Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:40:12.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An End to Incrementalism? The Impact of Expenditure Restraint on Social Services Budgets 1979–1986*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Aidan Kelly
Aidan Kelly
Affiliation:
Principal Lecturer. Department of Sociology, North East London Polytechnic.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The theory of incrementalism is a long-standing and influential perspective on policy making and resource allocation in the public sector. Previous research on social services budgeting suggests that resources are allocated incrementally, although there has been some debate as to whether this would persist in an era of prolonged expenditure restraint. Incremental budgetary outcomes are operationalised as percentage changes in budgets pro-rata with percentage changes in the total budget, and as stable shares of total expenditure for each activity. Data for 99 English social service departments supports incrementalism in that budget shares change by only 1.8 per cent, but percentage allocations depart from pro-rata incrementalism by a mean of 74 per cent. The comparison of the two summary indices over time supports those who have argued that prolonged restraint would encourage non-incremental budgeting, but change in the agency's total budget does not consistently predict budgetary outcomes. The effect of restraint on incrementalism varies with the measure used and across the component activities of the measures, but there is enough evidence to suggest a significant decline in the level of incrementalism in social service departments. In particular, non-incremental budgeting is strongly associated with the growth of day centre expenditure on the mentally ill and the elderly before 1982–3, and after that with the pursuit of the ‘community care’ strategy within state provided services for the elderly and children. Incrementalism as a general theory of agency budgeting is limited in its ability to explain variations in the degree of incrementalism between agencies, between component budgets and over time. The conclusion suggests that further research should seek explanations for these variations in the varying balance of the competing forces which shape outcomes in welfare bureaucracies and in the relationship between these forces and the organisation's environment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 187 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Audit Commission (1985), Managing Social Services for the Elderly More Effectively. HMSO. London.Google Scholar
Audit Commission (1986), Making a Reality of Community Care, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Booth, T. (ed.) (1979), Planning for Welfare, Heineman, London.Google Scholar
Braybrooke, D. and Lindblom, C. (1977), The Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
CIPFA (1979, 1983, 1986). Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, Personal Social Services Actuals, CIPFA, London.Google Scholar
Danziger, J.N. (1976), ‘Assessing incrementalism in British municipal budgeting’. British Journal of Political Science, 6, 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, P. and Klein, R. (1987), ‘Residential care for the elderly: a billion-pound experiment in policymaking’. Public Money, March. 19–24.Google Scholar
Dearlove, J. (1983), The Politics of Policy in Local Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dcmpster, M.A.H. and Wildavsky, A. (1979), ‘On change: or there is no magic size for an increment’. Political Studies, 27, 371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elcock, H. and Jordan, G. (1987), Learning from Local Authority Budgeling, Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Ferlie, E. and Judge, K. (1981), ‘Retrenchment and rationality in the personal social services’. Policy and Politics, 14: 4, 475–490.Google Scholar
Glennerster, H. (1981), ‘Social service spending in a hostile environment’ in Hood, C. and Wright, M. (eds), Big Government in Hard Times, Martin Robertson, London.Google Scholar
Glennerster, H., Korman, N. and Marslen-Wilson, F. (1983), Planning for Priority Groups. Martin Robertson, London.Google Scholar
Goldberg, M. and Connelly, N. (1982), The Effectiveness of Social Care for the Elderly. Heineman Educational Books, London.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R. (1979), ‘The local authority budgetary process’ in Booth, T. (ed.) Planning for Welfare, Heineman, London.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R. (1983), ‘Changing patterns of budgeting in English local government’. Public Administration, 61, 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R. (1984), ‘Incremental budgeting: antecedents of change’. Journal of Public Policy, 4, 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heclo, H. and Wildavsky, A. (1974), The Private Government of Public Money, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Hood, C. and Wright, M. (1981), ‘From decrementalism to quantum cuts?’ in Hood, C. and Wright, M. (eds). Big Government in Hard Times, Martin Robertson, London.Google Scholar
Howe, D. (1986), Social Workers and their Practice in Welfare Bureaucracies, Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
HMSO (1987), United Kingdom National Accounts (The CSO Blue Book). HMSO. London.Google Scholar
Judge, K. (1978), Rationing Social Services, Heineman, London.Google Scholar
Klein, R. and O'Higgins, M. (1985), ‘Social Policy after incrementalism’ in The Future of Welfare, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. (1979), ‘Still muddling, not yet through’. Public Administration Review, 39, 517–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. and Simon, H. (1958), Organisations, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Minogue, M. (1983), ‘Theory and practice in public policy and administration’, Policy and Politics, 11: 1, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Natchez, P.B. and Bupp, I.C. (1983), ‘Policy and priority in the budgetary process’, American Political Science Review, 67, 951–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, J.B. (1978), ‘Strategic change: logical incrementalism’. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 7–19.Google Scholar
Schick, A. (1983), ‘Incremental budgeting in a decremental age’. Policy Sciences, 16, 1–25.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. (1980), ‘From growth to standstill’, in Wright, M. (ed.), Public Spending Decisions: Growth and Restraint in the 1970s, Allen and Unwin. London.Google Scholar
Webb, A. (1979), ‘Policy making in social services departments’. in Booth, T. (ed.), Planning for Welfare, Heineman, London.Google Scholar
Webb, A. and Wistow, G. (1983a), ‘Public expenditure and policy implementation: the case of community care’. Public Administration, 61, 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, A. and Wistow, G. (1983b), ‘The personal social services: incrementalism, expediency. or systematic social planning’, in Loney, M. et al. (eds), Social Policy and Social Welfare, Open University Press. Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Webb, A. and Wistow, G. (1986), Planning, Need and Scarcity, Allen and Unwin. London.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. (1964), The Politics of the Budgetary Process, Little, Brown and Co., Boston.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. (1975), Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of the Budgetary Process. Little, Brown and Co., Boston.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. (1978), ‘A budget for all seasons? Why the traditional budget lasts’. Public Administration Review, 38, 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolman, H. (1986), ‘Innovation in local government and fiscal austerity’, Journal of Public Policy, 6: 2, 159–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar