Pub Date : 2019-03-15DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0005
B. Emerson
This chapter develops a normative model of Progressive democracy on the basis of the intellectual and institutional history presented in the previous chapters. The Progressive theory remedies deficiencies in existing arguments for administrative legitimacy—those based on efficiency, constitutional values, or republican political theory. Unlike these theories, Progressivism draws an intrinsic connection between the purpose and the structure of regulatory law. Its purpose is to promote individual freedom through law. The structure of regulatory law ensures that such norms arise from the people’s own self-understandings. Progressivism aligns with deliberative democratic theory, but focuses on ex post deliberation about the consequences of policies, rather than solely on ex ante justification. This democratic theory requires an iterative process where abstract norms are expressed in law and then specified in a participatory and rational administrative process. The United States has a thin version of such a process in the Administrative Procedure Act’s “notice-and-comment” rule-making provisions. But today this process is too technocratic and distorted in favor of well organized and powerful interests. Opportunities for inclusive and egalitarian participation must therefore be deepened. At the same time, administrators must understand that they have an official duty to further the equal freedom of the persons their decisions affect. Judicial review of administrative action impedes such a self-understanding because it focuses on technocratic and instrumental reasoning. At the same time, the increasing investment of power in the president threatens to undermine deliberation with arbitrary assertions of personal will.
{"title":"The Normative Architecture of Progressive Democracy","authors":"B. Emerson","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter develops a normative model of Progressive democracy on the basis of the intellectual and institutional history presented in the previous chapters. The Progressive theory remedies deficiencies in existing arguments for administrative legitimacy—those based on efficiency, constitutional values, or republican political theory. Unlike these theories, Progressivism draws an intrinsic connection between the purpose and the structure of regulatory law. Its purpose is to promote individual freedom through law. The structure of regulatory law ensures that such norms arise from the people’s own self-understandings. Progressivism aligns with deliberative democratic theory, but focuses on ex post deliberation about the consequences of policies, rather than solely on ex ante justification. This democratic theory requires an iterative process where abstract norms are expressed in law and then specified in a participatory and rational administrative process. The United States has a thin version of such a process in the Administrative Procedure Act’s “notice-and-comment” rule-making provisions. But today this process is too technocratic and distorted in favor of well organized and powerful interests. Opportunities for inclusive and egalitarian participation must therefore be deepened. At the same time, administrators must understand that they have an official duty to further the equal freedom of the persons their decisions affect. Judicial review of administrative action impedes such a self-understanding because it focuses on technocratic and instrumental reasoning. At the same time, the increasing investment of power in the president threatens to undermine deliberation with arbitrary assertions of personal will.","PeriodicalId":260157,"journal":{"name":"The Public's Law","volume":"61 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114101346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-15DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0004
B. Emerson
This chapter describes examples of Progressive administration from the New Deal and the Second Reconstruction. This account explores the tension between public deliberation in the administrative process and efficient delivery of the services that make democracy possible. During the New Deal, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration engaged in highly deliberative forms of land use planning. But these deliberative procedures tended to exclude low-income and minority farmers. The Farm Security Administration, by contrast, provided desperately needed goods and services to poor farmers, but did not generally engage them in administrative policymaking. As the New Deal drew to a close, the Progressive emphasis on participatory modes of administration were codified in a thin form in the Administrative Procedure Act. At the same time, the social impacts of the New Deal agricultural agencies created some of the conditions for the Second Reconstruction. During the Second Reconstruction, civil rights agencies attempted to combine public participation and efficient bureaucracy in new institutional forms. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare developed broad understandings of the social background for segregation that enabled courts to integrate schools in the South. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission deliberated with civil rights groups and the courts to develop the disparate impact theory of discrimination. The Office of Economic Opportunity instituted radical forms of public participation in implementing the “maximum feasible participation” requirement of the Economic Opportunity Act.
{"title":"The Institutional Architecture of Progressive Democracy","authors":"B. Emerson","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes examples of Progressive administration from the New Deal and the Second Reconstruction. This account explores the tension between public deliberation in the administrative process and efficient delivery of the services that make democracy possible. During the New Deal, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration engaged in highly deliberative forms of land use planning. But these deliberative procedures tended to exclude low-income and minority farmers. The Farm Security Administration, by contrast, provided desperately needed goods and services to poor farmers, but did not generally engage them in administrative policymaking. As the New Deal drew to a close, the Progressive emphasis on participatory modes of administration were codified in a thin form in the Administrative Procedure Act. At the same time, the social impacts of the New Deal agricultural agencies created some of the conditions for the Second Reconstruction. During the Second Reconstruction, civil rights agencies attempted to combine public participation and efficient bureaucracy in new institutional forms. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare developed broad understandings of the social background for segregation that enabled courts to integrate schools in the South. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission deliberated with civil rights groups and the courts to develop the disparate impact theory of discrimination. The Office of Economic Opportunity instituted radical forms of public participation in implementing the “maximum feasible participation” requirement of the Economic Opportunity Act.","PeriodicalId":260157,"journal":{"name":"The Public's Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129259128","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-15DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0003
B. Emerson
This chapter describes the legal and political theory of the American Progressive thinkers who were influenced by Hegel, and situates their thought within the broader Progressive movement. W.E.B. Du Bois, Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey, Mary Follett, and Frank Goodnow were each influenced by Hegel and Hegelian public law scholars. Read as a group, they offer a coherent understanding of democracy in the American administrative state. Du Bois argued that the state needed to create the conditions for democracy by protecting the rights and promoting the welfare of African Americans. Wilson argued that public opinion should influence administration, and that administration could become a source of binding law. The conflict between Du Bois and Wilson over questions of racial equality teases out a tension between democratic equality and public participation, which is explored further in chapter 3. Dewey understood the state as an articulation of rational public discourse, and insisted like Wilson on public participation in the administrative process. Follett buttressed Dewey’s democratic theory with an account of how participation in administrative policymaking could generate cooperative democratic power. Goodnow adapted the German concept of the Rechtsstaat to the American context. He explained how administrative agencies could carry legislative will into action through fair procedures, and how courts and administrative agencies could play a coordinate role in the implementation of law. Together these theorists offer a model of administration in which democracy-preserving goods and institutions are furnished by administrative bodies through participatory, egalitarian, and inclusive administrative processes.
{"title":"The Hegelian Progressives","authors":"B. Emerson","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes the legal and political theory of the American Progressive thinkers who were influenced by Hegel, and situates their thought within the broader Progressive movement. W.E.B. Du Bois, Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey, Mary Follett, and Frank Goodnow were each influenced by Hegel and Hegelian public law scholars. Read as a group, they offer a coherent understanding of democracy in the American administrative state. Du Bois argued that the state needed to create the conditions for democracy by protecting the rights and promoting the welfare of African Americans. Wilson argued that public opinion should influence administration, and that administration could become a source of binding law. The conflict between Du Bois and Wilson over questions of racial equality teases out a tension between democratic equality and public participation, which is explored further in chapter 3. Dewey understood the state as an articulation of rational public discourse, and insisted like Wilson on public participation in the administrative process. Follett buttressed Dewey’s democratic theory with an account of how participation in administrative policymaking could generate cooperative democratic power. Goodnow adapted the German concept of the Rechtsstaat to the American context. He explained how administrative agencies could carry legislative will into action through fair procedures, and how courts and administrative agencies could play a coordinate role in the implementation of law. Together these theorists offer a model of administration in which democracy-preserving goods and institutions are furnished by administrative bodies through participatory, egalitarian, and inclusive administrative processes.","PeriodicalId":260157,"journal":{"name":"The Public's Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117332174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-15DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0002
B. Emerson
This chapter describes German state theory in the nineteenth and twentieth century. It describes this tradition in order to clarify the relevance of German ideas to the American context. American political scientists and legal scholars frequently rely on German thinkers such as Max Weber and Carl Schmitt to understand the state. But these divergent assessments lack a grounding in the longer trajectory and the institutional dilemmas of German legal theory. The chapter provides that broader context and directs readers’ attention to the most promising strand of German thought: the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel would have formative significance for the Progressive thinkers who developed the American administrative state. Hegel understood the state’s purpose to be the advancement of freedom. The chapter contextualizes this idea and shows its influence throughout the nineteenth century, in the Rechtsstaat theories of Robert von Mohl, Lorenz von Stein, and Rudolf von Gneist. It then shows how this normative concept of the state was emptied out with the turn to legal positivism at the end of the century. Weber’s formal-rational conception of bureaucracy then arrived at a particularly unstable moment in German constitutional history, in the transition from monarchy to democracy. Weber’s bifurcated conception of legal and charismatic authority paved the way for Schmitt’s proto-totalitarian theory of the state. The chapter concludes by showing how German theorists in the second half of the twentieth century, such as Jürgen Habermas, continued to rely on Weber’s instrumental conception of bureaucracy.
{"title":"Origins of Progressivism","authors":"B. Emerson","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190682873.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes German state theory in the nineteenth and twentieth century. It describes this tradition in order to clarify the relevance of German ideas to the American context. American political scientists and legal scholars frequently rely on German thinkers such as Max Weber and Carl Schmitt to understand the state. But these divergent assessments lack a grounding in the longer trajectory and the institutional dilemmas of German legal theory. The chapter provides that broader context and directs readers’ attention to the most promising strand of German thought: the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel would have formative significance for the Progressive thinkers who developed the American administrative state. Hegel understood the state’s purpose to be the advancement of freedom. The chapter contextualizes this idea and shows its influence throughout the nineteenth century, in the Rechtsstaat theories of Robert von Mohl, Lorenz von Stein, and Rudolf von Gneist. It then shows how this normative concept of the state was emptied out with the turn to legal positivism at the end of the century. Weber’s formal-rational conception of bureaucracy then arrived at a particularly unstable moment in German constitutional history, in the transition from monarchy to democracy. Weber’s bifurcated conception of legal and charismatic authority paved the way for Schmitt’s proto-totalitarian theory of the state. The chapter concludes by showing how German theorists in the second half of the twentieth century, such as Jürgen Habermas, continued to rely on Weber’s instrumental conception of bureaucracy.","PeriodicalId":260157,"journal":{"name":"The Public's Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127443936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：