{"title":"让官僚机构进行分配思考:以强制行动的分配审查改革行政状态","authors":"K. Tsuda","doi":"10.36640/mjeal.7.1.making","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article proposes that agencies analyze the distributional impacts of major regulatory actions, subject to notice-and-comment procedures and judicial review. The proposal responds to the legitimacy crisis that the administrative state currently faces in a period of widening economic inequality. Other progressive reform proposals emphasize the need for democratization of agencies. But these reforms fail to address the two fundamental pitfalls of bureaucratic governance: the “knowledge problem”—epistemic limitations on centrally coordinated decision making—and the “incentives problem”—the challenge of aligning the incentives of administrative agents and their political principals.\n\nA successful administrative reform must address both problems. Looking to the environmental context, this Article proposes adapting the approach taken in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to confront the contemporary administrative legitimacy crisis. It considers a hypothetical “Distributive Impacts Review Act,” explaining what the statutory scheme would look like and detailing how it would work. The Article concludes by reflecting on potential distributional review’s appeal both to the progressive egalitarians, and to champions of efficient government.","PeriodicalId":401480,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","volume":"77 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making Bureaucracies Think Distributively: Reforming the Administrative State with Action-Forcing Distributional Review\",\"authors\":\"K. Tsuda\",\"doi\":\"10.36640/mjeal.7.1.making\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article proposes that agencies analyze the distributional impacts of major regulatory actions, subject to notice-and-comment procedures and judicial review. The proposal responds to the legitimacy crisis that the administrative state currently faces in a period of widening economic inequality. Other progressive reform proposals emphasize the need for democratization of agencies. But these reforms fail to address the two fundamental pitfalls of bureaucratic governance: the “knowledge problem”—epistemic limitations on centrally coordinated decision making—and the “incentives problem”—the challenge of aligning the incentives of administrative agents and their political principals.\\n\\nA successful administrative reform must address both problems. Looking to the environmental context, this Article proposes adapting the approach taken in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to confront the contemporary administrative legitimacy crisis. It considers a hypothetical “Distributive Impacts Review Act,” explaining what the statutory scheme would look like and detailing how it would work. The Article concludes by reflecting on potential distributional review’s appeal both to the progressive egalitarians, and to champions of efficient government.\",\"PeriodicalId\":401480,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law\",\"volume\":\"77 \",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.7.1.making\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.7.1.making","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文建议各机构通过通知-评论程序和司法审查来分析重大监管行为对分配的影响。这一提议回应了在经济不平等日益扩大的时期,行政国家目前面临的合法性危机。其他进步改革建议强调机构民主化的必要性。但这些改革未能解决官僚治理的两个基本陷阱:“知识问题”——集中协调决策的认知限制;以及“激励问题”——调整行政代理及其政治主体的激励的挑战。成功的行政改革必须解决这两个问题。本文从环境背景出发,提出借鉴1969年《国家环境政策法》(National environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA)的做法,以应对当代行政合法性危机。它考虑了一个假设的“分配影响审查法案”,解释了法定计划的样子,并详细说明了它将如何运作。文章最后反思了分配审查对进步的平等主义者和高效政府的支持者的潜在吸引力。
Making Bureaucracies Think Distributively: Reforming the Administrative State with Action-Forcing Distributional Review
This Article proposes that agencies analyze the distributional impacts of major regulatory actions, subject to notice-and-comment procedures and judicial review. The proposal responds to the legitimacy crisis that the administrative state currently faces in a period of widening economic inequality. Other progressive reform proposals emphasize the need for democratization of agencies. But these reforms fail to address the two fundamental pitfalls of bureaucratic governance: the “knowledge problem”—epistemic limitations on centrally coordinated decision making—and the “incentives problem”—the challenge of aligning the incentives of administrative agents and their political principals.
A successful administrative reform must address both problems. Looking to the environmental context, this Article proposes adapting the approach taken in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to confront the contemporary administrative legitimacy crisis. It considers a hypothetical “Distributive Impacts Review Act,” explaining what the statutory scheme would look like and detailing how it would work. The Article concludes by reflecting on potential distributional review’s appeal both to the progressive egalitarians, and to champions of efficient government.