Blog

Executive Summary

Budgeting entails enacting predetermined targets into effect, disclosing substantive performance outcomes, and assessing performance against predetermined objectives. A line-item budget is one in which the specific financial statement elements are classified according to category. Similarly, program budgeting is where budget information and decisions are structured according to government objectives for a specific project or program with all expenses and revenues factored. On the other hand, a performance budget represents the fund input and public services production by the government. As observed, fiscal policy is the adoption of government income acquisition and spending to affect a country’s economy. Each government must regularly determine how much it needs to spend, what it needs to spend on, and how to fund its spending through fiscal policy, with the budget as the key fiscal policy instrument. Markedly, the budgetary process has long been seen by political scientists as the richest source of evidence on topics such as what is responsible for the success or failure of governmental programs? Who makes the decisions on our country’s priorities? Persons, institutions, associations, and groups of citizens who have direct or indirect involvement in the budgeting process at any or all levels of the governance system and activities are referred to as stakeholders. With limited resources and a rising understanding of government corruption and inefficiency, there was a corresponding need to strengthen the government’s fiscal governance domestically. Although each year and each jurisdiction has its own specific political and cultural context, budgeting is fundamentally a universal and essential practice.

Impact of Structural and Procedural Changes of Public Budgeting Reforms

A budget is a financial plan that indicates how resources will be obtained, distributed, and used for a given period in terms of revenue and expenditure (Heinle et al., 2014). Budgeting entails enacting predetermined targets into effect, disclosing substantive performance outcomes, and assessing performance against predetermined objectives.

Impact of Line Item Budgeting on the budgetary process

A line-item budget is when the specific financial statement elements are classified according to category (Ibrahim, 2013). The relation between the financial data for the prior accounting or budgeting cycles and the projected data for the present or future periods is shown. The line-item format allows allocating funds for personnel, equipment, materials, services, and other required items associated with individual accounts and compares budgeted sums to actual expenditures.

The line-item budgeting system is essentially an expenditure-control method (Sandalgaard & Bukh, 2014). Since this technique originated as a response to corruption and not an interest in government effectiveness, the technique is considered to be a device for management control. An allocation of resources is made to a department, office, or subdivisions of a department or office. As mentioned above, this strategy focuses on managing spending and sufficient expenditure of resources, so it only views the organizational system’s input without much interest in the production or work done as funds resources are distributed based on departmental structure lines and spending line-item categories.

Notably, the operations that make up the historical pool or line elements are not only necessary for the entity’s current vision but must be maintained over the forthcoming budget period (Sandalgaard & Bukh, 2014). This strategy also implies that current operations are being carried out economically and optimally and will continue to be cost-effective in the coming fiscal year.

Effect of Program Budgeting on the budgetary process

Program budgeting is where budget information and decisions are structured according to government objectives for a specific project or program with all expenses and revenues factored (Ibrahim, 2013). In practice, the budgeting approach varies from conventional budgeting, emphasizing the program’s successful attainment rather than reducing costs. The program-based budgeting will result from the program’s goals. In a community project, a community initiative or event will measure the program’s services’ productive output. As a consequence, a consistent description of the program goals would be crucial to its assessment.

With regards to the use of the word program budget, there is a great deal of uncertainty. Some writers differentiate between the terms budget and program budget performance since the Hoover Commission first used the term performance budget in 1949. The Hoover Commission Task Force later used the term program budget (Ibrahim, 2013). Budget officials and economists consider program budgeting predominantly as a mechanism that optimizes resource distribution decisions. Simultaneously, public administration or accounting-oriented leaders and scholars view it specifically as a vehicle for making public sector performance management functionality.

Effect of Performance Budgeting on the budgetary process

A performance budget represents the fund input and public services production by the government (Kelly, 2015). The aim is to define and rate relative performance for defined outcomes based on target achievement. Government entities use this form of a budget to display the correlation between taxpayer’s money and the results of services rendered by federal, state, or local governments. It is a budgetary approach focused on the government’s tasks and activities in executing its policies. It was established because the line item budget method contained little details about program priorities or achievements and was ineffective for comparing expenses to public achievements or making resource distribution decisions (Ibrahim, 2013). Reformers believed that by using this budgeting method, program administrators, department leaders, elected officials, and residents would assess government operations costs.

Effect of Economic, Political, and Social Restraints on the Budgetary Process

Impact of the Fiscal Policies

The word public policy may refer to government-created and implemented policies to achieve particular objectives (Natchez & Bupp, 1973). Fiscal policy is the adoption of government income acquisition and spending to affect a country’s economy. To obtain a proper perspective on the various facets of budgeting, an understanding of fiscal policy is essential. Budgeting strategies and processes are being tweaked to meet the changing needs of fiscal policy. To fund its budget, every government levies taxes. Each government must regularly determine how much it needs to spend, what it needs to spend on, and how to fund its spending through fiscal policy, with the budget as the key fiscal policy instrument (Sandalgaard & Bukh, 2014). An expansionary fiscal strategy raises the federal budget deficit or decreases the surplus because it increases government expenditures or reduces revenues (Natchez & Bupp, 1973). A contractionary strategy would lower the deficit or raise the surplus.

Impact of the Political Factors

It can be explained by rational choice theory, which adopts microeconomic theory principles to analyze and explain political behavior (Gibran and Sekwat, 2009). Voters and political parties serve as objective decision-makers who are seeking to optimize their preferences to be achieved. Parties devised proposals that would earn them the most votes, and voters wanted to realize as much of their desires as possible by government intervention. Policymakers are obliged to define all of the current value preferences of a community using cost-benefit analysis. They then give each value a relative weight, resulting in discovering all possible policies for achieving these values (Natchez & Bupp, 1973). They can recognize all the costs and consequences of each alternative policy and choose the best alternative, which is also the most effective in terms of costs and benefits.

As the twentieth century began, American policymakers were shocked to see the federal government’s activities and expenses increase. With limited resources and a rising understanding of government corruption and inefficiency, there was a corresponding need to strengthen its fiscal governance (Ibrahim, 2013). Policymakers agreed that while government finances had to be put on a balanced perspective, there were very few technological resources and government management institutions. These concerns triggered a concerted effort to build public financial management resources on a more solid footing. Based on the normative budgetary theory, practical advice reformers issued budgeting and accounting reforms promoted by a government theory and how budgeting relates to the state.

The empirical and administrative leadership movements influenced the political and ideological powers contributing to the 1921 Budgeting and Accounting Act (Ibrahim, 2013). The method of budgeting that emerged from the Act centered on regulation and was instrumental. The line-item budget divided government spending into individual items, giving the government the best chance of reducing expenses and increasing productivity.

Markedly, the budgetary process has long been seen by political scientists as the richest source of evidence on topics such as what is responsible for the success or failure of governmental programs? Who makes the decisions on our country’s priorities? (Sandalgaard & Bukh, 2014). The presumption has been that the budgetary process represents the priorities and conflicts contributing to specific projects being prioritized over others.

Impact of Major Impacts of Stakeholders

Persons, institutions, associations, and groups of citizens who have direct or indirect involvement in the budgeting process at any or all levels of the governance system and activities are referred to as stakeholders.

Impact of Internal Stakeholders

Internal stakeholders have a vested interest in the organization’s performance. They include employees, associations, suppliers, regulatory authorities, owners, community members, and those who depend on or represent the organization (Heinle et al., 2014).  Approval of the Budget and its execution is needed if the budget is a constraint. At the community level, members will let everyone know about the mechanism involved and what compromises were made in the final budget. It is essential to recognize that people and teams behave disparately in diverse conditions.

The effect stakeholders can have on agency policy, plan of action, and programs rely on their connection to either the agency or the matter of concern. According to Heinle et al. (2014) managers should recognize and earnestly observe all rightful stakeholders’ issues and should treat their concerns suitably into consideration during resolution.

Impact of External Stakeholders

In government organizations, the main external stakeholder is the general public, other stakeholders being suppliers and civil society and interest groups, and other government agencies (Heinle et al., 2014). In several cases, participation in the budget process has been considered one of the fundamental rights at the heart of democratic governance and human development. Policy networks, civic involvement or group engagement projects, and stakeholder engagement efforts are some of the main engagement approaches used by public organizations.

These budgets reflect financial strategies that determine how public resources will be used to achieve policy objectives. To understand the budget process at the regional and local levels, a basic understanding of the processes and timelines for preparing the budget at the federal level is necessary. Similarly, the number of stakeholder participants and the degree to which stakeholders take advantage of opportunities to engage in governance processes influence the budgeting process regarding accountability, transparency, sustainability, and service delivery (Heinle et al., 2014). Accountability mechanisms are necessary to check that governments are meeting their obligations, with one such mechanism being budget transparency.

Analysis of the function of Public Budgeting in Managing Public Sector Organizations Applying Historical and Theoretical Assumptions and Their Impact Domestically and Internationally

Domestically

We need a budgeting hypothesis that will help us clarify government budgeting’s reality to understand how, where, and why governments budget before comprehending what public budgeting is. As the twentieth century began, American policymakers were shocked to see the federal government’s activities and expenses proliferate (Caiden, 1994). With limited resources and a rising understanding of government corruption and inefficiency, there was a corresponding need to strengthen the government’s fiscal governance. Policymakers agreed that while government finances had to be put on a balanced perspective. Based on the normative budgetary theory, practical advice reformers issued budgeting and accounting reforms promoted by a government approach and how budgeting relates to the state.

Over time, perspectives on the need for a public budget have differed. Before the twentieth century, the primary motivation for early budget implementation was regulating government expenditure and taxation (Caiden, 1994). Many economists have regarded the public budget as a statutory governmental tool and as a tool for political, monetary, accounting, and control reasons in the public sector. The budget has since been analyzed from the perspective of a range of disciplines.

Markedly, these concerns triggered a concerted effort to build resources for putting public financial management on a more solid footing. During this era, theorists started to concentrate on administrative rationality to approach the public management task. It resulted in the Budgeting and Accounting Act of 1921, which established a robust and centralized executive management style (Caiden, 1994). As a result, the budgeting system that followed was mainly concerned with regulation and was instrumental. For instance, the line-item budget broke down government spending into individual items that seemed to give the government the best chance of reducing expenses and increasing efficiency. Markedly, centralized, top-down management was required for fiscal discipline, so the line item budget was established as an executive or top-down budgeting tool.

The positivist trend in public administration and budgeting theory contributed to the belief that the administration’s goal should be efficiency (Caiden, 1994). It became clear that the line item budget approach generated no information about program priorities or success. It was insufficient to link expenses to public successes that allowed performance budgeting to be adopted. This budgeting strategy is focused on the roles and tasks that the government conducts to carry out its policies. It was built on the premise that the government needed to keep costs under control to raise operational efficiency.

Performance budgeting maintained the theory’s emphasis on meeting these goals while paying very little attention to the larger framework in which budgeting occurs (Ibrahim, 2013). It also eliminated the habits associated with budgeting from consideration. The national government reinstated program budgeting in place of performance budgeting. The idea that budgetary resolutions should be focused on governmental operations’ priorities or outcomes relative to the contributions to government products’ development was based on this new budgeting approach.

Internationally

Although each year and each jurisdiction has its own specific political and cultural context, budgeting is fundamentally a universal and essential practice (Ibrahim, 2013). Budgeting is part of a broader research agenda as a viable science of human behavior, which essentially allows for predicting outcomes and the comparative study of government policy in various areas of the world. Markedly, theory validation involves research in multiple contexts of hypotheses. Making comparisons, building classifications, and accounting for similarities and variations in drawing a universal hypothesis regarding budgetary actions are all part of understanding the range of budgetary behavior.

Any shortcomings in public budget theory can be traced back to its inability to describe public budgeting theory’s principles and structures in a straightforward and structured way (Rubin, 1990). Through maintaining the conventional concern regarding organizational role and structure, modern structuralists tried to bridge the gulf between structure and behavior. At the same time, they acknowledged that organizations are highly diverse and that structure is not always associated with formal bureaucracy.

In a cross-comparison between the budgeting behaviors between different countries, both the rich and the poor, the generally structured budgeting routines seemed similar to incrementalism. The practice of incrementalism involves basing this year’s budget on the previous years and adding a percentage rise. The numerous economic and social contexts, however, changed how decisions were taken. For instance, developing countries’ budget systems were marked by disjointed budgets generated during the year. Similarly, the budget cycle deteriorated into a vicious circle when one group of participants routinely tried to pass on its vulnerabilities to another to the whole’s disadvantage (Rubin, 1990). The interplay of two factors, poverty and instability, which were sufficiently strong to overwhelm politics and governance issues, seemed to have a critical effect on budgetary decision-making.

The above trends can be supported by the descriptive theory of budgeting, which entails close observations on participation in public sector activities (Gibran and Sekwat, 2009). As a result of this, trends, the sequence of events, and inferences of causes are with local variations and uniformities across cases being paid attention. However, it is essential to note that the connection between budget hypothesis and practice has been diverse depending on the type of theory being reviewed. According to the normative theory, the budget approach has been generally successful than imagined setting attractive goals that guide behavior (Rubin, 1990). However, from a descriptive theory perspective, the budget theory has been weak and unable to theorize phenomena’ meaning.

References

Anyebe, A. A. (2018). An overview of approaches to the study of public policy. e-Bangi, 15(1).

Caiden, N. (1994). Budgeting in Historical and Comparative Perspective. Public Budgeting & Finance, 14(1), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5850.00997

Gibran, J.M. and Sekwat, A. (2009), Continuing the Search for A Theory of Public Budgeting.  Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 617-644. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-21-04-2009-B005

Heinle, M. S., Ross, N., & Saouma, R. E. (2014). A theory of participative budgeting. The Accounting Review, 89(3), 1025-1050.

Ibrahim, M. (2013). Comparative Budgetary Approaches in Public Organizations. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(15), 88-98.

Kelly, J. M. (2015). Performance budgeting for state and local government. Me Sharpe.

Natchez, P., & Bupp, I. (1973). Policy and Priority in the Budgetary Process. The American Political Science Review, 67(3), 951-963. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958637

Rubin, I. S. (1990). Budget Theory and Budget Practice: How Good the Fit?
Public Administration Review, v50 n2 p179-89

Sandalgaard, N., & Bukh, P. N. (2014). Beyond Budgeting and Change: a case study. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change.

PART I: Literature Review

This literature review aims to evaluate contemporary literature on Islamophobia in the US to discover whether the Patriot Act has contributed to the rise of Islamophobia culture in the US post 9/11. Notably, modern literature was reviewed through the lens of media representation, law enforcement, and racial profiling.  Several authors have studied the impact of the Patriotic Act on the Islamophobia culture in the US after the 9/11 events.

Postpositivism School of Thought

The aim of the study by Bukhari et al. (2019) was to examine the mechanism by which Western nations, including the US and their non-Muslim partners, propagate Islamophobia. Social constructivism theory was used to describe and process data (Bukhari et al., 2019). The research employed trivial data in written research papers, media articles, discussion papers, and speeches by prominent world leaders to create a case demonstrating how anti-Muslim feelings, bigotry, and hostility against Muslims were propagated in the West following 9/11.

Bukhari et al. (2019) observed that Islamophobia originated during the crusades when Christianity confronted Islam. Following the World Trade Center assault, the West twisted the idea and socialized its citizens about the fear and danger posed by Islam, which does not exist because radical Islam or a small number of non-practicing Muslims are not reflective of entire Muslim states (Bukhari et al. 2019; Aziz, 2011). As a result, America has developed the appearance of a police state, with government surveillance extending into almost every area of life.

Mir and Sarroub (2019) undertook an investigation of Islamophobia in US education. They reviewed news media outlets between 2015 and 2017 regarding Islamophobia and schools and discovered fifty-five documented cases of Islamophobia in the US and sixty-one cases in North America. They observed that media outlets had fueled general hatred, mistrust, and hostility against Muslims.

Similarly, Hamdan (2019) undertook a study to examine public dialogue on Islamic extremism in support of government control, discriminatory immigration protocols, and other deprivations of the US citizens’ statutory rights. The study evaluated culture conflicts, threatened legal protections, and Islamophobia conceptual rhetorical frameworks through the lens of Lakoff, Lyotard, and Said’s postmodern theories. Hamdan (2019) states that in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, politicians and broadcast experts used Islamophobia as a panic tool to validate public strategy creation. The article’s results indicated that supporters of the USA Patriot Act framed the debate around a Clash of Civilizations, pitting Western democracy advocates against extreme Muslim fanatics in campaigns for social reform.

Bazian (2018) acknowledges that Islamophobia arises from the conceptual forces of the Clash of Civilizations, not simply as a result of media stereotyping, representation, and overemphasis on the Muslim issue. It is perpetrated by the state’s institutions and apparatus, the right-wing, which includes the anti-jihad group, the opinionated movement, the universal Zionism campaign, and various progressive factions such as the left-wing and the new heathen activism.

Beydoun (2017) asserts that the rising Islamophobia is based on politics encouraged by deeply entrenched statutory and governmental frameworks in the US constitutional, media, and governmental structures.  These structures fabricate Islam as un-democratic and Muslims as assumptive national safety risks. Second, it is facilitated by the extension of current legislation and strategy, which labels Islam as an authoritarian belief capable of extremism (Beydoun, 2017). Therefore, Esposito and Kalin (2011) are correct to observe that Islamophobia did not emerge overnight in the aftermath of 9/11. In several cases, 9/11’s trauma aided in bringing the issue to light.

The issue transcends 9/11 and the United States. Following the 9/11 events, US President Bush’s government chose to play the Islam card, focusing subsequent election efforts on a war on terror (Esposito & Kalin, 2011).  Bush was always associating the Muslim world with terrorism and portraying it as a danger to the national safety of the American people.

According to Hassan (2017), Islamophobia is a well-documented characteristic of the Trump Administration. Trump expressed a national security issue through this Islamophobic lens, operationalizing a clash of civilizations rhetoric. Domestically, this manifested itself in ambiguous signs of creating a Muslim registry alongside unequivocal demands for a complete closure of Muslim immigration to the US. Trump sought to actualize these fears while in office by actively securitizing Islam (Hassan, 2017). Under the guise of Statutory Order 13769, safeguarding the country from overseas Terrorist Entry into the US, the Trump government attempted to impose a three-month travel embargo on citizens of seven Muslim-dominated nations.

Notably, digital scrutiny became a policy pillar of the local counterterrorism policy after 9/11 and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) development. The country’s Patriot Act sidestepped the Fourth Amendment in the interest of national security to promote the Bush government’s unparalleled inspection and religious characterization schemes (Beydoun, 2017). It did so by significantly limiting Muslim Americans’ First and Fourth Amendment protections. Surveilling Muslim targets and facilities such as mosques or neighborhood centers was an appropriate ancillary cost for the state to achieve specified national security objectives.

The majority of this group of authors belong to the far-right wing because their work more or less defends the American community from idealistic reforms or projects the idea of getting rid of previous reforms (Claassen et al., 2015).

Transformative School of Thought

Diamond (2007) explores the increasing fear and bigotry directed at Islam and Muslims in the US today. The paper focused primarily on the role that the mass media in the United States has played in either rising or decreasing Islamophobia among the American public in the post-9/11 era. The study drew data from political science publications, dispute resolution, international relations, psychology, anthropology, and personal interviews. Following 9/11, the mass media in the United States has continued to contribute to the growth of Islamophobia (Diamond, 2007). While it is unknown the medium has the most significant influence on the development and dissemination of derogatory perceptions about Muslims, Arabs, and the Islamic faith, it is clear that the mass media has a substantial impact on projecting and covering particular images and stories.

According to Beydoun (2016), nearly bisection of the Muslim US population is trapped amidst deprivation and Islamophobia. It is an intersection that exposes impoverished Muslim Americans to poverty-related struggles, the dangers posed by private and community Islamophobia, and the aggravated damage caused when the two collide. Poverty and Islamophobia do not exist in different rooms but rather coexist to wreak havoc in America’s most impoverished neighborhoods.

In a further analysis of Islamophobia, Istriyani (2016) observes that Islamophobia can be seen from two distinct perspectives: sociological and psychological, concerning the role of media. The media became the focus of analysis due to its dichotomous nature. The media can become the catalyst for the emergence of Islamophobia manifestation (latent duty). Contrary, the media is an information agent that serves as a conduit for education and social change (manifest functions) (Istriyani, 2016). Thus, the media may serve as a tool or tactic for overcoming Islamophobia by bringing together government, Islamic organizations, and higher education institutions.

Moreover, a growing number of Muslim people are displaced and seek refuge in the United States and elsewhere due to ongoing wars and conflicts in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and North Africa. It is all the more critical to dismantling persistent anti-Muslim sentiment, intervention, practice, and policy to introduce domestic and international solutions (Mir & Sarroub, 2019). Notably, education for all as a policy can keep operating in the United States only if democratic values governing education and human wellbeing are enacted, endorsed, and applied daily and across political and ideological divides.

Choudhury (2015) notes that, while right-wing Islamophobia is more visible and destructive, and progressives often criticize the conservative faction for their excessive discrimination, reformists engage in their forms of anti-Muslim bigotry that share fundamental roots. According to Choudhury (2015), becoming a Muslim in the new millennium means confronting multiple angles of individuality through imperialism, neocolonialism, and ethnicity, gender, and religious dissertation. She noted that Islamophobia portrays all Muslims’ input to the globe as a glorified classical history in sharp divergence to the current state of chaos.

The article by Akbar (2015) discusses the federal administration’s attempts to engage with US Muslim populations as a section of a broader framework for policing militancy and countering violent extremism (CVE). While the federal authority portrays society involvement as a gentler option to policing, the truth is much more coercive (Akbar, 2015). Community participation activities are staged against the backdrop of radicalization dialogue, counter-radicalization efforts, and CVE services.

According to Claassen et al. (2015), this group of authors can be categorized as liberals who want to keep things as they are and be free to change policies as and when due.

Pragmatism School of Thought

According to Samari (2016), Islamophobia’s recent growth necessitates a public health viewpoint that considers the designated nature of US Americans and the wellbeing consequences of Islamophobic prejudice. Samari (2016), using a context of reproach, bigotry, and wellbeing, extends the conversation about the advancement of Islamophobia to include an exchange of how Islamophobia impacts the wellbeing of US Americans.

Islamophobia can have a detrimental effect on wellbeing by disorganizing multiple structures, including particular systems via stress responsiveness and identity cover-up and relational systems via social connectedness and socialization. Similarly, organizational strategies and media consideration impact structural processes (Samari (2016). Islamophobia is deserving of thinking as a cause of adverse health effects and inequalities in health. Future public health studies should examine the multifaceted connections between Islamophobia and population health.

The study by Dauda (2020) discusses the patterns, triggers, consequences, and solutions of Islamophobia and religious bigotry on global peace and peaceful coexistence. It is based on content analysis of secondary data sources. Among the proposed remedies is the immediate need for religious leaders and adherents to change their attitudes (Dauda 2020). Global interfaith dialogue should be considered urgently, in which lingering problems concerning religion and the crises connected with it’ will be thoroughly addressed and significantly resolved.

Additionally, the United Nations and its Human Rights Council must be strengthened (Dauda 2020). Similarly, the media companies must be held accountable for normalizing Islamophobia, encouraging religious bigotry, and spreading false narratives about Islam and Muslims. The government must categorically condemn Islamophobia and religious intolerance.

According to Mir and Sarroub (2019), numerous student groups face prejudice, marginalization, and the genuine fear of being singled out as possible security threats. Young Muslim people in the United States of America who are still in school are often seen as a national security danger.  Esposito and Kalin (2011) view education as vital in our colleges, universities, and seminaries (not just madrasas), as well as in our churches and synagogues, as it trains the next generation of policymakers, religious leaders, educators, and citizens.

In 2011, the Obama Administration launched a Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiative to address the root causes of domestic and international terrorism (Aziz, 2017). However, the Trump Administration announced in January 2017 that it would rename the program “Countering Islamic Extremism.” It reflects his administration’s plan to focus solely on massacres perpetrated by persons alleging to be Muslim while ignoring destruction perpetrated by others, such as white chauvinists (Aziz, 2017). Trump’s behavior merely confirmed what program opponents have been claiming all along. These CVE initiatives are inherently flawed for three reasons: ineffective, wasteful, and a waste of public funds.

Gould (2020) considers the unintended implications of current demands in the UK Parliament for a government-backed concept of Islamophobia. She claims that in conjunction with other attempts to control hate speech, the formulation and application of a government-sponsored term would result in unintended consequences for the Muslim community.

This group of authors can be categorized as leftists. They want to reform how power and wealth are distributed in society (Claassen et al., 2015). The majority have socialists and communist ideas of reforms through social economic and democratic means.

Conclusion of the Literature Review

Several significant points emerge from this literature review. The recent years has been a change in the essence of political commentaries in the United States about the Middle East and Islam. The pragmatism school of thought is selected because it details the right track towards solving policy implications of system-based Islamophobia. It ranges from those who avoided the cultural clash description and its Islamophobic ramifications. In the other schools of thought, government officials used fear of the Islamic rebel to garner popular support for their strategic agendas. Such constructs were transmissible in that they were centered on subjectively permeated rhetoric and hollow metaphors rather than on any relation to rational threats or detailed depictions of Islam.

PART II: Research Methodology

This research aims to understand if there is a link between the patriot act and the rise of Islamophobia post 9/11 attack. The study also purposes to link negative media representation, biased law enforcement, and a rise in racial profiling to Islamophobia witnessed post 9/11 attacks. The study will adopt a qualitative approach to evaluate US political rhetoric about Islam and Muslims in the post-9/11 era. Qualitative methods are most effective when the study objective represents the topic in a particular context instead of the universal or abstract generalizations that arise from quantitative statistical analysis.

Research Design

This research will employ a grounded theory research design, a formal methodology in the social sciences for developing theories through systematic data collection and analysis (Creswell, 2014). Unlike the scientific method’s hypothetical-deductive model, this method will employ inductive reasoning. Research using this approach is likely, to begin with, a query or even the collection of qualitative data (Creswell, 2014). As researchers study the concepts, recurring ideas, data collected, or items that have been derived from the data set become apparent and are coded. As more data is collected and analyzed, codes can be grouped into concepts and then classified.

. Notably, the narrative analysis approach will be used as well. This approach entails recreating the information provided by respondents by taking into account the context of each case and the unique circumstances surrounding each respondent (Creswell, 2014). The research will be carried out by using coding, which can be described as the grouping of data. 

Data Collection

This study draws on primary and secondary sources such as interviews, observation, published research documents, news stories, conference papers, and comments by prominent world leaders (Creswell, 2014). Interviews will be conducted in an informal and structured manner. As part of my study, I will use an organized Skype interview with a political analyst. The interview will be taped and then transcribed, allowing the researcher to take notes while the interview continues uninterrupted. Moreover, it makes all data available for later study.

Data Analysis

This study will employ discourse analysis as it will aid in examining all forms of written text. Discourse examination is a type of study that concentrates on the connection between written or oral language and its social connotation (Creswell, 2014). It aims to gain an awareness of how language is used in everyday situations. A researcher’s investigative and critical thinking skills are essential in the analysis of information.

                                                                     References

Akbar, A. (2015). National Security’s Broken Windows. UCLA L. Rev., 62, 833 http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Akbar-final-article-5.29.15.pdf

Akbar, A. (2013). Policing Radicalization. UC Irvine L. Rev., 3, 809. https://www.ispu.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Policing_Radicalization.pdf

Aziz, S. F. (2017). Losing the War of Ideas: A Critique of Countering Violent Extremism Programs. Tex. Int’l LJ, 52, 255.https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/discovery/delivery?vid=01RUT_INST:ResearchRepository&repId=12643404870004646#13643520480004646

Aziz, S. F. (2011). Caught in a preventive dragnet: Selective counterterrorism in a post 9/11 America. Gonz. L. Rev., 47, 429

https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/discovery/delivery?vid=01RUT_INST:ResearchRepository&repId=12643394960004646#13643493140004646

Bazian, H. (2018). Islamophobia, “Clash of Civilizations”, and Forging a Post-Cold War Order!. Religions, 9(9), 282.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d4e1/99b6fd27fef1532bb576c2e354fcb512d93c.pdf

Beydoun, K. A. (2017). Muslim Bans and the Re-Making of Political Islamophobia. Immigr. & Nat’lity L. Rev., 38, 37.

https://www.illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Beydoun.pdf

Beydoun, K. A. (2016). Between Indigence, Islamophobia, and Erasure: Poor and Muslim in War on Terror America. Calif. L. Rev., 104, 1463. http://www.californialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/3-Beydoun.pdf

Bukhari, S. A. U. Z. H., Khan, H., Ali, T., & Ali, H. (2019). Islamophobia in the West and Post 9/11 Era. International Affairs and Global Strategy, 78, 23-32. https://core.ac.uk/reader/276531566

Claassen, C., Tucker, P., & Smith, S. S. (2015). Ideological labels in America. Political Behavior, 37(2), 253-278.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.

Choudhury, C. A. (2015). Ideology, identity, and law in the production of Islamophobia. Dialectical Anthropology, 39(1), 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-014-9357-y

Diamond, M. M. N. (2007). Islamophobia and the US Media.

https://core.ac.uk/reader/45598220

Dauda, K. O. (2020). Islamophobia and Religious Intolerance: Threats to Global Peace and Harmonious Coexistence. QIJIS (Qudus International Journal of Islamic Studies), 8(2), 257-292. https://journal.iainkudus.ac.id/index.php/QIJIS/article/view/6811/pdf

Esposito, J. L., & Kalin, I. (Eds.). (2011). Islamophobia: The challenge of pluralism in the 21st century. OUP USA.

https://dlscrib.com/queue/islam-phobia-john-espostiso_58c9fa60ee34352a7768e338_pdf?queue_id=5a2237b7e2b6f5fc358c3dad

Gould, R. R. (2020). The limits of liberal inclusivity: how defining Islamophobia normalizes anti-muslim racism. Journal of Law and Religion, 35(2), 250-269.

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2020.20

Hassan, O. (2017). Trump, Islamophobia and US–Middle East relations. Critical Studies on Security, 5(2), 187-191.https://core.ac.uk/reader/84340814

Hamdan, L. (2019). Framing Islamophobia and Civil Liberties: American Political Discourse Post 9/11. https://core.ac.uk/reader/217235887

Istriyani, R. (2016). Media: Causes and strategies to overcome Islamophobia (psychological and sociological study). QIJIS (Qudus International Journal of Islamic Studies), 4(2), 201-217.

https://core.ac.uk/reader/295525965

Mir, S., & Sarroub, L. K. (2019). Islamophobia in US education. https://core.ac.uk/reader/220153027

Samari, G. (2016). Islamophobia and public health in the United States. American journal of public health, 106(11), 1920-1925 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5055770/