The Headless Fourth Branch: Rethinking the Assumptions of Administrative Jurisprudence

IF 2.7 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Perspectives on Public Management and Governance Pub Date : 2021-06-12 DOI:10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAA023
Jennifer L. Selin
{"title":"The Headless Fourth Branch: Rethinking the Assumptions of Administrative Jurisprudence","authors":"Jennifer L. Selin","doi":"10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAA023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n A mismatch exists between the fundamental principles underlying modern administrative jurisprudence and the practical realities of administrative governance as illuminated by social science. This mismatch is most evident in the judicial conceptions of congressional intent, delegation, administrative procedures, and political accountability. As a result, federal agencies have the opportunity to shape the parameters under which courts analyze administrative authority and to capitalize on overlapping delegations of power. Agencies respond by shifting resources toward unorthodox policymaking and legalized personnel, raising questions about what it means legally for federal agencies to be accountable to the judicial and political branches of government. In sum, the mismatch between doctrine and practice presents many avenues for future research and has important consequences for the operation of our separation of powers system.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"66 1","pages":"170-185"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAA023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A mismatch exists between the fundamental principles underlying modern administrative jurisprudence and the practical realities of administrative governance as illuminated by social science. This mismatch is most evident in the judicial conceptions of congressional intent, delegation, administrative procedures, and political accountability. As a result, federal agencies have the opportunity to shape the parameters under which courts analyze administrative authority and to capitalize on overlapping delegations of power. Agencies respond by shifting resources toward unorthodox policymaking and legalized personnel, raising questions about what it means legally for federal agencies to be accountable to the judicial and political branches of government. In sum, the mismatch between doctrine and practice presents many avenues for future research and has important consequences for the operation of our separation of powers system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无头的第四分支:对行政法学假设的再思考
现代行政法学的基本原则与社会科学所揭示的行政治理的实际现实之间存在着不匹配。这种不匹配在国会意图、授权、行政程序和政治问责的司法概念中最为明显。因此,联邦机构有机会塑造法院分析行政权力的参数,并利用重叠的权力授权。各机构的回应是将资源转移到非正统的政策制定和合法的人员身上,这引发了人们对联邦机构对政府的司法和政治部门负责的法律意义的质疑。总而言之,理论与实践的不匹配为未来的研究提供了许多途径,并对我国三权分立制度的运行产生了重要影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
28
期刊最新文献
What Is The Public? A Pragmatic Analysis of a Core Concept in Public Administration The Flawed Foundations of Social Equity in Public Administration: A Racial Contract Theory Critique The Procedural Politicking Tug of War: Law-Versus-Management Disputes in Contexts of Democratic Backsliding Producing Agreements and Innovations in Collaborative Governance Political Transactions, the Social Contract, and Administrative Power
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1