Intergovernmental Relations And Ocean Policy Change: 1971-85
Case Study Review of
Intergovernmental Relations and Ocean Policy Change: 1971-85
Changes in policy can be affected by influential people, private groups , and political interests to say the least. This case study, in my opinion, is an example of how political interests can and does dictate change or stagnation for the purpose of profit and corporate growth. Ocean dumping affects all of us but it is easy to profit from it with the right connection and political power. In summary, the previously stated case study contemplates the policy changes and its influence from political interests from the 1970’s to the mid 80’s. I will attempt to summarize, identify key issues, and choose a side on ocean dumping. In the early 1970’s President Nixon announced his administration’s opinion that America …show more content…
should take a stand on un-regulated ocean dumping. Immediately after this National Address the EPA, which the sitting Administration appoints its leaders, fully supported this notion and spearheaded a bill which soon after in 1972 the Congress passed as the MPRSA Act. (Stewart, Hedge Jr., &Lester. 2008. p.154). This new bill imposed the strictest guidelines in history and appeared to be headed towards complete termination of ocean dumping. Along with this new policy came a permit system designed to ban dredged spoils and limit all other materials. By October 1973, the EPA imposed it final recommendations to end all dumping regardless of justifications by corporations that it wouldn’t harm marine life. The EPA took a stand tp be the first to protect the oceans. Later in 1980, the city of New York applied for permit to dump sewage sludge and was rejected by the EPA. New York City filed suit in Federal Court, which is in New York City, and Case Study 3 boldly blocked the EPA’s mandate to limit dumping. While waiting for the lawsuit to finalize in 1981, A new Administration was appointed which did not think the issue was of importance. This meant that the protection and policy that one President and Administration tried to invoke for the oceans suddenly was changed because of political interests and a new administration. Because of the City of New York Vs.
EPA big government was exposed as the EPA changed its environmental policy of clean oceans to sometimes clean oceans. The study least a few factors that affected this change:
Environmental awareness was on the rise as data came in suggesting change.
“Fundamental socio-cultural attitudes” were changing due to the oil prices and energy prices affecting the American dollar and every household.
The Election of the Reagan Administration and the non-importance of environmental issue with regards to corporate profit.
I believe this is a great example of how big business and government influence policy change. Bias on “Policy Analysis” is certainly present in this case. Under Nixon, the EPA (I’m shocked ) was in full support of creating policy that would be the first in the world. It also shows how two Democratic Presidents upheld those policies just to be tossed out by a Republican Administration intent on smaller Government in everyday life.
The key issues to me are:
Government taking a stand for the environment against corporations.
New York waiting to bring this issue out until there was change politically in the White
House. Case Study 4
The use of Government to make policy changes in the midst of national crisis and pick times when the public is occupied with other problems. My stance is against open dumping of any kind into our oceans. I have little faith and hope and am disgusted about the way our political system can be controlled and manipulated by special interest groups, the wealthy, and the powerful. It reminds of the border problem we are having in the Southwest with illegal immigrants. There is lots of talk with regards to this issue but little will be done because small and big business in the manufacturing industry and the like are benefiting from cheaper labor. Politicians talk about how it affects the average American but behind closed doors it benefits the already wealthy. America calls them illegal but accepts there tax revenue without representation.
In summary, I think the case study implied political influence on the EPA in the form of pressure from the Administrations. First in the early 70’s creating policy for environmental protection against dumping in the ocean, and again in the 80’s to undue policy. “The EPA moved from strict, confrontational protection of the oceans toward a more flexible, accommodating posture during the period of 1971-85.” (p.155).
Case Study 5
Reference:
Stewart, J. Jr., Hedge, D. M.,& Lester, J. P. (2008). Public Policy: An Evolutionary Approach (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Intergovernmental Relations and Ocean Policy Change: 1971-85
Changes in policy can be affected by influential people, private groups , and political interests to say the least. This case study, in my opinion, is an example of how political interests can and does dictate change or stagnation for the purpose of profit and corporate growth. Ocean dumping affects all of us but it is easy to profit from it with the right connection and political power. In summary, the previously stated case study contemplates the policy changes and its influence from political interests from the 1970’s to the mid 80’s. I will attempt to summarize, identify key issues, and choose a side on ocean dumping. In the early 1970’s President Nixon announced his administration’s opinion that America …show more content…
should take a stand on un-regulated ocean dumping. Immediately after this National Address the EPA, which the sitting Administration appoints its leaders, fully supported this notion and spearheaded a bill which soon after in 1972 the Congress passed as the MPRSA Act. (Stewart, Hedge Jr., &Lester. 2008. p.154). This new bill imposed the strictest guidelines in history and appeared to be headed towards complete termination of ocean dumping. Along with this new policy came a permit system designed to ban dredged spoils and limit all other materials. By October 1973, the EPA imposed it final recommendations to end all dumping regardless of justifications by corporations that it wouldn’t harm marine life. The EPA took a stand tp be the first to protect the oceans. Later in 1980, the city of New York applied for permit to dump sewage sludge and was rejected by the EPA. New York City filed suit in Federal Court, which is in New York City, and Case Study 3 boldly blocked the EPA’s mandate to limit dumping. While waiting for the lawsuit to finalize in 1981, A new Administration was appointed which did not think the issue was of importance. This meant that the protection and policy that one President and Administration tried to invoke for the oceans suddenly was changed because of political interests and a new administration. Because of the City of New York Vs.
EPA big government was exposed as the EPA changed its environmental policy of clean oceans to sometimes clean oceans. The study least a few factors that affected this change:
Environmental awareness was on the rise as data came in suggesting change.
“Fundamental socio-cultural attitudes” were changing due to the oil prices and energy prices affecting the American dollar and every household.
The Election of the Reagan Administration and the non-importance of environmental issue with regards to corporate profit.
I believe this is a great example of how big business and government influence policy change. Bias on “Policy Analysis” is certainly present in this case. Under Nixon, the EPA (I’m shocked ) was in full support of creating policy that would be the first in the world. It also shows how two Democratic Presidents upheld those policies just to be tossed out by a Republican Administration intent on smaller Government in everyday life.
The key issues to me are:
Government taking a stand for the environment against corporations.
New York waiting to bring this issue out until there was change politically in the White
House. Case Study 4
The use of Government to make policy changes in the midst of national crisis and pick times when the public is occupied with other problems. My stance is against open dumping of any kind into our oceans. I have little faith and hope and am disgusted about the way our political system can be controlled and manipulated by special interest groups, the wealthy, and the powerful. It reminds of the border problem we are having in the Southwest with illegal immigrants. There is lots of talk with regards to this issue but little will be done because small and big business in the manufacturing industry and the like are benefiting from cheaper labor. Politicians talk about how it affects the average American but behind closed doors it benefits the already wealthy. America calls them illegal but accepts there tax revenue without representation.
In summary, I think the case study implied political influence on the EPA in the form of pressure from the Administrations. First in the early 70’s creating policy for environmental protection against dumping in the ocean, and again in the 80’s to undue policy. “The EPA moved from strict, confrontational protection of the oceans toward a more flexible, accommodating posture during the period of 1971-85.” (p.155).
Case Study 5
Reference:
Stewart, J. Jr., Hedge, D. M.,& Lester, J. P. (2008). Public Policy: An Evolutionary Approach (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Thompson Wadsworth.