Abstract
The paper compares three models of policymaking — synoptic rationality, mixed scanning and disjointed incrementalism — through the example of policies concerning the control of lead in the environment. Particular attention is given to the demands each model makes on expert advice. Lindblom's criticisms of synoptic rationality are found to be very telling, the most serious problems for this view arising in the present case study from the vast quantity of technical information which decisions about controlling lead would require. Similar criticism is made against mixed scanning; to the extent that it says more than disjointed incrementalism it makes too great a demand on expert advice. Disjointed incrementalism, on the other hand, is found to give a good description of policymaking in this area, being well adapted to the limited information which is available. The case study also provides a refutation of the main criticisms which have been made of disjointed incrementalism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.