How can muddling through be scientific

Subscriber sign in You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Username Please enter your Username. Password Please enter your Password. Forgot password? Don't have an account? Sign in via your Institution.

You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Sign in with your library card Please enter your library card number. Search within Merton et al. Key, Jr. Cohen, James G. March, and Johan P. Pressman and Aaron B. Wildavsky, Implementation Oliver E. John W. McCubbins, Roger G. Noll, and Barry R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Go to page:.

All rights reserved. Sign in to annotate. According to this approach policy makers begin addressing a particular policy issue by ranking values and objectives. Next, they identify and comprehensively analyze all alternative solutions, making sure to account for all potential factors.

In the third and final step, administrators choose the alternative that is evaluated as the most effective in delivering the highest value in terms of satisfying the objectives identified in the first step. This approach seems to make perfect sense. But bureaucrats and administrators don't work this way in the real world, according to Lindblom. First, defining values and objectives is very difficult. There are always trade-offs in public policy.

It is difficult to say with certainty, for example, that it is better to spend less on education in order to balance the budget. Or that building more roads is a better way to reduce traffic congestion than raising gasoline taxes. Or vice versa. Second, separating means from ends policy recommendations from the objectives of those policies is impossible. Instead, the policy solution is always bound up with the objectives. The problem of reducing traffic congestion could involve building either highways or mass transportation.

But for many interested parties each of these potential "solutions" to the problem of congestion is likely to be a policy goal in its own right. Third, it is impossible to aggregate the values and objectives of the various constituencies of the executive bureaucracy--citizens, private organizations, legislators, and appointed officials, among others--to determine exactly which preferences are most important.

The virtue of a policy is indicated by its ability to achieve broad support, not by some assessment that it is most efficient according to some abstract criteria. Finally, it is inefficient to identify and analyze every policy option.

For all but the most narrow policy choices it takes too much time and too many resources. Administrators are very busy and the volumes of detail on even relatively simple issues would be overly burdensome to analyze. Instead of comprehensive analysis of every policy option, a much more constrained process of "successive limited comparison" is really how policies are developed, insists Lindblom. According to this "branch" method, administrators usually look only at policies that differ in relatively small degree from the policies currently in effect, thereby reducing the number of alternatives to be investigated while simultaneously narrowing the scope of investigation.

In other words, they look at two nearby branches, not the whole tree, roots and all.