84 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW one administrator's objective turns out to be ban services.Nor,to follow another line of another's means,they often can agree on repercussions,can he work through the soil policy. bank program's effects on prices for agricul- Agreement on policy thus becomes the only tural products in foreign markets and conse- practicable test of the policy's correctness. quent implications for foreign relations,in- And for one administrator to seek to win the cluding those arising out of economic rivalry other over to agreement on ends as well between the United States and the U.S.S.R. would accomplish nothing and create quite In the method of successive limited unnecessary controversy. comparisons,simplification is systematically If agreement directly on policy as a test achieved in two principal ways.First,it is for "best"policy seems a poor substitute for achieved through limitation of policy com- testing the policy against its objectives,it parisons to those policies that differ in rela- ought to be remembered that objectives them- tively small degree from policies presently in selves have no ultimate validity other than effect.Such a limitation immediately reduces they are agreed upon.Hence agreement is the number of alternatives to be investigated the test of"best"policy in both methods.But and also drastically simplifies the character of where the root method requires agreement on the investigation of each.For it is not necessary what elements in the decision constitute ob- to undertake fundamental inquiry into an al- jectives and on which of these objectives ternative and its consequences;it is necessary should be sought,the branch method falls only to study those respects in which the pro- back on agreement wherever it can be found. posed alternative and its consequences differ In an important sense,therefore,it is not from the status quo.The empirical compari- irrational for an administrator to defend a son of marginal differences among alternative policy as good without being able to specify policies that differ only marginally is,of what it is good for. course,a counterpart to the incremental or marginal comparison of values discussed Non-Comprehensive Analysis (4b) above.6 Ideally,rational-comprehensive analysis leaves out nothing important.But it is impos- Relevance as Well as Realism sible to take everything important into con- It is a matter of common observation that sideration unless "important"is so narrowly in Western democracies public administrators defined that analysis is in fact quite limited. and policy analysts in general do largely limit Limits on human intellectual capacities and their analyses to incremental or marginal on available information set definite limits to differences in policies that are chosen to differ man's capacity to be comprehensive.In actual only incrementally.They do not do so,how- fact,therefore,no one can practice the ra- ever,solely because they desperately need some tional-comprehensive method for really com- way to simplify their problems;they also do so plex problems,and every administrator faced in order to be relevant.Democracies change with a sufficiently complex problem must find their policies almost entirely through in- ways drastically to simplify. cremental adjustments.Policy does not move An administrator assisting in the formula- in leaps and bounds. tion of agricultural economic policy cannot The incremental character of political in the first place be competent on all possible change in the United States has often been re- policies.He cannot even comprehend one pol- marked.The two major political parties agree icy entirely.In planning a soil bank program, on fundamentals;they offer alternative poli- he cannot successfully anticipate the impact cies to the voters only on relatively small of higher or lower farm income on,say,ur- points of difference.Both parties favor full banization-the possible consequent loosening employment,but they define it somewhat differently;both favor the development of of family ties,possible consequent eventual need for revisions in social security and fur- .A more precise definition of incremental policies ther implications for tax problems arising out and a discussion of whether a change that appears of new federal responsibilities for social se- "small"to one observer might be seen differently by another is to be found in my "Policy Analysis,"48 curity and municipal responsibilities for ur- American Economic Review 298 (June,1958).84 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW one administrator's objective turns out to be another's means, they often can agree on policy. Agreement on policy thus becomes the only practicable test of the policy's correctness. And for one administrator to seek to win the other over to agreement on ends as well would accomplish nothing and create quite unnecessary controversy. If agreement directly on policy as a test for "best" policy seems a poor substitute for testing the policy against its objectives, it ought to be remembered that objectives them￾selves have no ultimate validity other than they are agreed upon. Hence agreement is the test of "best" policy in both methods. But where the root method requires agreement on what elements in the decision constitute ob￾jectives and on which of these objectives should be sought, the branch method falls back on agreement wherever it can be found. In an important sense, therefore, it is not irrational for an administrator to defend a policy as good without being able to specify what it is good for. Non-Comprehensive Analysis (4b) Ideally, rational-comprehensive analysis leaves out nothing important. But it is impos￾sible to take everything important into con￾sideration unless "important" is so narrowly defined that analysis is in fact quite limited. Limits on human intellectual capacities and on available information set definite limits to man's capacity to be comprehensive. In actual fact, therefore, no one can practice the ra￾tional-comprehensive method for really com￾plex problems, and every administrator faced with a sufficiently complex problem must find ways drastically to simplify. An administrator assisting in the formula￾tion of agricultural economic policy cannot in the first place be competent on all possible policies. He cannot even comprehend one pol￾icy entirely. In planning a soil bank program, he cannot successfully anticipate the impact of higher or lower farm income on, say, ur￾banization-the possible consequent loosening of family ties, possible consequent eventual need for revisions in social security and fur￾ther implications for tax problems arising out of new federal responsibilities for social se￾curity and municipal responsibilities for ur￾ban services. Nor, to follow another line of repercussions, can he work through the soil bank program's effects on prices for agricul￾tural products in foreign markets and conse￾quent implications for foreign relations, in￾cluding those arising out of economic rivalry between the United States and the U.S.S.R. In the method of successive limited comparisons, simplification is systematically achieved in two principal ways. First, it is achieved through limitation of policy com￾parisons to those policies that differ in rela￾tively small degree from policies presently in effect. Such a limitation immediately reduces the number of alternatives to be investigated and also drastically simplifies the character of the investigation of each. For it is not necessary to undertake fundamental inquiry into an al￾ternative and its consequences; it is necessary only to study those respects in which the pro￾posed alternative and its consequences differ from the status quo. The empirical compari￾son of marginal differences among alternative policies that differ only marginally is, of course, a counterpart to the incremental or marginal comparison of values discussed above.0 Relevance as Well as Realism It is a matter of common observation that in Western democracies public administrators and policy analysts in general do largely limit their analyses to incremental or marginal differences in policies that are chosen to differ only incrementally. They do not do so, how￾ever, solely because they desperately need some way to simplify their problems; they also do so in order to be relevant. Democracies change their policies almost entirely through in￾cremental adjustments. Policy does not move in leaps and bounds. The incremental character of political change in the United States has often been re￾marked. The two major political parties agree on fundamentals; they offer alternative poli￾cies to the voters only on relatively small points of difference. Both parties favor full employment, but they define it somewhat differently; both favor the development of A more precise definition of incremental policies and a discussion of whether a change that appears "smaii" to one observer might be seen differently by another is to be found in my "Policy Analysis," 48 American Economic Review 298 (June, 1958)