^F nOR NEARLY two decades the notion of incrementalism has dominated conceptualization, analysis and description of the budgetary process. Incremental models have been applied to budgeting in the United States federal government, state and local governments in the United States, central and local budgeting in other countries, and in international organizations. (See Davis et al., 1966a, 1966b, 1971, 1974; Cowart et al., 1975; Crecine, 1969, 1970; Danziger, 1978; Edwards and Sharkansky, 1975; Hoole 1976; Hoole, Handley and Ostrom, 1979; Hoole, Job and Tucker, 1976; Ostrom, 1977, 1978a; Sharkansky, 1968a, 1968b, 1970; and Sharkansky and Turnbull, 1969.) Some regard incrementalism as the leading example of a law-like behavioral generalization which seems to be applicable over a broad range of cultures, levels of government, substantive activities, and time periods. Others have been critical of incremental models of budgeting. Conceptual and empirical challenges have been articulated which purport to offer evidence sufficient to refute incremental budgeting models. (LeLoup, 1978, identifies the following as important critiques: Natchez and Bupp, 1973; Wanat, 1974; Gist, 1974, 1977; Ripley et al., 1975; and Bailey and O'Connor, 1975.) At the extreme, incremental budgeting has been called a myth (LeLoup, 1978). It has become commonplace for reviews of budgeting research to acknowledge both adherents and critics of incrementalism. The points of disagreement between proponents and critics of incremental budgeting models have been numerous, complex, and often quite technical. As is so often the case, much of the debate is rooted in conflicting definitions, and disputants have been talking past each other. Fortunately, the argument has taken a positive turn. A number of parties have recognized that incrementalism is a label which has been applied to a wide range of ideas and empirical models. In a recent paper two incremental modelers have explained how their research interests and conceptual framework differ from those of their critics (Dempster and Wildavsky, 1979). This paper attempts to contribute further to clarification by exploring the extent to which inconsistent empirical findings are due to methodological choices. It will be argued that many studies commonly cited as refuting incremental models employ methodologies inappropriate to the models they seek to criticize. It will also be argued that methodological problems in some studies commonly cited as confirming incrementalism weaken their claims as well. The purpose here is not to defend or attack specific authors, ideas or methods. The goal is to facilitate communication and progress by identifying neglected methodological issues in budgetary modeling and their substantive implications.