Question

Post a written response (approx. 250 words) in response to the following questions. When should the policy process be reevaluated and at what point should a policy be terminated? Can you identify any previous policies that were terminated and what impact the termination of the policy may have had on the organization or community as a whole? The posts asked for you to identify a policy that had been terminated and its impacts.

Answer 1

Policies need to be checked to ensure they function well, pass a cost-benefit review, and don't face unexpected obstacles. Policies that are obsolete, ineffective or no longer sponsored by their interest groups or congressional allies will face stopping or replacing with a reevaluated policy process. Ideally a Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree will be offered to those who wish to work in policy planning, public policy development, public policy education or in a wide range of public administration professions. Online programs such as Anna Maria College's MPA degree not only provide a solid fundamental and real-world basis for productive careers in public administration, but also provide work professionals and those who can not move to participate in their preferred program with exposure and versatility.

There are many facets to stopping the program. This can apply to policy redirection, reduction of programs, termination of departments, fiscal retrenchment, etc. Policy termination became a research field in the mid-1970s where researchers concentrated on terminating organisations as a way of eliminating outworn or ineffective policies or programmes. Nevertheless, debate on ending policy is dominated by that and familiar policy processes such as policy making, implementation, and assessment. The explanation for this subject's academic neglect is that it's challenging to research such an infrequent phenomenon as ending policy. One also suspects that any instance of the phenomenon is bound to be so idiosyncratic that there would be no useful generalizations. Because social science and social scientists thrive on generalizations rather than on idiosyncrasies, termination as a subject of academic interest has never become "soft". Traditionally, the typical stages tended to complete the loop, and never troubled companies and their administrators about ending policy. Yet termination is the Political Cycle's challenging step. Policies, initiatives and organizations have a life of their own once placed in place, because there is no reason to accept past mistakes. It demonstrates that termination is not agreed in good terms in most situations, as regards its future constituents. However, termination presupposes the final transformation of individuals, practices, services, processes and organizations that have ceased to operate well. Consequently, most coverage the policy termination gained came from journalistic political experience the harshly criticizes government through campaign rhetoric against politicians saying the government's issue is government itself; and the solution is to slash government services and make government smaller and less expensive. However, the response to these calls is not greeted with ease of mood. Actually, it leads to a reduced interest in eliminating, reinventing or stopping government services when the debt is gone, unemployment is dropping, inflation is low.

Its Impact:

We have so far attempted to look at the empirical, geographical, and theoretical viewpoints of terminating institutional or regulation. It is widely accepted that one of the reasons of stopping the program is its inability to resolve the problem it is meant to tackle. There are, however, different opinions on the policy failure. Economists ascribe policy failures to the absence of incentive mechanisms that would lead individuals to follow clear and stable preferences. At the other hand, political scientists describe the root cause of policy failure with the influence of the vested interests of different political groups within and outside government. For their part, organizational theorists rely on institutional principles of social life, described as a collection of common definitions and practices developed over long periods of time to investigate the causes of policy failure. What unites each of these diverse accounts by policy analysts and organizational researchers is that they are believed to be highly objective processes of policy making, execution and their shortcomings. Although there are countless reasons for policy failure and opinions, it focuses in particular on four major factors that that lead to the topic under discussion. These include target uncertainty, front-line implementer, resource, policy, and conflict.