By: Jesse Milman, Sofi Ronning, Curtis Hall, Kurt Barbara
Definition
Method of working by adding to a project using small incremental changes instead of a few large jumps (Wikipedia). This is incredibly relevant to the ideas of environmentalism, where small, incremental changes to things such as wind turbines, where the designs (especially in Denmark) were slowly evolved in order to cheaply and efficiently create better technology, as well as governmental subsidies that made wind energy more affordable in small steps.
Context
Incrementalism has been around for a large period of time, though often times without any direct description or conscious thought. It has made sense to gradually work up to things, breaking tasks into manageable chunks to be processed. This took no direct knowledge of the process of incrementalism, as it was simply the common sense thing to do. However, in 1958, political scientist Charles E. Lindblom coined the term in an essay that was created to help policymakers conceive and invest in rational ideas before implementing them.
Incrementalism can also be referred to as gradualism. When gradualism and incrementalism are compared to one another through search history, the two definitions have a positive correlation. Although gradualism has a higher search rate, both terms tend to gain popularity at the same rate.
The popularity of incrementalism throughout history can be observed through the Google Ngram Viewer in Figure 1 below. Around 1980, there is a large spike in scholarly interest. However, scholarly resources regarding incrementalism have since begun to decline entering the 2000s. Over the past five years, public interest surrounding incrementalism spikes and drops quite often, which can be observed in the Interest Over Time graph. Incrementalism hit its highest search rate between Feb. 28th and March 5th of 2016 and recently hit a low between December 25th and December 31st 2016.
Incrementalism has been used as an environmental policy solution over the past 20+ years, and some scholars such as Stephan Lewandosky, a professor at the University of Bristol, believe its traction as means to find a solution may have stemmed from a feeling that there are a lack of other options. “…[the belief that] small-scale incrementalism which is based on the notion that a few tweaks, a little bit of tax, and compensation for the coal industry can do the trick, is utterly unrealistic in light of the magnitude of the problem.” The feeling of a lack of viable options for a solution to issues impacting the environment, such as the coal industry, has led incrementalism to continue as a policy making tool. However, the small steps of change through incrementalism aren’t adding up fast enough to make the impact that is needed, so scholars and governments are beginning to look for other viable options for policy change.
Incrementalism can be compared to reductionism because they both take larger complex ideas and make them more simple. In the case of reductionism, it takes complex ideas and processes, and claims through theory that completely reducing them into minimal terms is possible. Incrementalism, on the other hand, takes large complex issues and breaks them down into pieces so they can be worked on in a smaller scale in order for them to be processed.
Incrementalism can be contrasted with punctuated equilibrium, which states that society (in this case environmental policy) exists in a state of equilibrium until it is interrupted by short spurts of drastic growth or change (James L. True et. al.) As one can tell, this is directly in opposition with incrementalism, as no small steps are taken.
Figure 1
Critique
Governments around the world implement policies towards more sustainable societies in incremental steps. (Yanarella and Bartilow, 2000). Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, one of the first to recommend how governments across the world should develop sustainably, presents in his report Our Common Future that sustainable development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations, 1987). This statement exposes a critique on incrementalism. Incrementalism, although useful in many sects of policy implementation, is inherently tricky to define multi-disciplinarily. In examining policy implementation in government, it is hard to define what constitutes a ‘large’ or a ‘small’ step, because each person in the government can see a certain move as different in its political magnitude. Andrew Weiss and Edward Woodhouse go as far as to say that “the concept of incrementalism needs to be rescued from its unfortunate association with ‘small steps,’ for there can be no general, inherent limitation on the desirable size of a policy move” (Weiss and Woodhouse, 1992). Furthermore, reports such as Our Common Future do not provide appropriate scale for multi-governmental incrementalism (Yanarella and Bartilow, 1992). Say, for instance, that at a global conference on climate, wind energy is expected of all participating countries to source 50% of each respective country’s energy in the coming years. The incremental policies that would rise in the United states would surely be different than the policies created in Ghana. Therefore incrementalism cannot act on an international scale efficiently. In addition, international incrementalism sometimes requires governments or firms to plan upwards of thirty years into the future. This is problematic, because most private companies only plan five years ahead (here). Although difficult to define and implement at a large scale, incrementalism is quite necessary for smaller, local or national companies and governments to implement policies pertaining to the social, environmental, or economic sectors of societies or focused groups.
Incrementalism, however, can also be extremely vital in implementing certain policies successfully. The government of Denmark views the reduction of greenhouse gases as a public good (Daugbjerg and Svendsen, 2010). By expanding wind energy and decreasing traditional methods of electric power sourcing, less acid rain will fall from the sky. No one can be excluded from a decrease of acid rain, thus the production of cleaner energy can be seen as a public good. In essence, the Government of Denmark wants to increase wind energy (Daugbjerg and Svendsen, 2010), but they cannot do so because the price of fossil fuel energy is cheaper. The government, in order to implement the greater use of wind energy must utilize incrementalist directives in order to attain a higher percentage of wind energy use. And according to Daugbjerg and Svendsen, the government does this in three incremental steps. First, Denmark launches a campaign to convince the energy consumers why wind energy is more beneficial to the public. Second, Denmark places an energy tax on fossil fuel electricity which “penalizes the use of fossil fuels.” Then, the government subsidizes the producers of wind turbines. Because the government subsidizes the production of wind turbines, the government is indirectly making wind energy cheaper, which leads to a greater consumption from the public (Daugbjerg and Svendsen, 2010). This incremental process is not only effective to economically promote the use of cleaner energy, but intrinsically connects the public to a cleaner energy consumption.
The use of Incrementalism, as we see, can either be positive or negative in certain situations. However regardless of its external effect, the use of such an ‘ism’ allows humans to exercise certain creativity that may be unfounded in abrupt or sudden policy shifts (Yanarella and Bartilow, 2000). As we can infer, each building block to creating a new policy opens up a door to new issues not previously realized. Thus, we concur incrementalism can prove an effective method to change social thought on issues. Such is the case for the city of Santos, Brazil. Santos local government’s goal of creating a city free of non-biodegradable bags was founded through grassroot campaigns. Incremental efforts bolstered the social consciousness of the city through education. Yanarella and Bartilow report as follows:
“Its guiding strategy has been to promote widespread community education and participation by, among other things, demystifying scientific knowledge and technology. In de-privileging the status of technological know-how, these citizens’ councils have mobilized and steered the collective intelligence and good common sense of popular elements and assemblies into more open policy processes.” (Yanarella and Bartilow, 2000)
We can see here different cultural variants that shift a collective social conscience, and a benefit of the use of incrementalism. By breaking down the walls between high-tech knowledge and the general public, the public can integrate new sustaining systems into the surrounding societies. This allows people in societies to advance ideas that can now be further understood by a larger population. Hence, the introduction of new ideas essentially creates building blocks for people to create off of.
Conclusion
As we see understand, incrementalism can either provide positive or negative outputs in regards to which situational context it is utilized. In regards to governmental policy creation it can work well but should be utilized on a smaller scale. In regards to national government, incrementalism works well when economic processes are involved, such as the subsidization of wind energy in Denmark. In Santos, Brazil, local grassroot campaigns helped curb the social model of how a city should look in regards to eco-friendly bags (Yanarella and Bartilow, 2000). Because of its relatively easy implementation, incrementalism should be used frequently in both large and small situations, especially when larger actions are infeasible.
In summary, Incrementalism, as an approach to policy change, is effective in certain situations where mobility at a governmental level is possible. Incremental change is necessary in implementing effective societal programs as well as securing long term measures. As shown before, the size of a change is subjective depending on what a group or individual believes, which makes it difficult to please everyone. However, regardless of one’s opinion on how big a change is, meeting in the middle and passing some sort of change on an incremental level is beneficial for everyone. ‘Small’ change makes a difference, and in modern times where there are climate change deniers as well as undereducated people in places of power, incremental changes are more viable than downright institutional reconstruction of policy.
Bibliography
“Incrementalism.” Wikipedia. December 30, 2016. Accessed March 24, 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incrementalism.
Yanarella, E. J. and Bartilow, H. (2000), Beyond environmental moralism and policy incrementalism in the global sustainability debate: case studies and an alternative framework. Sust. Dev., 8: 123–134.
Daugbjerg, C. & Svendsen, G.T. Environ Dev Sustain (2011) 13: 293. doi:10.1007/s10668-010-9262-8
Weiss, Andrew, and Edward Woodhouse. “Reframing Incrementalism: A Constructive Response to the Critics.” Policy Sciences 25, no. 3 (1992): 255-73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4532259.
“Stephan Lewandowsky.” Stephan Lewandowsky. June 27, 2017. Accessed March 24, 2017. http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/bio.php?u=22.
United Nations. Brundtland Commission. 1987. Our Common Future. United Nations: New York.
https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/act-calls-for-end-to-incremental-change-on-climate-action-as-companies-begin-to-transform-business-models
True, James L., Bryan D. Jones, and Frank R. Baumgartner. “Punctuated Equilibrium Theory.” Unc.edu. April 2006. Accessed March 24, 2017. https://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/articles/True_Jones_Baumgartner_2006_chapter.pdf.