Models of Policy Change

1
Models of Policy Change

• Week 6.1 Rationality and Incrementalism

2
The Emperor's New Clothes
3
Most accounts, old and new

• Attempt to explain stability and change in the
  policy process
• Break down large complex systems into more
  manageable, discrete sections
• Dissatisfaction with artificial distinctions
  leads to rejection in favour of something new
• But the aim of explanation stays the same

4
Rationality and incrementalism

• Comprehensive rationality often set up as an
  ideal (in 2 senses) or a strawman of
  decision-making procedures effecting policy
  change
• Different models incrementalism, bounded
  rationality presented as a more realistic
  description (with some debate over the
  prescriptive use of these terms)
• Key prescriptive difference may be in the
  assumption of a central/ single decision-maker

5
Relevance to policy analysis

• There are still plenty of attempts to appear
  rational in government or to make issues look
  technical (to be solved by experts)
• e.g. Comprehensive Spending Reviews (used for
  marginal change/ political pressure), CBA (M74?),
  major policy inquiries
• Rationality conditions are therefore a good point
  of departure, to explain why policy may not
  change or at least why that change is marginal

6
What is comprehensive rationality?

• An ideal description or prescription of
  decision-making behaviour
• Policy aims or ends are identified in terms of
  the values of the policy maker
• All means to achieve those ends are identified
• The best means are selected
• Analysis of the decision-making context is
  comprehensive i.e. all relevant factors/
  possibilities have been considered
• Are there assumptions central decision-maker?
  Everyone gets what they want subject to resource
  constraints?

7
Bounded rationality

• Incomplete knowledge and information
• Uncertainty over current situation and
  consequences of policy solution
• Inability to consider every possible solution
• Unwillingness to consider all solutions
• Separation of facts and values
• Also note the distinction between individual and
  organisational rationality (is there such a thing
  as organisational rationality?)
• Simons solution relates to satisficing or
  seeking solutions which are good enough
• Focus on e.g. training to minimise problems

8
Similar discussion by Jones

• Searches for knowledge are incomplete
• Organisations do not have the capacity or
  inclination to seek every available solution
• The means or solutions to achieve ends do not
  just exist they have to be produced
• Policy problems are subject to definition
• Solutions often exist before problems
• A choice may be consistent with goal A but not
  goal B

9
Jones factors 3-5

• Have obvious links with agenda setting literature
  (later lecture)
• Problems are subject to definition or framing
• Competition between policy actors (link to
  lectures on power)
• Solutions before problems associated with Kingdon

10
Incrementalism problems with comprehensive
rationality

• Cognitive/ problem-solving ability
• Available information especially of future
  consequences and future conditions
• The cost of research
• The inability to distinguish between facts and
  values
• The dynamics of the policy process and the way in
  which issues arise (decision-makers may need to
  react to events much more than devoting time to
  policy planning)

11
Solution is successive limited comparisons
based on

• A recognition that values and empirical analysis
  are intertwined
• There is no widespread agreement on the cause and
  hence the solution of the problem (or the way to
  implement the solution)
• A rejection of means/ ends in favour of
  agreement/ negotiation between pressure
  participants and decision-makers
• Limited analysis of policies not already in place
• Big focus on solving problems of existing policy
• Success measured as the level of agreement of
  those involved

12
Benefits of incrementalism - descriptive

• When decisions are made, the starting point is
  not a blank sheet of paper
• We cannot ignore
• the extent of existing commitments
• the effort invested by decision-makers and
  powerful groups into achieving previous
  agreements on policy.

13
Expressed similarly in other accounts

• Inheritance before choice in public policy
• Most policy based on existing legislation. Most
  day-to-day policy has no ministerial input.
• Attention to one aspect of public policy means
  ignoring 99 others.

14
2. Policy succession

• Size and scope of government means that any new
  policy is likely to be a revision of an old one
• New policies often there only to solve problems
  caused by old policy

15
3. Lack of Policy Termination

• Few policies terminated, even fewer not replaced
• Termination has costs (financial, political) and
  may smack of failure without replacement
• Termination opposed by vested interests
• Termination undermined by organisations operating
  under relative anonymity or seeking new ways to
  justify their existence

16
4. Path Dependence

• When commitment to a policy has been established
  and resources are devoted to it, over time it
  becomes increasingly or relatively costly to
  choose a different policy
• Examples in the UK include
• Responsibilities in Scotland and Wales after
  devolution
• NHS or education reconfiguration

17
Benefits of incrementalism - prescriptive

• More focussed on the problem at hand?
• Based on trials and error/ past decisions?
• Less costly or more efficient use of resources?
• Less disruptive? I.e. each actor will be more
  likely to accept decisions.

18
Criticisms of incrementalism - prescriptive

• Assumption that previous policies are adequate?
• Does not address the grand issues?
• What happens when society is predisposed towards
  significant change?
• Assumption of pluralism/ dispersal of power?
• E.g. focus on mutual adjustment rather than
  coercion or dominance
• US-centric?

19
Leads to alternatives

• Dror and meta-policy (deciding how to make
  policy)
• Incrementalism is accurate description
• Prescription of highlighting areas where
  incrementalism appropriate and other areas where
  bold steps are required
• Etzioni and mixed scanning
• Applies also to description
• More focus needed and apparent on fundamental
  decisions such as declaring war
• (Yet even entering into war can be incremental
  process)

20
Criticisms of incrementalism descriptive (Jones)

• Does not explain examples of profound policy
  change when decision-makers shift their attention
  
• Long periods of stability are interrupted by
  short but intense periods of rapid change.
• Interesting that the basis for Jones argument is
  also the limit to rationality
• Limited resources (time, knowledge, attention)
• Cannot deal with full range of ideas/ problems
• Ignore most and lift few to the top of the agenda
• Result is profound change in a small number of
  areas

21
Intractable debate?

• Much of the debate comes down to the size of the
  increment
• Can radical change happen in a series of small
  steps?
• Distinction between incremental politics and
  adequacy of incremental approach to analysis?
• If the debate is intractable we can still extract
  basic points on stability/ change description
  is qualified or constrained policy change?
• Difference by policy area?

22
Links to other lectures

• Policy transfer key critique that literature
  assumes rational process
• Agenda setting and policy monopolises
• MLG undermines the idea of a central
  decision-maker (a key feature of the
  incrementalist criticism of rationality?). It
  may also be unlikely that a central
  decision-maker can be identified within
  organisations.
• Smoking
• example of UK suggests strong political rather
  than rational explanation
• Was change incremental or fundamental (see paper
  on Scottish e.g.)?
• Also clear links to power lectures. Note the
  assumption of pluralism in early Lindblom,
  assumptions around the dispersal of power in both
  accounts