The evolution of research on organizational termination
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852319852663 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of Administrative
The evolution of research
Sciences
2021, Vol. 87(1) 191–207
!
on organizational
The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
termination
DOI: 10.1177/0020852319852663
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
Jae Young Lim
Seoul National University, Republic of Korea
Abstract
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 sys-
temic 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.
Keywords
government austerity, organizational termination, termination research
Introduction
In recent decades, slow economic growth, shrinking government finances, and
government distrust have forced countries worldwide to reflect on what
Corresponding author:
Jae Young Lim, Seoul National University, Room 301, Building 57, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu,
08826, Republic of Korea.
Email: jaeyounglim@yahoo.com
192
International Review of Administrative Sciences 87(1)
governments do and to prune undeserving organizations (Kettl, 2005). These cir-
cumstances have helped spawn a growing body of scholarly studies on termination,
beginning in the late 1970s.1
Over the last four decades, however, termination research has undergone a
significant transformation. First-generation research emerged in the 1970s with
articles published in the Policy Sciences Symposium in 1976. Its promise, however,
was short-lived as a robust economy lessened the need for such research. This body
of research also suffered from an inability to generalize the findings as it was
confined to case studies and a single country, the US. Second-generation studies
were, conversely, much more quantitative in nature. Aided by “event history”
modeling, they turned their focus to institutional designs and political change
(turnover). Third-generation studies then sharpened termination research with
their emphasis on mapping organizational change and utilizing ideas drawn
from other research fields. Through multiple phases of scholarly progress, termi-
nation research has continued to survive, offering insights into an often-neglected
topic in the public administration and policy process fields.
This article provides an up-to-date review of organizational termination studies
since their inception in the 1970s and offers perspectives that will help to further
enrich the field. The article first presents an overview and brief appraisal of each of
the three generations of research. It then makes several suggestions to further
improve research on organizational termination.
Termination literature
On the first-generation theory of termination research
As is the case in many academic fields, termination research was a by-product of
the politico-economic circumstances of the day: the oil crisis, economic stagnation,
and the emergence of an anti-government climate. Driven by “Proposition 13
fever,” the anti-property tax movement that was initiated in California led to
retrenchment politics and the rationale for government cutbacks in the 1970s
(Levine et al., 1981; Mathews and Paul, 2010). The Carter administration, for
instance, responded with the initiation of several reforms, including zero-based
budgeting and sunset provisions (Frantz, 1992).
The initial burst of termination studies in the 1970s was followed by a long
period of dormancy until the Clinton administration’s “reinventing government”
movement helped resuscitate termination research in the late 1990s. In its early
days, first-generation termination research was preoccupied with prescriptive
assessments regarding definitions, causes, and to-do lists of termination, as well
as with case studies.
Several scholars provided the embryonic field with much-needed theoretical
foundations, exploring the definitions of, obstacles to, and strategies for termina-
tion (Bardach, 1976; Behn, 1976, 1977; DeLeon, 1978). Behn (1977) offered diverse
strategies for those intent on terminating organizations, while Bardach (1976) and
Lim
193
DeLeon (1978) identified factors hampering termination. Earlier studies also
explored cases that frequently applied existing termination theories, approaching
the topic from different angles. The topics covered ranged from the termination of
state mental health institutions (Bradley, 1976) and federal research and develop-
ment (R&D) programs (Lambright and Sapolsky, 1976), to that of a police unit in
Washington DC (Shulsky, 1976), a national disease center (Frantz, 1992), public
training schools for neglected children (Daniels, 1995), public hospitals (Frantz,
1997), the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) (Best et al., 1997), children
rehabilitation services (Norris-Tirrell, 1997), and legislative tenure in Michigan
(Harris, 2001). While most case studies in first-generation termination research
were located in the US, some explored termination in other countries.
Greenwood (1997) and Harris (1997), for instance, focused on British and Israeli
examples, while DeLeon and Herna´ndez-Quezada (2001) investigated the termi-
nation of a social welfare program in Mexico.
However, even in first-generation termination research, a clear divide existed
between studies. Several authors analyzed cases without any theoretical underpin-
nings, others drew upon previously built theory (Daniels, 1995; DeLeon and
Herna´ndez-Quezada, 2001; Frantz, 1992; Norris-Tirrell, 1997), and some incorpo-
rated policy process theories into case analysis (Best et al., 1997; Geva-May, 2004).
The second group primarily examined cases using DeLeon’s termination obstacles
theory (on the National Hansen Disease Center (NHDC), see Frantz, 1992; on
Oklahoma public training schools, see Daniels, 1995; on Mexico’s social welfare
program, see DeLeon and Herna´ndez-Quezada, 2001; on children’s rehabilitation
services in Florida, see Norris-Tirrell, 1997).2 For example, Frantz (1992) exam-
ined the termination struggle of the NHDC and why it lasted for so long given that
its existence had no basis in scientific knowledge. Applying DeLeon’s six obstacles
to termination, Frantz identified several factors that helped prolong the agency:
the “intellectual reluctance” of Congress in the early years of the NHDC to face
evidence that Hansen’s disease did not warrant imprisonment (Frantz, 1992: 180)3;
“obscurity” in its location and technical expertise (“institutional permanence”);
redefining its mission over the years from treatment to research (“dynamic con-
servatism”); a formidable anti-termination coalition; and the legal obstacle where-
by many patients refused to leave the center (Frantz, 1992).
Other studies in early termination research attempted to apply insights from
policy process theory (Best et al., 1997; Geva-May, 2004). For example, Best,
Teske, and Mintrom (1997) relied on the advocacy coalition framework
(Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993) and incorporated punctuated equilibrium
theory (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993) into their discussion of the termination of
the ICC. They identified two factors that were critical in the demise of the agency.
One was the existence of strongly built coalitions opposing the very existence of the
ICC (advocacy coalition framework), who were composed of economists (includ-
ing those in the Department of Transportation) skeptical about the regulation of
the transportation industry, companies wanting to enter the intensely regulated
trucking industry, and Republicans opposing government regulation of the
194
International Review of Administrative Sciences 87(1)
market. Best, Teske, and Mintrom found that the advocacy coalition framework
alone was not enough to explain why the ICC vanished and, moreover, why such
an abrupt change (termination) had occurred. The second factor that they identi-
fied was the emergence of policy entrepreneurship through deregulatory initiatives
in the late 1970s and a political climate supporting intense budget cutbacks in 1994
and 1995 on Capitol Hill. Once the gradual change (explained by the advocacy
coalition framework) and the abrupt change (explained by punctuated equilibrium
theory) prevailed, the ICC found it difficult to sustain its existence. Although an
actual case was not investigated, Geva-May (2004) utilized the potential of
Kingdon’s (1984) “policy windows” to explain the termination process.
First-generation termination research made valiant efforts to build termination
theory. Many studies tried to define and build on this theory, as well as examine
cases that had applied it. In so doing, they helped to sustain the fledgling research
field and enriched descriptions of termination struggles.
However, because the field was in its infancy, it faced several limitations. First,
the complexity of termination cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial