Publisher: Cambridge University Press
E-ISSN: 1537-5943|89|4|819-840
ISSN: 0003-0554
Source: American Political Science Review, Vol.89, Iss.4, 1995-12, pp. : 819-840
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
As arguments about the effectiveness of “muddling through” have proven frustratingly inconclusive, incrementalism—once a major approach to the study of boundedly rational policy processes—has gone dormant. In an attempt to revitalize the debate, I present a formal model of muddling through. The model, by clarifying the logical structure of the informal theory, presents a clearer target for criticism. More importantly, it establishes numerous deductive results. First, some of Lindblom's less controversial conjectures—about the benefits of seriality (repeated attacks on the same policy problem) and redundancy (multiple decision makers working on the same problem)—turn out to be correct if conflict across policy domains is absent or takes certain specified forms. But given other empirically reasonable types of conflict, even these claims are wrong. Second, the advantages of incremental (local) policy search (Lindblom's best-known and most controversial claim) turn out to be still less well founded: in many empirically plausible contexts the claim is invalid.
Related content
Fiji Economy: Muddling Through
The Round Table, Vol. 101, Iss. 6, 2012-12 ,pp. :
Survival, Vol. 55, Iss. 4, 2013-09 ,pp. :
Survival, Vol. 51, Iss. 1, 2009-02 ,pp. :
International Theory, Vol. 1, Iss. 3, 2009-11 ,pp. :