88 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW overlook excellent policies for no other rea- quences of clarification of the method is the son than that they are not suggested by the light it throws on the suspicion an adminis- chain of successive policy steps leading up to trator sometimes entertains that a consultant the present.Hence,it ought to be said that or adviser is not speaking relevantly and re- under this method,as well as under some of sponsibly when in fact by all ordinary objec- the most sophisticated variants of the root tive evidence he is.The trouble lies in the fact method-operations research,for example- that most of us approach policy problems policies will continue to be as foolish as they within a framework given by our view of a are wise. chain of successive policy choices made up to Why then bother to describe the method in the present.One's thinking about appropriate all the above detail?Because it is in fact a policies with respect,say,to urban traffic con- common method of policy formulation,and trol is greatly influenced by one's knowledge is,for complex problems,the principal reli- of the incremental steps taken up to the pres- ance of administrators as well as of other ent.An administrator enjoys an intimate policy analysts.And because it will be su- knowledge of his past sequences that "out- perior to any other decision-making method siders"do not share,and his thinking and available for complex problems in many cir- that of the "outsider"will consequently be cumstances,certainly superior to a futile at- different in ways that may puzzle both.Both tempt at superhuman comprehensiveness. may appear to be talking intelligently,yet The reaction of the public administrator to each may find the other unsatisfactory.The the exposition of method doubtless will be relevance of the policy chain of succession is less a discovery of a new method than a better even more clear when an American tries to acquaintance with an old.But by becoming discuss,say,antitrust policy with a Swiss,for more conscious of their practice of this the chains of policy in the two countries are method,administrators might practice it with strikingly different and the two individuals more skill and know when to extend or con- consequently have organized their knowledge strict its use.(That they sometimes practice it in quite different ways. effectively and sometimes not may explain the If this phenomenon is a barrier to commu- extremes of opinion on"“muddling through,” nication,an understanding of it promises an which is both praised as a highly sophisticated enrichment of intellectual interaction in pol- form of problem-solving and denounced as no icy formulation.Once the source of difference method at all.For I suspect that in so far as is understood,it will sometimes be stimulat- there is a system in what is known as "mud- ing for an administrator to seek out a policy dling through,"this method is it.) analyst whose recent experience is with a pol- One of the noteworthy incidental conse- icy chain different from his own. This raises again a question only briefly Elsewhere I have explored this same method of discussed above on the merits of like-minded- policy formulation as practiced by academic analysts ness among government administrators.While of policy ("Policy Analysis,"48 American Economic Review 298 [June,1958]).Although it has been here much of organization theory argues the vir- presented as a method for public administrators,it is tues of common values and agreed organiza- no less necessary to analysts more removed from im- tional objectives,for complex problems in mediate policy questions,despite their tendencies to which the root method is inapplicable,agen- describe their own analytical efforts as though they cies will want among their own personnel two were the rational-comprehensive method with an espe- cially heavy use of theory.Similarly,this same method types of diversification:administrators whose is inevitably resorted to in personal problem-solving thinking is organized by reference to policy where means and ends are sometimes impossible to chains other than those familiar to most mem- separate,where aspirations or objectives undergo con- bers of the organization and,even more com- stant development,and where drastic simplification of monly,administrators whose professional or the complexity of the real world is urgent if problems are to be solved in the time that can be given to them personal values or interests create diversity of To an economist accustomed to dealing with the mar- view (perhaps coming from different special- ginal or incremental concept in market processes,the ties,social classes,geographical areas)so that, central idea in the method is that both evaluation and even within a single agency,decision-making empirical analysis are incremental.Accordingly I have referred to the method elsewhere as "the incremental can be fragmented and parts of the agency method.” can serve as watchdogs for other parts.88 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW overlook excellent policies for no other rea￾son than that they are not suggested by the chain of successive policy steps leading up to the present. Hence, it ought to be said that under this method, as well as under some of the most sophisticated variants of the root method-operations research, for example￾policies will continue to be as foolish as they are wise. Why then bother to describe the method in all the above detail? Because it is in fact a common method of policy formulation, and is, for complex problems, the principal reli￾ance of administrators as well as of other policy analysts.9 And because it will be su￾perior to any other decision-making method available for complex problems in many cir￾cumstances, certainly superior to a futile at￾tempt at superhuman comprehensiveness. The reaction of the public administrator to the exposition of method doubtless will be less a discovery of a new method than a better acquaintance with an old. But by becoming more conscious of their practice of this method, administrators might practice it with more skill and know when to extend or con￾strict its use. (That they sometimes practice it effectively and sometimes not may explain the extremes of opinion on "muddling through," which is both praised as a highly sophisticated form of problem-solving and denounced as no method at all. For I suspect that in so far as there is a system in what is known as "mud￾dling through," this method is it.) One of the noteworthy incidental conse￾Elsewhere I have explored this same method of policy formulation as practiced by academic analysts of policy ("Policy Analysis," 48 American Economic Review 298 Dune, 19581). Although it has been here presented as a method for public administrators, it is no less necessary to analysts more removed from im￾mediate policy questions, despite their tendencies to describe their own analytical efforts as though they were the rational-comprehensive method with an espe￾cially heavy use of theory. Similarly, this same method is inevitably resorted to in personal problem-solving, where means and ends are sometimes impossible to separate, where aspirations or objectives undergo con￾stant development, and where drastic simplification of the complexity of the real world is urgent if problems are to be solved in the time that can be given to them. To an economist accustomed to dealing with the mar￾ginal or incremental concept in market processes, the central idea in the method is that both evaluation and empirical analysis are incremental. Accordingly I have referred to the method elsewhere as "the incremental method." quences of clarification of the method is the light it throws on the suspicion an adminis￾trator sometimes entertains that a consultant or adviser is not speaking relevantly and re￾sponsibly when in fact by all ordinary objec￾tive evidence he is. The trouble lies in the fact that most of us approach policy problems within a framework given by our view of a chain of successive policy choices made up to the present. One's thinking about appropriate policies with respect, say, to urban traffic con￾trol is greatly influenced by one's knowledge of the incremental steps taken up to the pres￾ent. An administrator enjoys an intimate knowledge of his past sequences that "out￾siders" do not share, and his thinking and that of the "outsider" will consequently be different in ways that may puzzle both. Both may appear to be talking intelligently, yet each may find the other unsatisfactory. The relevance of the policy chain of succession is even more clear when an American tries to discuss, say, antitrust policy with a Swiss, for the chains of policy in the two countries are strikingly different and the two individuals consequently have organized their knowledge in quite different ways. If this phenomenon is a barrier to commu￾nication, an understanding of it promises an enrichment of intellectual interaction in pol￾icy formulation. Once the source of difference is understood, it will sometimes be stimulat￾ing for an administrator to seek out a policy analyst whose recent experience is with a pol￾icy chain different from his own. This raises again a question only briefly discussed above on the merits of like-minded￾ness among government administrators. While much of organization theory argues the vir￾tues of common values and agreed organiza￾tional objectives, for complex problems in which the root method is inapplicable, agen￾cies will want among their own personnel two types of diversification: administrators whose thinking is organized by reference to policy chains other than those familiar to most mem￾bers. of the organization and, even more com￾monly, administrators whose professional or personal values or interests create diversity of view (perhaps coming from different special￾ties, social classes, geographical areas) so that, even within a single agency, decision-making can be fragmented and parts of the agency can serve as watchdogs for other parts