86 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW icies to a wider range of interests than could Succession of Comparisons (5b) be done by one group centrally. The final distinctive element in the branch Note,too,how the incremental pattern of method is that the comparisons,together with policy-making fits with the multiple pressure the policy choice,proceed in a chronological pattern.For when decisions are only incre- series.Policy is not made once and for all;it mental-closely related to known policies,it is is made and re-made endlessly.Policy-making easier for one group to anticipate the kind of is a process of successive approximation to moves another might make and easier too for some desired objectives in which what is de- it to make correction for injury already ac- sired itself continues to change under recon- complished.7 sideration. Even partisanship and narrowness,to use Making policy is at best a very rough proc- pejorative terms,will sometimes be assets to ess.Neither social scientists,nor politicians, rational decision-making,for they can doubly nor public administrators yet know enough insure that what one agency neglects,another about the social world to avoid repeated error will not;they specialize personnel to distinct in predicting the consequences of policy points of view.The claim is valid that effec- moves.A wise policy-maker consequently ex- tive rational coordination of the federal ad- pects that his policies will achieve only part ministration,if possible to achieve at all, of what he hopes and at the same time will would require an agreed set of values8-if produce unanticipated consequences he would "rational"is defined as the practice of the have preferred to avoid.If he proceeds root method of decision-making.But a high through a succession of incremental changes, degree of administrative coordination occurs he avoids serious lasting mistakes in several as each agency adjusts its policies to the con- ways. cerns of the other agencies in the process of In the first place,past sequences of policy fragmented decision-making I have just de- steps have given him knowledge about the scribed. probable consequences of further similar For all the apparent shortcomings of the steps.Second,he need not attempt big jumps incremental approach to policy alternatives toward his goals that would require predic- with its arbitrary exclusion coupled with frag- tions beyond his or anyone else's knowledge, mentation,when compared to the root because he never expects his policy to be a method,the branch method often looks far final resolution of a problem.His decision is superior.In the root method,the inevitable only one step,one that if successful can exclusion of factors is accidental,unsystem- quickly be followed by another.Third,he is atic,and not defensible by any argument so in effect able to test his previous predictions far developed,while in the branch method as he moves on to each further step.Lastly, the exclusions are deliberate,systematic,and he often can remedy a past error fairly defensible.Ideally,of course,the root method quickly-more quickly than if policy pro- does not exclude;in practice it must. ceeded through more distinct steps widely Nor does the branch method necessarily spaced in time. neglect long-run considerations and objec- Compare this comparative analysis of in- tives.It is clear that important values must be cremental changes with the aspiration to em- omitted in considering policy,and sometimes ploy theory in the root method.Man cannot think without classifying,without subsuming the only way long-run objectives can be given one experience under a more general category adequate attention is through the neglect of of experiences.The attempt to push categori- short-run considerations.But the values omit- zation as far as possible and to find general ted can be either long-run or short-run. propositions which can be applied to specific The link between the practice of the method of situations is what I refer to with the word successive limited comparisons and mutual adjustment “theory.”Where root analysis often leans of interests in a highly fragmented decision-making heavily on theory in this sense,the branch process adds a new facet to pluralist theories of govern- method does not. ment and administration. .Herbert Simon,Donald W.Smithburg,and Victor The assumption of root analysts is that A.Thompson,Public Administration(Alfred A.Knopf, theory is the most systematic and economical 195o),p.434 way to bring relevant knowledge to bear on a86 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW icies to a wider range of interests than could be done by one group centrally. Note, too, how the incremental pattern of policy-making fits with the multiple pressure pattern. For when decisions are only incre￾mental-closely related to known policies, it is easier for one .group to anticipate the kind of moves another might make and easier too for it to make correction for injury already ac￾complished.7 en partisanship and narrowness, to use terms, will sometimes be assets to rational decision-making, for they can doubly insure that what one agency neglects, another will not; they specialize personnel to distinct points of view. The claim is valid that effec￾tive rational coordination of the federal ad￾ministration, if possible to achieve at all, would require an agreed set of valuess-if "rational" is defined as the practice of the root method of decision-making. But a high degree of administrative coordination occurs as each agency adjusts its policies to the con￾cerns of the other agencies in the process of fragmented decision-making I have just de￾scribed. For all the apparent shortcomings of the incremental approach to policy alternatives with its arbitrary exclusion coupled with frag￾mentation, when compared to the root method, the branch method often looks far superior. In the root method, the inevitable exclusion of factors is accidental, unsystem￾atic, and not defensible by any argument so far developed, while in the branch method the exclusions are deliberate, systematic, and defensible. Ideally, of course, the root method does not exclude; in practice it must. Nor does the branch method necessarily neglect long-run considerations and objec￾tives. It is clear that important values must be omitted in considering policy, and sometimes the only way long-run objectives can be given adequate attention is through the neglect of short-run considerations. But the values omit￾ted can be either long-run or short-run. 'The link between the practice of the method of successive limited comparisons and mutual adjustment of interests in a highly fragmented decision-making process adds a new facet to pluralist theories of govern￾ment and administration. 'Herbert Simon, Donald W. Smithburg, and Victor A. Thompson, Public Administration (Alfred A. Knopf, 1950)P P. 434. Succession of Comparisons (5b) The final distinctive element in the branch method is that the comparisons, together with the policy choice, proceed in a chronological series. Policy is not made once and for all; it is made and re-made endlessly. Policy-making is a process of successive approximation to some desired objectives in which what is de￾sired itself continues to change under recon￾sideration. Making policy is at best a very rough proc￾ess. Neither social scientists, nor politicians, nor public administrators yet know enough about the social world to avoid repeated error in predicting the consequences of policy moves. A wise policy-maker consequently ex￾pects that his policies will achieve only part of what he hopes and at the same time will produce unanticipated consequences he would have preferred to avoid. If he proceeds through a succession of incremental changes, he avoids serious lasting mistakes in several ways. In the first place, past sequences of policy steps have given him knowledge about the probable consequences of further similar steps. Second, he need not attempt big jumps toward his goals that would require predic￾tions beyond his or anyone else's knowledge, because he never expects his policy to be a final resolution of a problem. His decision is only one step, one that if successful can quickly be followed by another. Third, he is in effect able to test his previous predictions as he moves on to each further step. Lastly, he often can remedy a past error fairly quickly-more quickly than if policy pro￾ceeded through more distinct steps widely spaced in time. Compare this comparative analysis of in￾cremental changes with the aspiration to em￾ploy theory in the root method. Man cannot think without classifying, without subsuming one experience under a more general category of experiences. The attempt to push categori￾zation as far as possible and to find general propositions which can be applied to specific situations is what I refer to with the word "theory.~' Where root analysis often leans heavily on theory in this sense, the branch method does not. The assumption of root analysts is that theory is the most systematic and economical way to bring relevant knowledge to bear on a