to completely eradicate the policy each time they were faced with a problem, but instead worked to amend it slightly each time. They used the information that they had to make decisions quickly. Furthermore, with the passing of each Act, policymakers were able to gain greater experience and knowledge that enabled them to better the existing policy.
The second step to agenda setting is policy adoption which deals with the idea of margin-dependent choice. Hayes states that this is when policymakers “will compare alternatives by focusing on the increment by which various proposals differ from each other and from past policies.” Marginal incremental change can be exemplified by the 1971 Food Stamp Program amendments. In 1964, the Food Stamp Act stated that the beneficiaries should be able to “more nearly obtain a low-cost nutritionally adequate diet.” However, in 1971, the words, “more nearly” were removed. After gaining further knowledge about the importance of nutrition, policymakers modified the past policy. Another part of the 1971 amendments was that it lowered the amount of money needed to obtain bonus stamps. “Before the 1971 amendments were passed, a four-person household with a $60 monthly income had to pay $20 for $65 worth of stamps; after the amendments, the household paid $10 for $108 worth of stamps.” Policymakers realized that a significant portion of people’s incomes were going towards purchasing these stamps and made an effort to lessen the burden. The slow decrease in cost for stamps shows the incremental changes that the amendment had implemented. Policymakers were able to adjust to the changing economic environment and amend the existing policy to fulfill the current needs of the poor. There is a clear understanding that new problems arise even after a policy is formed. While non-incremental reforms can be problematic and attract resistance, incremental reforms such as the ones mentioned above can be comparatively a lot easier to pass and implement. Moreover, because incrementalism is a continuous cycle, as new problems come to light, there is opportunity to address those issues in the succeeding cycle.
Often times, policy implementation is very difficult because of limited appropriations or inadequate statutory powers. During the Ford administration, the U.S. was experiencing tough times with high unemployment, high inflation, and large budgetary deficits. This caused an immense increase in the number of people eligible for the Food Stamp Program. It had reached a point where “one out of give Americans were eligible for stamps.” In order to address this problem, Ford wanted to implement a policy that would raise the price of food stamps to 30% of a recipients’ monthly income. However, he was a faced with a strongly opposed Congress and Supreme Court. There was also a similar case during the Carter administration. President Carter had proposed the Better Jobs and Income Program which would have allowed for cash assistance as well as job programs. However, this too was rejected by Congress because it would have potentially replaced the Food Stamp Program. This illustrates how nonincremental proposals such as the Better Jobs and Income Program are met with greater resistance than incremental proposals. Additionally, amending previous policies allows for officials to acquire greater understanding. For example, administrators realized that the problem of hunger should not be observed in a vacuum. Addressing hunger can help to solve other issues such as “poor performance at work and school caused by a limited attention span, constituting a vicious cycle of poverty and hunger.” With each new incremental policy change, officials gain more experience and expertise in the topic which is incredibly beneficial for the next cycle of incremental change.
Richard P. Nathan makes a strong case for incrementalism and describes how the Food Stamp Program is a prime example. Nathan argues that “income-security programs have become so large, diverse, and complex that, rather than starting from scratch, the best prospect for the future is to build on the base that currently exists.” As times change, new problems arise and the existing policy may not be able to fully resolve these complications. Additionally, he argues that “incrementalism is advocated as a useful method of program adjustment because the positive features of a program remain intact.” There is no need to create a whole new policy when the foundation of the existing policy is still going strong. Nathan emphasizes how the eradication of the purchase requirement of the Food Stamp Program is a commendable example of incrementalism. The problem that was brought up was that the “working poor often found it difficult to take part in the food program because participants have to buy their stamps…in order to receive a monthly stamp allotment of $166, an eligible family of four with net countable income of $300 has to pay $83.” Through research and experience, policymakers came to realize that the purchase requirement was a burden to those who were not left with much after other miscellaneous expenses such as rent, gas, and other bills. Another goal of this incremental change was to decrease fraud of those who took advantage of the system by streamlining the process to obtain the food stamps. Hence, to resolve this issue, the purchase requirement was abolished. This allowed people to obtain food stamps without paying for them which in turn left more money for other expenses. In other words, a “family with $300 in monthly income, now entitled to $166 worth of stamps for a cash payment of $83, would simply receive $83 in stamps---without having to pay any cash.” Policymakers believed that by doing this, the program costs would decrease but that was not the case. Instead, there was an enormous increase in the number of people who now were able to benefit from the program. This illustrates how the Food Stamp Program was fluid in the sense that when a part of the policy no longer seemed to serve the intended purpose, changes were made but even then, there were still issues that remained.
Although incrementalism can be an incredibly useful process, Claffey and Stucker point out that “policymakers need to be more cognizant of the consequences of such an approach.” This is because “unintended results can often be costly, and correcting one problem may create another.” When policymakers eliminated the purchase requirement in hopes to reduce fraud and better aid the poor, this created another problem where there was an immense increase in the number of people who joined in the program. As a result, the cost of the program increased. Another potential problem with incrementalism is that it can produce “program overlap.” For example, “Although the Food Stamp Program is accepted as the primary vehicle for delivering general food assistance, FDP participants often receive food assistance and other income transfers through more targeted programs. In preliminary results from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, over 83 percent of the households receiving food stamps participated in more than one assistance program.” Program overlap itself is not an issue. However, Claffey and Stucker state, “…some needy households may have higher medical costs as well as insufficient income for an adequate diet. However, overlap can cause problems when it distorts the distribution of available assistance funds. Programs are designed to bring living conditions up to a minimally acceptable standard, but households eligible for and participating in more than one federal program may have post benefit disposable incomes…” It becomes a problem when the funds for these programs are distributed unequally. While some people may need more assistance than others, others may take advantage of it and receive more benefits than necessary. However, despite these concerns, Claffey and Stucker still argue that “for a society as a whole, incremental behavior may be optimal behavior, given the need to immediately satisfy program goals.” Incrementalism allows for an easier and quicker way to move away from problems by preserving the foundation of the policy, but making marginal changes.
Incrementalism is a valuable tool when it comes to policymaking because it does not require a full understanding of the different alternatives and its potential outcomes. Additionally, there is no pressure to completely solve the issue with one concrete policy. For most policy areas, it is difficult to engage in rational decision making because we have neither a true consensus on goals nor enough information to construct policies that we can be absolutely certain will resolve the problem. Instead, incrementalism allows for a degree of trial and error where policymakers can amend current policies to tackle the problems that come up further down the road. Furthermore, there is the possibility that a buildup of individual policy changes can ultimately help to create large policy change. This is the idea that perhaps with each incremental policy change, the policy is continuously improving because policymakers have a better understanding of the issue at hand. The Food Stamp Program was a clear model of incrementalism at work. It demonstrated the progress and change that it had experienced over the years as new problems arose. It started off with the objective to raise farm prices but later transitioned to address hunger in America. As objectives change, so must the policy. However, if the U.S. were to create a new policy each time a different problem came up, it would be an extremely inefficient process. As a result, legislators turn to Lindblom’s model of incrementalism to build on existing policy.
Stuck on your essay?
