Can incrementalism work?

Incrementalism is the only realistic option.

Question: Can incrementalism work?
Position1 of 3›: Yes, incrementalism works.
Argument‹3 of 3: Incrementalism is the only realistic option.

Incrementalism simplifies complex problems into manageable steps. It allows for comprising and trial and error.

The argument

Incrementalism was established as a model because there were too many limitations to allow for comprehensive, rational changes to be made. The alternative it was defined against is a demanding one: these rational changes are when people decide what is best and then make that change no matter how big and contested it is. Three obstacles are identified as standing in the way. Conflict means there is rarely agreement about what is best in the first place. Time means the window in which a decision can actually be taken is usually shorter than the deliberation a comprehensive change would require. Lack of knowledge means that even where agreement and time exist, nobody is in a position to foresee the full consequences of a sweeping reform. Any one of these would make comprehensive change difficult; together they make it unrealistic. Incrementalism responds by reducing the demands at each point. Policymakers simplify the process by compromising, which addresses conflict; by focusing on only a limited number of options, which addresses the time available; and by creating manageable steps rather than single large reforms. They focus on the feasible, which is to say on what can be agreed and enacted rather than on what would be best in the absence of any constraints. A second advantage follows from the same structure. Because change arrives in stages, incrementalism allows for the process of trial and error: corrections can be made as the gradual changes are implemented, and the information needed to make them is generated by the earlier steps themselves. That is the direct remedy for the lack of knowledge which made comprehensive reform unrealistic in the first place. Nor does the ambition have to be lowered, since substantial changes can still be made; they are simply implemented in steps rather than all at once.

Premises

[P1]Comprehensive, rational policy changes are unrealistic because of conflicts, time constraints, and limited knowledge. [P2] Incrementalism makes policymaking feasible by compromising, narrowing options, and breaking changes into manageable steps. [P3] Gradual implementation enables trial and error, allowing corrections along the way while still achieving substantial change. [C] Therefore, incrementalism works as the only realistic approach to policymaking.

Counter-arguments

Viewing incrementalism as the only realistic option limits people to never try for sweeping reforms.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P5] Incrementalism is not the only realistic option. Having this view means that people won't try for sweeping reforms.