The case for militantly moderate incrementalism

I’ve started onĀ [amazon_link id=”0691161623″ target=”_blank” ]Why Government Fails So Often (and how it can do better)[/amazon_link] by Peter Schuck.

[amazon_image id=”0691161623″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Why Government Fails So Often: And How It Can Do Better[/amazon_image]

He argues for ‘melioristic realism’ – modest practical improvements in outcomes – which are nevertheless ‘militantly moderate’ given the usual assumption in much policy debate that change must be sweeping and radical. “Policy makers have at best severely limited knowledge of the opaque, complex, social world that they seek to change, and meager tools for changing it.” There is a ‘remorseless’ law of unintended consequences. Incrementalism is therefore the only wise and honourable approach, Schuck argues. Indeed, it’s the only approach that increasingly cynical and distrustful voters will now accept, he thinks.

The book describes what he calls ‘moral hazard’, which is far wider than the usual definition of risk-taking behaviour in financial or insurance markets induced by the fact that somebody else bears the cost. Schuck extends it to all kinds of behaviour whose cost is partly borne by somebody else (i.e. taxpayers) – hence also welfare “dependency”, or crop subsidies, or corporate welfare dependency in sectors such as aerospace and defence sector.

I’ll review it properly when I’ve finished. It’s a US-focused book – here is the Boston Globe and an article by Peter Schuck on the Huffington Post site.

One thought on “The case for militantly moderate incrementalism

  1. Diane,

    What if our starting point – our current policy set-up – is so complex, so crippled by our “severely limited knowledge of the opaque, complex, social world”, that modest increments would not help, but rather we need to be radical and design policies that recognise our limits?

    For example, rather than a labyrinthine welfare system that requires a huge amount of knowledge about people’s circumstances, a simple, unconditional citizen’s income?

    What about replacing a myriad of complex taxes with a consumption/land value tax?

    I’m not here to argue for any of these policies. Merely to point out that incremental change of a poorly designed system might be worse than a radical change to a system built with humility and scepticism about our ability to change the world in mind.

Comments are closed.