Congress's Agency Coordination

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Bijal Shah
{"title":"Congress's Agency Coordination","authors":"Bijal Shah","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3112844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Coordination is a mechanism for administrative control. Indeed, it is well-known that the President and agencies themselves initiate it for a variety of substantive and self-interested reasons. This Article is the first to establish that Congress also creates frameworks of interagency coordination, and it bases this contention in the largest collection to date of statutes and legislative history detailing coordination requirements for federal agencies in several regulatory areas across the executive branch. By uncovering coordination legislation, which fosters an unexamined but pervasive relationship between Congress and agencies, this Article contributes to the fundamental debate regarding which political branch has sovereignty over the administrative state. \n \nComprehensive analysis of this original legislative dataset illustrates that statute-based administrative coordination compels agencies to engage autonomously to more effectively further legislative priorities across the executive branch. This layered dynamic is evidenced by the main qualities of most coordination legislation: first, that it is both hierarchical and expansive, thus empowering agencies favored by Congress to structure coordination with significant discretion; and second, that it is mandatory, thus giving the legislature ultimate control over the implementation of statute-based interagency coordination. Coordination legislation may be driven by many of the same incentives that motivate the President’s initiation of administrative coordination, as well as some that are unique to the legislature, including the goal of limiting politicized executive influence on agencies’ implementation of the law. \n \nIn general, the goals of statute-based coordination would benefit from the incubation of agency autonomy. Accordingly, this Article argues, coordination legislation empowers agencies to interact independently — that is, without direction from the President. For this reason, however, coordination legislation also challenges our expectations of executive hierarchy. More specifically, coordination legislation may muddy lines of executive accountability and imbue executive agencies with several qualities of independent regulatory commissions that increase their insulation from the Executive. Therefore, statute-based coordination has the potential to interfere with the President’s role as administrator-in-chief, unless it is circumscribed by executive oversight or, better still for legislative purposes, ex ante presidential involvement in interagency coordination.","PeriodicalId":47393,"journal":{"name":"Minnesota Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minnesota Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3112844","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Coordination is a mechanism for administrative control. Indeed, it is well-known that the President and agencies themselves initiate it for a variety of substantive and self-interested reasons. This Article is the first to establish that Congress also creates frameworks of interagency coordination, and it bases this contention in the largest collection to date of statutes and legislative history detailing coordination requirements for federal agencies in several regulatory areas across the executive branch. By uncovering coordination legislation, which fosters an unexamined but pervasive relationship between Congress and agencies, this Article contributes to the fundamental debate regarding which political branch has sovereignty over the administrative state. Comprehensive analysis of this original legislative dataset illustrates that statute-based administrative coordination compels agencies to engage autonomously to more effectively further legislative priorities across the executive branch. This layered dynamic is evidenced by the main qualities of most coordination legislation: first, that it is both hierarchical and expansive, thus empowering agencies favored by Congress to structure coordination with significant discretion; and second, that it is mandatory, thus giving the legislature ultimate control over the implementation of statute-based interagency coordination. Coordination legislation may be driven by many of the same incentives that motivate the President’s initiation of administrative coordination, as well as some that are unique to the legislature, including the goal of limiting politicized executive influence on agencies’ implementation of the law. In general, the goals of statute-based coordination would benefit from the incubation of agency autonomy. Accordingly, this Article argues, coordination legislation empowers agencies to interact independently — that is, without direction from the President. For this reason, however, coordination legislation also challenges our expectations of executive hierarchy. More specifically, coordination legislation may muddy lines of executive accountability and imbue executive agencies with several qualities of independent regulatory commissions that increase their insulation from the Executive. Therefore, statute-based coordination has the potential to interfere with the President’s role as administrator-in-chief, unless it is circumscribed by executive oversight or, better still for legislative purposes, ex ante presidential involvement in interagency coordination.
国会机构协调
协调是一种行政控制机制。事实上,众所周知,总统和各机构本身出于各种实质性和自利的原因发起了这一行动。这篇文章首次表明,国会还建立了机构间协调的框架,它将这一论点建立在迄今为止最大的法规和立法史上,详细说明了联邦机构在行政部门几个监管领域的协调要求。本条揭示了协调立法,该立法促进了国会和各机构之间未经审查但普遍存在的关系,为关于哪个政治部门对行政国家拥有主权的根本辩论做出了贡献。对这一原始立法数据集的全面分析表明,基于法规的行政协调迫使各机构自主参与,更有效地推进整个行政部门的立法优先事项。大多数协调立法的主要特点证明了这种分层动态:首先,它既有层级性,又有扩展性,从而赋予国会青睐的机构以重大自由裁量权构建协调的权力;其次,它是强制性的,从而使立法机构对基于法规的机构间协调的实施拥有最终控制权。协调立法可能受到许多激励总统启动行政协调的激励措施的推动,也可能受到立法机构特有的一些激励措施的驱动,包括限制政治化行政对各机构执行法律的影响。一般来说,基于法规的协调目标将受益于机构自主权的培育。因此,这篇文章认为,协调立法授权各机构独立互动——也就是说,不需要总统的指示。然而,出于这个原因,协调立法也挑战了我们对行政等级制度的期望。更具体地说,协调立法可能会混淆行政问责制的界限,并赋予行政机构独立监管委员会的一些品质,从而增加其与行政部门的隔离。因此,基于法规的协调有可能干扰总统作为总行政官的角色,除非它受到行政监督的限制,或者出于立法目的,更好的是受到总统事前参与机构间协调的限制。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: In January 1917, Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the Minnesota Law Review with lofty aspirations: “A well-conducted law review . . . ought to do something to develop the spirit of statesmanship as distinguished from a dry professionalism. It ought at the same time contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” For the next forty years, in conjunction with the Minnesota State Bar Association, the faculty of the University of Minnesota Law School directed the work of student editors of the Law Review. Despite their initial oversight and vision, however, the faculty gradually handed the editorial mantle over to law students.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信