Regulatory goals tend to be set as high as possible, and its instruments chosen as strong as possible. This tendency is usually justified on such ground that regulations designed as such must accomplish regulatory goals most effectively. This study casts strong doubt about this naive belief. Paying particular attention to the inherent vagueness and lack of concreteness of policy goals in nature and the typical behavior both on the part of regulators and the regulated at the stage of regulatory enforcement, and also taking cognizance of the utmost strong influence that resources constraints exert at this stage, this study argues, from the perspective of incremental approach, that such a synoptic approach to regulatory goal setting must end up with greater dissatisfaction, for those regulations designed in such a fashion-mostly input standards in sort-would only further increase unreasonableness of regulations. In the spirit of incremental approach, this study suggests an alternative way of setting regulatory goals in such a manner as to make “X% improvement from the status quo” -which can be derived from an expert survey or international comparisons of states achieved under current regulatory structures of advanced countries-a realistic goal to be achieved next year. This method would help increase economic efficiency of allocating limited resources available for regulatory enforcement, set policy priorities right in the midst of unending requests for ever higher regulatory goals from the society, and make it far easier to appraise and compare the levels of achievement of regulatory goals.