{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0110803324099723, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013850415512465374, 'mean_word_length': 5.689814814814815, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Confusing Case of Budgetary Incrementalism: Too Many Meanings for a Single Concept

The first part of this paper reviews the meaning of the concept incrementalism to determine whether the enormous number of studies confirming or challenging the presence of budgetary incrementalism are analyzing the same phenomenon. I identify 12 distinct meanings of incrementalism in the literature. A pairwise analysis of these definitions shows that they have very little logical relation; a process incremental by one definition is not necessarily incremental by another. After reviewing the implications of this conclusion for future research about public budgeting, I argue that the most productive course would be to banish the term incrementalism from new scholarly literature, and instead, focus research on more specific characteristics of the budgetary process. The various distinct meanings of incrementalism suggest a preliminary set of such characteristics. The second part of the paper begins with an examination of the diverse methodologies used to assess empirically whether budgeting is incremental. This serves as a basis for an analysis of the methodologies best suited for investigating the various specific characteristics of budgeting discussed in the first part of the paper. Some characteristics are clearly "researchable" with traditional methodologies and data for studying incrementalism; others require alternative approaches.