THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH' 87 specific problem.Granting the assumption, pants"than when following the advice of an unhappy fact is that we do not have ade- theorists.Theorists often ask the administra- quate theory to apply to problems in any tor to go the long way round to the solution policy area,although theory is more adequate of his problems,in effect ask him to follow in some areas-monetary policy,for example- the best canons of the scientific method,when than in others.Comparative analysis,as in the administrator knows that the best avail- the branch method,is sometimes a systematic able theory will work less well than more alternative to theory. modest incremental comparisons.Theorists Suppose an administrator must choose do not realize that the administrator is often among a small group of policies that differ in fact practicing a systematic method.It only incrementally from each other and from would be foolish to push this explanation too present policy.He might aspire to "under- far,for sometimes practical decision-makers stand"each of the alternatives-for example, are pursuing neither a theoretical approach to know all the consequences of each aspect nor successive comparisons,nor any other sys- of each policy.If so,he would indeed require tematic method. theory.In fact,however,he would usually de- It may be worth emphasizing that theory is cide that,for policy-making purposes,he need sometimes of extremely limited helpfulness in know,as explained above,only the conse- policy-making for at least two rather different quences of each of those aspects of the policies reasons.It is greedy for facts;it can be con- in which they differed from one another.For structed only through a great collection of ob- this much more modest aspiration,he requires servations.And it is typically insufficiently no theory (although it might be helpful,if precise for application to a policy process that available),for he can proceed to isolate prob- moves through small changes.In contrast,the able differences by examing the differences in comparative method both economizes on the consequences associated with past differences need for facts and directs the analyst's atten- in policies,a feasible program because he can tion to just those facts that are relevant to the take his observations from a long sequence of fine choices faced by the decision-maker. incremental changes. With respect to precision of theory,eco- For example,without a more comprehen- nomic theory serves as an example.It predicts sive social theory about juvenile delinquency that an economy without money or prices than scholars have yet produced,one cannot would in certain specified ways misallocate possibly understand the ways in which a va- resources,but this finding pertains to an al- riety of public policies-say on education, ternative far removed from the kind of poli- housing,recreation,employment,race rela- cies on which administrators need help.On tions,and policing-might encourage or dis- the other hand,it is not precise enough to courage delinquency.And one needs such an predict the consequences of policies restrict- understanding if he undertakes the compre- ing business mergers,and this is the kind of hensive overview of the problem prescribed in issue on which the administrators need help. the models of the root method.If,however, Only in relatively restricted areas does eco- one merely wants to mobilize knowledge suf- nomic theory achieve sufficient precision to go ficient to assist in a choice among a small far in resolving policy questions;its helpful- group of similar policies-alternative policies ness in policy-making is always so limited that on juvenile court procedures,for example- it requires supplementation through compar- he can do so by comparative analysis of the ative analysis. results of similar past policy moves. Successive Comparison as a System Theorists and Practitioners Successive limited comparisons is,then,in- This difference explains-in some cases at deed a method or system;it is not a failure of least-why the administrator often feels that method for which administrators ought to the outside expert or academic problem- apologize.None the less,its imperfections, solver is sometimes not helpful and why they which have not been explored in this paper, in turn often urge more theory on him.And are many.For example,the method is without it explains why an administrator often feels a built-in safeguard for all relevant values, more confident when"flying by the seat of his and it also may lead the decision-maker toTHE SCIENCE OF "MUDDLING THROUGH" specific problem. Granting the assumption, an unhappy fact is that we do not have ade￾quate theory to apply to problems in any policy area, although theory is more adequate in some areas-monetary policy, for example￾than in others. Comparative analysis, as in the branch method, is sometimes a systematic alternative to theory. Suppose an administrator must choose among a small group of policies that differ only incrementally from each other and from present policy. He might aspire to "under￾stand" each of the alternatives-for example, to know all the consequences of each aspect of each policy. If so, he would indeed require theory. In fact, however, he would usually de￾cide that, for policy-making purposes, he need know, as explained above, only the conse￾quences of each of those aspects of the policies in which they differed from one another. For this much more modest aspiration, he requires no theory (although it might be helpful, if available), for he can proceed to isolate prob￾able differences by examing the differences in consequences associated with past differences in policies, a feasible program because he can take his observations from a long sequence of incremental changes. For example, without a more comprehen￾sive social theory about juvenile delinquency than scholars have yet produced, one cannot possibly understand the ways in which a va￾riety of public policies-say on education, housing, recreation, employment, race rela￾tions, and policing-might encourage or dis￾courage delinquency. And one needs such an understanding if he undertakes the compre￾hensive overview of the problem prescribed in the models of the root method. If, however, one merely wants to mobilize knowledge suf￾ficient to assist in a choice among a small group of similar policies-alternative policies on juvenile court procedures, for example￾he can do so by comparative analysis of the results of similar past policy moves. Theorists and Practitioners This difference explains-in some cases at least-why the administrator often feels that the outside expert or academic problem￾solver is sometimes not helpful and why they in turn often urge more theory on him. And it explains why an administrator oEten feels more confident when "flying by the seat of his pants" than when following the advice of theorists. Theorists often ask the administra￾tor to go the long way round to the solution of his problems, in effect ask him to follow the best canons of the scientific method, when the administrator knows that the best avail￾able theory will work less well than more modest incremental comparisons. Theorists do not realize that the administrator is often in fact practicing a systematic method. It would be foolish to push this explanation too far, for sometimes practical decision-makers are pursuing neither a theoretical approach nor successive comparisons, nor any other sys￾tematic method. It may be worth emphasizing that theory is sometimes of extremely limited helpfulness in policy-making for at least two rather different reasons. It is greedy for facts; it can be con￾structed only through a great collection of ob￾servations. And it is typically insufficiently precise for application to a policy process that moves through small changes. In contrast, the comparative method both economizes on the need for facts and directs the analyst's atten￾tion to just those facts that are relevant to the fine choices faced by the decision-maker. With respect to precision of theory, eco￾nomic theory serves as an example. It predicts that an economy without money or prices would in certain specified ways misallocate resources, but this finding pertains to an al￾ternative far removed from the kind of poli￾cies on which administrators need help. On the other hand, it is not precise enough to predict the consequences of policies restrict￾ing business mergers, and this is the kind of issue on which the administrators need help. Only in relatively restricted areas does eco￾nomic theory achieve sufficient precision to go far in resolving policy questions; its helpful￾ness in policy-making is always so limited that it requires supplementation through compar￾ative analysis. Successive Comparison as a System Successive limited comparisons is, then, in￾deed a method or system; it is not a failure of method for which administrators ought to apologize. None the less, its imperfections, which have not been explored in this paper, are many. For example, the method is without a built-in safeguard for all relevant values, and it also may lead the decision-maker to