INTRODUCTION
Incrementalism as an administrative theory of decision-making was postulated by Charles
Lindblom as a reaction to the pitfalls of the rational model. Lindblom regarded rational decision making as a nightmare. For it to function effectively, rational model of decision making must satisfy two conditions that are unlikely to be met for most issues: agreement on objectives and a knowledge base sufficient to permit accurate prediction of consequences associated with available alternatives. Where these conditions are unmet (and they will be unmet, according to
Lindblom, for most policy issues), the rational method provides no guidance whatsoever for policy makers. Incrementalism circumvents these problems, producing defensible policies where the rational method is being paralyzed
According to Dye as quoted by Dunn 2007, has explained being rational is not easy. In order to be rational, it is desirable that there should be:

Identification and determination of the goals;

The ranking of goals in order of importance;

Identification of possible policy alternatives for achieving those goals;

Cost benefits analysis of policy alternatives.
This was further concretized when Lindblom pinpointed the drawbacks of the rational choice model on its failure to adapt to:

Man’s limited problem solving capacities;
 insufficient information;

Costliness in analysis;

Failures in constructing a satisfactory evaluative method;

Proximate relationships between facts and values in policy making;

Analysts’ need for strategic sequences of analytical moves.
Hence, incrementalism assumes that:

Goals are unclear;

Problems, goals and implementation are intertwined and will evolve;

Alternatives and goals are formed as learned;

Policy makers are not free to choose the best alternatives because they must consider the feasibility and acceptability of possible policies.
Given what researchers know about the real world of public policy, incrementalism corresponds well with how decisions are made. The approach fits the inheritance model proposed by Rose and Davies (1994) since political decision makers generally accept the programs they find when coming into office. Incrementalism recognizes and celebrates the role of groups in policy. Hence, group negotiation with organizations of the state is more important than the procedures for arriving at a rational decision.
As earlier adverted to, Incrementalism attempts to correct the imperfections of the rational model and to illustrate how policy decision makers actually behave. Incrementalism emphasizes the plurality of actors involved in the policy-making process and predicts that policy makers will

build on past policies, focusing on incremental rather than wholesale changes. It further opines that decision makers only consider limited values , limited goals , limited alternatives and only realistic solution to the desired goal. It involves successive and limited comparisons. The goal is not-the-one-time, radical, bold and major solution to societal problems but marginal changes.
Sambo (1999:301) argued that new decisions are variants of past decisions. Decision makers accept existing decisions as satisficing and legitimate, and only make small, incremental, marginal adjustments in their current behaviour. Lindblom (1959:135), noted that incremental model of policy making proceeds in chronological series, made and remade endlessely, a succession of incremental changes, building out the current sitautions, step-by-step and in small degree.
Henry (2004) argued that decision makers do not annually review all existing and proposed policies; instead they take an incremental approach in which there is slow evolution of policies by cautious incremental changes. In other words, decision makers do not review the whole range of societal values and problems and the spectrum of policy alternatives and their consequences nor calculate, cost and weigh each set of values and alternatives.
More so , decision makers hardly bother to canvass formidable numbers of far reaching changes, neither do they spend inordinate time defining their goals, and that the comparisons they make between the current state of affairs and the small adjustments to be made in the current behaviour are within manageable proportions. Mann (1975:158) gave summary of the incremental model as consisting of marginal calculation, consideration of limited alternatives, adjustment of goals to means, consideration of limited consequences, reconstructive treatment of data and remedial orientation of policies.
The incremental model also acknowledges human limitation that makes rational decisions cumbersome to achieve. It further suggests that a person’s cognitive ability to process information is limited. Hence, humans can only handle so much information before overloads occurs. Even if complete information were availale to a decision maker, cognitive limitations would impede making a completely rational decision. According to this theory, decision makers have bounded rationality as it affects several key aspects of the decision making process (Simon,
1957).
In consonance with Herbert Simon’s concept of bounded rationality, decision makers do not search all possible alternatives and then pick the the best ones, rather various alternatives are identified and evaluated only till an acceptable solution is found. Strikingly, having found a satisficing alternative, the search for additional solutions then halt. Though better alternatives may exist, it will not be considered because the first workable solution has been accepted.
Equally, the concept of bounded rationality is guided primarily by past experiences or rules of thumb that provide a shorthand method for swiftly identifying solutions with the greatest likelihood of succeeding. Hence, the hunt for alternatives is conducted only within well-known aspects of the decision situation.
Furthermore, the concept of bounded rationality infers that decision makers satisfice instead of maximize. Satisficing occurs when an alternative is chosen that meets minimum instead of

optimum standards of acceptance. Put differently, a decision maker, resulting from varying setbacks (time, cost, inability to process chunks of information, chooses an alternative that is satisficing instead of ideal. For instance, as a degree holder, one may accept the first available job offer with a meagre stipend rather than being idle.
According to Anderson (1975) and Lindblom (1987), Incrementalism inolves the following six basic tenets
1.
The selection of goals or objectives and the empirical analysis of the action needed to attain them are closely intertwined with, rather than distinct from, one another.
2.
The decision maker considers only some of the alternatives for dealing with a problem, and these will differ only incremental (i.e marginally) from existing policies.
3.
For each alternative, only a limited number of “important” consequences are evaluated.
4.
The problem confronting the decision-maker is continually redefined. Incrementalism allows for countless ends-means and means-ends adjustments that have the effect of making the problem more manageable.
5.
There is no single decision or “right” solution for a problem. The test of a good decision is that various analysts find themselves directly agreeing to it, without agreeing that the decision is the most appropriate means to an agreed objective.
6.
Incremental decision making is essentially remedial in that decision makers can gear it more to correcting present problems versus promoting future social goals.
APPLICABILITY OF INCREMENTAL MODEL
There are varying ways to utilize this model in public policy analysis. In this paper, the budgeting system will be used to explain its applicability. Most national budgeting system confirms the incremental decision making models as ministers, bureaucracies, and interest groups fight for a slice of the budget pie rather than rationally planning on the basis of clear objectives, Heclo and
Wildavsky (1974). Using Nigeria has a reference point, between 2011 and 2015, there existed marginal adjustments in Nigeria’s budgets as this reflected in allocations to various sectors of the economy. During this period, the following were Nigeria’s budgets: 2011, 4.48trillion; 2012,
4.749trillion; 2013, 4.987trillion; 2014, 4.962trillion; and 2015, 4.4trillion.
A critical look at the figures above, marginal modifications were abvious as changes existed though miniature. Little wonder, Lindblom (1968) argues argue for a more limited model of decision making in the policy making process. The policy process is best understood as incremental because decision makers make little effort to follow procedurally rational decisions.
However, one of the pitfalls leveled against incrementalism is that it is a conservative activity.
Hence, it maintains the status quo. As Dye notes, incrementalism helps to reduce conflict, maintains stability and preserves the political system itself. For instance, budgetary allocations to some sectors were the same in varying fiscal years. This, to some scholars, stands in dissonance with innovations and changes.

Defence
Health
Education
2015
294.5 billion
221.7 billion
369.6 billion
2016
294.5 billion
221.7 billion
369.6billion
Transport
Interior
202.0 billion
145.3 billion
202.0 billion
145.3 billion
From the table above, it signposts the conservative colouration of the model.
During the decision making process, rather than top decision makers rationally making decisions and commanding lower level bureaucrats and other public bodies to implement them,
Lindblom’s model corrects the top-down bias of implementation theories because it assumes that a wide variety of decision makers interact to produce policy. This is the case with the preparation of budget. Nor is there the assumption that policy making improves as a result of human will or organizational efficiency. Incrementalism has an explanation of the failure of rational policy analysis because decision makers are likely to prefer marginal adjustments of the current state of affairs rather than to conceive policy in terms of costs and benefits.
STRENGHTS OF INCREMENTAL MODEL
As identified by Lindblom, Incremental model has the following strengths:

Simplicity: it is very simple to understand. Compared to some of the other budgeting methods used in business, it is one of the easiest to put in practice one does not have to be an accountant or have much experience in business to use this form of budgeting.

Gradual change: a very stable budget exists from one period to the next and allows for gradual change within the company. Many managers are intimidated by large budget increases from one period to the next. This type of budget will not cause that problem because it is based on the previous period's budget.

Flexibility: it is very flexible. Doing it from one month to the next allows one to see
 changes very quickly when a new policy or budget is implemented.
Avoid conflict: companies with many different departments often run into conflict between departments because of their different budgets. With this method of budgeting, it is easier to keep everyone on the same page and avoid conflicts between departments.
PITFALLS OF INCREMENTAL MODEL
Some of the pitfalls identified include:

Decision made by incrementalists would reflect preferences of the most powerful and organized interests in the society, while the interests of the under-privileged would be neglected.

Moreso, it stresses on marginal modifications in current policies. hence incremental method fails to realize the incorporation of new values and social innovations.

As a conservative model, it maintains the status quo under the guise of social stability and contiunity. Thus, it ignores the dynamism of society.

Also, fundametal decisions, such as declaration of wars and management of natural hazards orchestrated by coastal erosion, tornadoes, harricanes, earthquakes, drought among others do not surface within the scope of incrementalism.


Noted for its marginal modifications, it consigns societies to continuing instability as new decisions continue to be anchored on precedents that are themselves in need of refurbishment.
CONCLUSION
Incrementalism sees policies result from a process of interaction and mutual adaptation among a multiplicity of actors advocating different values, representing different interests, and possessing different information. It stresses on marginal modification, consideration of limited alternatives, adjustment of goals to means, consideration of limited consequences, reconstructive treatment of data and remedial orientation of policies. The incremental model also acknowledges human limitation that make rational decisions cumbersome to achieve. It further suggests that a person’s cognitive ability tp process information is limited. Hence, humans can only handle so much information before overloads occurs. Also, the model helps to slim-fit conflict, and to ensure stability and contunity in the political system. Despite it pitfalls, it remains relevant to public policy making.

REFERENCES
Chanlder, R.C. and Plano, J C. (1988). The Public Administration Dictionary. England: ADC - CL
10.
Etzioni, A. (1967). "Mixed-scanning: A Third Approach to Decision Making in Public
Administration Review Vol. 27, Vol. 5 .
Heclo, H., and Wildavsky, A. (1974) “The Private Government of Public Money”, London,
Macmillan
Ikegbe, A.O. (1996). Public Policy Making and Analysis. Benin City: URI Publishing Ltd.
John, P., and Margetts, H (2003) “Policy Punctuations in the UK: Fluctuations and Equilibria
Central Government Expenditure since 1951” Public Administration
Lindblom, C.E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through" Public Administration Review.
Lindlom, C. (1968), “The Policy Making Process” Englewood Cliffs. N.J; Prentice Hall
Lindblom, C. (1977) “Politics and Markets” New York: Basic Books
Margetts, H. (1986) ”Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of the Budgeting Processes” New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transcation Books
Mann , D . ( 1975 ). Policy Decision Making in Education : A n Introduction to Calculation and
Control. New York : Teachers College Press.
Olaniyi, J.O. (1998). Foundation of Public Policy Analysis. Ibadan: SUNDA Publisher Limited.
Peter, J. (2012), Analysing Public Policy, Roulette
Rose, R. and Davies P (1994) “Inheritance in Public Policy: Chance without Choice in Britain”, New
Haven: Yale University Press
Simon, H. (1955) "A Behavioural Model of Rational Choice" 69 Quarterly Journal of Economics.
(February).
Simon, H (1957) “Administrative Behaviour” 2 nd ed, New York, Free Press http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/12/budget-breakdown-as-education-ministry-gets-n369-6billion/ https://www.naij.com/675438-need-know-nigerias-2016-budget.html