Over recent decades, termination research has experienced a transformation from an obscure field to one undergoing rapid growth. Since the inception of the research in the 1970s, ever-increasing worldwide calls for government austerity have demanded a systemic understanding of organizational termination. This article examines the evolution of organizational termination research from case-based to statistical studies. It then makes several suggestions regarding ways to move organizational termination research forward.
Points for practitioners
This article offers practical lessons to practitioners who are interested in understanding organizational termination. Offering the evolution of the research on organizational termination from its inception to the present, the article presents a succinct overview of organizational termination. As such, it will be beneficial to those who have to operate in today’s world of increasing fiscal austerity pressures.
AdamCBauerMW (2018) Policy and organizational termination. In: Thompson WR (ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AdamCBauerMWKnillC, et al. (2007)
The termination of public organizations: Theoretical perspectives to revitalize a promising research area.Public Organization Review7: 221–236.
3.
BachTJannW (2010)
Animals in the administrative zoo: Organizational change and agency autonomy in Germany.International Review of Administrative Sciences76(3): 443–468.
4.
BardachE (1976)
Policy termination as a political process.Policy Sciences7(2): 123–131.
5.
BarrettSFudgeC (1981) Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy.
New York, NY:
Routledge.
6.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics.
Chicago, IL:
Chicago University Press.
7.
BehnRD (1976)
Closing the Massachusetts public training schools.Policy Sciences7: 151–171.
8.
BehnRD (1977)
How to terminate a public policy: A dozen hints for the would-be terminator. Policy Analysis78(4): 393–413.
9.
BertelliASinclairA (2016)
Democratic accountability and the politics of mass administrative reorganization.British Journal of Political Science48(3): 691–711.
10.
BestSTeskePMintromM (1997)
Terminating the oldest living regulator: The death of the Interstate Commerce Commission.International Journal of Public Administration20(12): 2067–2096.
11.
BevanS (2013)
Continuing the collective action dilemma: The survival of voluntary associations in the United States.Political Research Quarterly66(3): 545–558.
12.
BoinAKuipersSSteenbergenM (2010)
The life and death of public organizations: A question of institutional design?Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions23(3): 385–410.
13.
BoinAKofmanCKuilmanJ, et al. (2017)
Does organizational adaptation really matter? How mission change affects the survival of US federal independent agencies, 1933–2011.Governance30(4): 663–686.
14.
Box-SteffensmeirJMJonesBS (1997)
Time is of the essence: Event history models in political science.American Journal of Political Science41(4): 1414–1461.
15.
Box-SteffensmeirJMJonesBS (2004) Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
16.
BradleyVJ (1976)
Policy termination in mental health: The hidden agenda.Policy Sciences7(2): 215–224.
17.
BrewerGDeLeonP (1983) The Foundations of Policy Analysis.
Homewood, IL:
Dorsey Press.
18.
CarpenterDPLewisDE (2004)
Political learning from rare events: Poisson inference, fiscal constraints, and the lifetime of bureaus.Political Analysis12(3): 201–232.
CoxD (1972)
Regression models and life-tables (with discussion).Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B34: 187–220.
21.
DanielsMR (1995)
Organizational termination and policy continuation: Closing the Oklahoma public training schools.Policy Sciences28(3): 301–316.
22.
DeLeonP (1978)
Public policy termination: An end and a beginning. Policy Analysis78(4): 369–391.
23.
DeLeonPHernández-QuezadaJM (2001)
The case of the national solidarity program in Mexico: A study in comparative policy termination.International Journal of Public Administration24(3): 289–309.
24.
DommettKSkelcherC (2014)
Opening the black box of administrative reform: A strategic-relational analysis of agency responses to termination threats.International Public Management Journal17(4): 540–563.
25.
ElmoreR (1979)
Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions.Political Science Quarterly94(4): 601–616.
26.
FlindersMSkelcherC (2012)
Shrinking the quango state: Five challenges in reforming quangos.Public Money and Management32(5): 327–334.
27.
FrantzJE (1992)
Reviving and revising a termination model. Policy Sciences25: 175–189.
28.
FrantzJE (1997)
The high cost of policy termination.International Journal of Public Administration20(12): 2097–2119.
29.
Geva-MayI (2004)
Riding the wave of opportunity: Termination in public policy.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14(3): 309–333.
30.
GigerN (2012)
Is social policy retirement unpopular? How welfare reforms affect government popularity.European Sociological Review28(5): 691–700.
31.
GigerNNelsonM (2010)
The electoral consequences of welfare state retrenchment: Blame avoidance or credit claiming in the era of permanent austerity?European Journal of Political Research50(1): 1–23.
32.
GilmourJBLewisDE (2006)
Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(2): 169–186.
33.
GlorE (2011)
Patterns of Canadian departmental survival.Canadian Public Administration54(4): 551–566.
34.
GötzAGrotzFWeberT (2018)
Party government and administrative reform: Evidence from the German Länder.Administration and Society50(6): 778–811.
35.
GreasleySHanrettyC (2016)
Credibility and agency termination under parliamentarism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory26(1): 159–173.
36.
GreenwoodJ (1997)
The succession of policy termination.International Journal of Public Administration20(12): 2121–2150.
37.
HagerMGalaskiewiczJBielefeldW, et al. (1996)
Tales from the grave.American Behavioral Scientist39(8): 975–994.
38.
HajnalG (2012)
Studying dynamics of government agencies: Conceptual and methodological results of a Hungarian organizational mapping exercise.International Journal of Public Administration35(12): 832–843.
39.
HarrisM (1997)
Policy termination: Uncovering the ideological dimension.International Journal of Public Administration20(12): 2151–2175.
40.
HarrisM (2001)
Policy termination: The case of term limits in Michigan. International Journal of Public Administration24(3): 323–339.
41.
HillMHupeP (2012) Implementing Public Policy.
Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications.
42.
HjernBHullC (1982)
Implementation research as empirical constitutionalism.European Journal of Political Research10(2): 105–115.
43.
JamesOPetrovskyNMoselyA, et al. (2016)
The politics of agency death: Ministers and the survival of government agencies in a parliamentary system.British Journal of Political Science46(4): 763–784.
44.
KaufmanH (1976) Are Government Organizations Immortal?
Washington, DC:
The Brookings Institution.
45.
KaufmanH (1985) Time, Chance, and Organizations: Natural Selection in a Perilous Environment.
Chatham, NJ:
Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
46.
KettlDF (2005) The Global Public Management Revolution.
Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
47.
KingdonJW (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies.
Boston, MA:
Little Brown.
48.
KuipersSYesilkagitKCarrollB (2018)
Coming to terms with termination of public organizations.Public Organization Review18(2): 263–278.
49.
LambrightWHSapolskyHM (1976)
Terminating federal research and development programs.Policy Sciences7(2): 199–213.
50.
LevineCHRubinISWolohojianGG (1981) The Politics of Retrenchment: How Local Governments Management Fiscal Stress.
Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
51.
LewisDE (2002)
The politics of agency termination: Confronting the myth of agency immortality.Journal of Politics64(1): 89–107.
52.
LewisDE (2004)
The adverse consequences of the politics of agency design for presidential management in the United States: The relative durability of insulated agencies.British Journal of Political Science34(3): 377–404.
53.
LipskyM (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service.
New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
54.
LoweryDVan WitteloostuijnAPéliG, et al. (2013)
Policy agendas, and births and deaths of political parties.Party Politics19(3): 381–407.
55.
MaLChristensenT (2018) Mapping the evolution of the central government apparatus in China. International Review of Administrative Sciences, online first. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317749025.
56.
MacCarthaighM (2014)
Agency termination in Ireland: Culls and bonfires, or life after death?Public Administration92(4): 1017–1037.
57.
MacCarthaighMRonessPG (2012)
Analyzing longitudinal continuity and change in public sector organizations.International Journal of Public Administration35(12): 773–782.
58.
MarchJOlsenJ (1983)
Organizing political life: What administrative reorganization tells us about government.American Political Science Review77(2): 281–296.
59.
MathewsJPaulM (2010) California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It.
Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
60.
MayhewD (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection.
New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
61.
Maynard-MoodySStullDMitchellJ (1986)
Reorganization as status drama: Building, maintaining, and displacing dominant subcultures.Public Administration Review46(4): 301–331.
62.
MeierK (1980)
Executive reorganization of government: Impact on employment and expenditures.American Journal of Political Science24(3): 396–412.
63.
MoldogazievTTScottTAGreerRA (2019)
Organizational dissolutions in the public sector: An empirical analysis of municipal utility water districts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy081
64.
MortensenPBGreen-PedersenC (2015)
Institutional effects of changes in political attention: Explaining organizational changes in the top bureaucracy.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25(1): 165–189.
65.
NakrošisVBudraitisB (2012)
Longitudinal change in Lithuanian agencies.International Journal of Public Administration35(12): 820–831.
66.
Norris-TirrellD (1997)
Organization termination in the nonprofit setting: The dissolution of children’s rehabilitation services.International Journal of Public Administration20(12): 2177–2194.
67.
O’LearyC (2015)
Agency termination in the UK: What explains the “bonfire of the quangos”?West European Politics38(6): 1327–1344.
68.
O’TooleLJ (2000)
Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10(2): 263–288.
69.
ParkS (2013)
What causes the death of public sector organizations? Understanding structural changes and continuities in Korean quangos.International Public Management Journal16(3): 413–437.
70.
PetersBGHogwoodBW (1988)
The death of immortality: Births, deaths, and metamorphoses in the U.S. federal bureaucracy 1933–1982.American Review of Public Administration18(2): 119–133.
71.
RollandVRonessPG (2011)
Mapping organizational change in the state: Challenges and classifications.International Journal of Public Administration34(6): 399–409.
72.
RollandVRonessPG (2012)
Foundings and terminations: Organizational change in the Norwegian state administration 1947–2011.International Journal of Public Administration35(12): 783–794.
73.
SabatierPA (1986)
Top-down and bottom-up models of policy implementation: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy6(1): 21–48.
74.
SabatierPAJenkins-SmithHC (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Framework.
Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
75.
SarapuuK (2012)
Administrative structure in times of changes: The development of Estonian ministries and government agencies 1990–2010.International Journal of Public Administration35(12): 808–819.
76.
ShockleyGE (2012)
Policy networks and the U.S. congressional efforts to terminate four federal agencies.International Journal of Public Administration35(2): 98–111.
77.
ShulskyAN (1976)
Abolishing the District of Columbia Motorcycle Squad.Policy Sciences7(2): 183–197.
78.
Van WitteloostuijnABoinAKofmanC, et al. (2018)
Explaining the survival of public organizations: Applying density dependence theory to a population of U.S. federal agencies.Public Administration96(4): 633–650.
