In itself NEPA adds nothing to the

In itself NEPA adds nothing to the substance of policy; it neither prohibits nor requires particular agency actions toward the environment. Rather, it specifies what agencies must do when making a decision affecting the environment.
Constituent policies also include such matters as personnel practices and budgetary actions. Because they ard concerned wit government organizaton, procedures, and processes, constituent policies can have important substantive consequences. That is, how something is done or who has responsibilry for acting may help determine what is actually done. Governmental procedures can be used here briefly to indicate the importance of constituent policies in thes resect.
Frequently, efforts are made to use procedural issues to delay or prevent adoption of substantive decisions and policies. An agency’s action may be challenged on the grounds that improper procedures were followed, as under APA, when it is really the substance of the action that is being resisted. Some Washington lowyers have become highly skilled in manipulating procedural rules to delay or negate agency action. Thus, because of procedural delays and complictions (most of them produced by the maneuverings of the defendant company), it took the Federal Trade Commission thirteen years to complete a cse compelling the manufacturer to remove the word liver from a product named “Carter’s Little Liver Pills.” (The product has no effect on one’s liver.) If an agency becomes entangled with procedurl reuirements, it may lose the capacity for timely and effective action.
Distributive policies involve allocationg of services or benefits to particular segments of the population—individuals, groups, corporations, and communities. Some distributive policies may provied benefits to one or a few beneficiaries, as in the Chrysler lon guarantee of the late 1970s, which kept the company from bankruptcy, and the subsidies for the operation of American merchant ships. Others may provide benefits for vast numbers of persons, as is true for agricultural income-support programs, tax deductions for home mortgage interest payments, free public school education, and job-training programs.
Distributive policies typically involve using publice funds to assist paricular groups, communitiesm or industries. Those who seed benefits usually do not comete directly with one another, although in some instances they do, as in the selection of the site for the Supercomducting Super Collider, in which there could be only one winner. The SSC was a costly scientific venture, later cancelled, that was supposed to help determine the nature of matter: Nor do their benefits represent a direct cost to any specific group; rather, the corts are assessed to the public treasury, which is to say all taxpayers. Thus distributive policeis appear to create only winners and no speific losers, although obviously somone does pay their financial cost.
The standard example of distributive policy has been rivers and harbors improvement and flood control legislation (water projects), carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers. In recent years it has been surpassed as an example of pork-barrel legislation (or simply “pork”) by transportation legislation. The 1998 surface transportation law, titled the Trasportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, provides for $218 billion in spending over a six-year period. In addition to its general provisions, the act contains authorization for many hundreds of special highway, mass-transit, and bus projects requested by members of Congress from both paties. The cost of these pork projects was estimated to be more than $20 billion. Most states and congressional districts shared in the bacon. In the past several years, pork barrel projects, now known as “earmarks” have exploded in number.
These projects are scattered all around the country and have little connection with one another, which supports Professor Theodore J. Lowi’s contention that distributive policies “are virtually not policies at all but are highly individulized decisions that only by accumulation can be called a policy” Each locality and its supporters seek authorization and funding for their own project without challenging the right of others to do likewise. Most projects consequently have some friends and no enemies in Congress, and pressidents usually leave them alone. President Jimmy Carter upset the apple cart in 1977 when he successfully eliminated some water projects on the grounds that they were wasteful and unnecessary. Many members of Congress were antagonized by this action, either because they favored the targeted projects or resented presidential intervention in an area long under congressional domination. A few of the projects later were restored.
Regulatory policies impose restrictions or limitations on the behavior of individuals and groups. That is, they reduce the freedom or discretion to act of those regulated, whether bankers, utility companies, meat-packers, or saloon-keepers. In this sense they clearly differ from distributive policies, which increase the freedom or discretion of the persons or groups affected.
When we think of regulatory policies, we usually focus on business regulatory policies, such s those pertaining to control of pollution or regulation of transportation industries. Among others, these sorts of policies were the focus of the movement for deregulation. The most extensive variety of regulatory policies, however, is that which deals with criminal behavior against persons and property. What are called social regulatory policies deal with such topics as affirmative action, school prayer, gun control, pornography, and abortion, and involve the regulation of personal behavior.
The formation of regulatory policy usually features conflict between two groups or coalitions of groups, with one side seeking to impose some sort of control on the other side, which customarily resists, arguing either that control is unnecessary of that the wron kind of control is bein proposed. Amid this opposition, regulatory decisions involve clear winners and losers, although the winners susally get less than they initially sought. (When the winners are public-interest groups, they may not gain direct material benefits from policies that, like the Clean Air Act, provide broad social benefits.) It is often difficult, however, to identify all the purposes and consequences of regulatory policies. Regulatory policies take several forms.
Some regulatory policies set forth general rules of behavior, directing that actions be taken of commanding that others not be taken. The Shermam Act in effect tells businesses, “Thou shlt not monopolize or attempt to monopolize or act to restrain trade. “These prohibitions are enforced by actions brought

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

In itself NEPA adds nothing to the substance of policy; it neither prohibits nor requires particular agency actions toward the environment. Rather, it must do when Specifies what Agencies Making a decision affecting the Environment.
Constituent Policies also include Matters such as Personnel Practices and Actions budget. Because they ard concerned wit government organizaton, procedures, and processes, constituent policies can have important substantive consequences. That is, how something is done or who has responsibilry for acting may help determine what is actually done. Governmental procedures Can be used here briefly to indicate the importance of constituent Policies in thes resect.
Frequently, efforts are Made to use procedural issues to Delay or Prevent Adoption of Policies and substantive decisions. An agency's action may be challenged on the grounds that improper procedures were followed, as under APA, when it is really the substance of the action that is being resisted. Some Washington lowyers have become highly skilled in manipulating procedural rules to delay or negate agency action. Thus, because of procedural delays and complictions (most of them produced by the maneuverings of the defendant company), it took the Federal Trade Commission thirteen years to complete a cse compelling the manufacturer to remove the word liver from a product named "Carter's Little Liver. Pills. "(The product has no Effect on one's liver.) If an Agency becomes entangled with Procedurl Reuirements, it May Lose the capacity for timely and effective Action.
Distributive Policies involve Allocationg of Services or Benefits to particular segments of the population-individuals. , groups, corporations, and communities. Some distributive policies may provied benefits to one or a few beneficiaries, as in the Chrysler lon guarantee of the late 1970s, which kept the company from bankruptcy, and the subsidies for the operation of American merchant ships. Others May provide Benefits for vast Numbers of persons, as is true for Agricultural income-Support programs, Tax deductions for Home mortgage interest Payments, free Public school Education, and job-Training programs.
Distributive Policies typically involve using Publice Funds to Assist paricular groups. , communitiesm or industries. Those who seed benefits usually do not comete directly with one another, although in some instances they do, as in the selection of the site for the Supercomducting Super Collider, in which there could be only one winner. The SSC was a costly scientific venture, later cancelled, that was supposed to help determine the nature of matter: Nor do their benefits represent a direct cost to any specific group; rather, the corts are assessed to the public treasury, which is to say all taxpayers. Thus Distributive Policeis appear to create only Winners and no Speific losers, Although obviously somone does pay their Financial cost.
The standard example of Distributive Policy has been rivers and harbors Improvement and Flood Control legislation (Water Projects), carried out by the Army Corps of. Engineers. In recent years it has been surpassed as an example of pork-barrel legislation (or simply "pork") by transportation legislation. The 1998 surface transportation law, titled the Trasportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, provides for $ 218 billion in spending over a six-year period. In addition to its general provisions, the act contains authorization for many hundreds of special highway, mass-transit, and bus projects requested by members of Congress from both paties. The cost of these pork projects was estimated to be more than $ 20 billion. Most states and congressional districts shared in the bacon. In the Past several years, Pork Barrel Projects, now Known as "earmarks" have exploded in Number.
These Projects are scattered all Around the Country and have Little Connection with one another, which SUPPORTS Professor Theodore J. Lowi's contention that Distributive Policies "are. virtually not policies at all but are highly individulized decisions that only by accumulation can be called a policy "Each locality and its supporters seek authorization and funding for their own project without challenging the right of others to do likewise. Most projects consequently have some friends and no enemies in Congress, and pressidents usually leave them alone. President Jimmy Carter upset the apple cart in 1977 when he successfully eliminated some water projects on the grounds that they were wasteful and unnecessary. Many members of Congress were antagonized by this action, either because they favored the targeted projects or resented presidential intervention in an area long under congressional domination. A few of the Projects were later Restored.
Regulatory Policies Impose restrictions or limitations on the behavior of individuals and groups. That is, they reduce the freedom or discretion to act of those regulated, whether bankers, utility companies, meat-packers, or saloon-keepers. In this Sense they Clearly differ from Distributive Policies, which increase the Freedom or discretion of the persons or groups affected.
When we Think of regulatory Policies, we usually Focus on business regulatory Policies, such s those Pertaining to Control of Pollution or Regulation of Transportation. industries. Among others, these sorts of policies were the focus of the movement for deregulation. The most extensive variety of regulatory policies, however, is that which deals with criminal behavior against persons and property. What are Called social regulatory Policies Deal with such Topics as affirmative Action, school Prayer, Gun Control, Pornography, and abortion, and involve the Regulation of Personal behavior.
The Formation of regulatory Policy usually features Conflict between Two groups or coalitions of groups, with. one side seeking to impose some sort of control on the other side, which customarily resists, arguing either that control is unnecessary of that the wron kind of control is bein proposed. Amid this opposition, regulatory decisions involve clear winners and losers, although the winners susally get less than they initially sought. (When the winners are public-interest groups, they may not gain direct material benefits from policies that, like the Clean Air Act, provide broad social benefits.) It is often difficult, however, to identify all the purposes and consequences of regulatory policies. . Policies take several regulatory Forms.
Some regulatory Policies SET forth general Rules of behavior, directing Actions that be taken of commanding that others not be taken. The Shermam Act in effect tells businesses, "Thou shlt not monopolize or attempt to monopolize or act to restrain trade. "These prohibitions are enforced by actions brought.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 3:

In itself NEPA adds nothing to the substance of policy; it neither prohibits nor requires particular agency actions toward. The environment. Rather it specifies, what agencies must do when making a decision affecting the environment.
Constituent. Policies also include such matters as personnel practices and budgetary actions. Because they ard concerned wit government. ,, organizaton proceduresAnd processes constituent policies, can have important substantive consequences. That is how something, is done or who. Has responsibilry for acting may help determine what is actually done. Governmental procedures can be used here briefly. To indicate the importance of constituent policies in thes resect.
, FrequentlyEfforts are made to use procedural issues to delay or prevent adoption of substantive decisions and policies. An agency s. ' Action may be challenged on the grounds that improper procedures were followed as under, APA when it, is really the substance. Of the action that is being resisted.Some Washington lowyers have become highly skilled in manipulating procedural rules to delay or negate agency action, Thus,. Because of procedural delays and complictions (most of them produced by the maneuverings of the defendant company),It took the Federal Trade Commission thirteen years to complete a CSE compelling the manufacturer to remove the word liver. From a product named "Carter 's Little Liver Pills." (The product has no effect on one' s liver.) If an agency becomes entangled. With, procedurl reuirements it may lose the capacity for timely and effective action.
.Distributive policies involve allocationg of services or benefits to particular segments of the population -, individuals. ,, groups corporations and communities. Some distributive policies may provied benefits to one or a, few beneficiaries as. In the Chrysler lon guarantee of the late 1970s which kept, the company, from bankruptcy and the subsidies for the operation. Of American merchant ships.Others may provide benefits for vast numbers of persons as is, true for agricultural income-support programs tax deductions,, For home mortgage interest payments free public, school education and job-training, programs.
Distributive policies typically. Involve using publice funds to assist paricular groups communitiesm or, industries.Those who seed benefits usually do not comete directly with one another although in, some instances, they do as in the. Selection of the site for the Supercomducting Super Collider in which, there could be only one winner. The SSC was a costly. Scientific venture later, was, cancelled that supposed to help determine the nature of matter:Nor do their benefits represent a direct cost to any specific group; rather the Corts, are assessed to the, public treasury. Which is to say all taxpayers. Thus distributive policeis appear to create only winners and no, speific losers although. Obviously somone does pay their financial cost.
.