INCREMENTALISM: MAPPING EXERCISE w/written explanation

INCREMENTALISM: MAPPING EXERCISE w/written explanation

An Incremental Analysis of “How a City Drowned”. Use the REVISED incrementalism template in this module to MAP OUT the progress toward agreement at each of the crucial decision points in the case starting with the Army Corps’ initial position (include failed options–the initial option had to be changed to allow maximum economic benefit) in your successive attempts to reach agreement.

Then use Lindblom’s model (Successive Limited Comparisons) to write a brief explanation of what happened at each point:

Copy/paraphrase the statement of each option from the text and explain who was involved in the bargaining and the concessions offered/made in the attempt to reach agreement and how the final policy satisfied everyone.

!!!NO RATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS!!!

A GOOD POLICY IS ONE THAT ALL RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS CAN AGREE TO ACCEPT.

Analysis then involves finding the relevant stakeholders at a given juncture,
discovering which of them was unhappy with the policy and, therefore,
broke the agreement, and explaining how the agreement was restored (the
compromise\policy change that brought the unhappy stakeholder back).

STAKEHOLDERS ARE THOSE WHO CONTROL RESOURCES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICY OR TO BLOCK IMPLEMENTATION – THEY ARE EACH OTHERS CUSTOMERS AND CONSTITUTE THE POWER STRUCTURE.

Since incremental decision-making takes place within Long’s administrative power structure, the first analytical task is to map out the power structure at a decision point.
Stakeholders may be added or excluded overtime so that the relevant stakeholders may be different at successive decision points.

“Administrative rationality requires a critical evaluation of the whole range of
complex and shifting forces on whose support, acquiescence, or
temporary impotence the power to act depends” Norton Long (p.106)

The Decision Points:
1. Policy in place at the beginning of the case study or the first policy implemented or proposed.

Who were the RELEVANT stakeholders? What was the agreement (understanding)? or Why was it NOT possible to reach agreement on the proposal?

2. Break down in agreement–implementation stops. Failure to agree–implementation can not start. Who broke the agreement or could NOT agree? Why? Who were the RELEVANT stakeholders? If they changed, why and how? What was the new policy (agreement) and how was it reached? or Why did the proposal fail to secure agreement?

3. Second break down or alternative proposal –third successive policy/proposal. Fourth…. Fifth..
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!