Presently governance of the administrative state is controlled by the legal profession; the economics profession controls its analytical paradigms for program evaluation. The evolution of reigning disciplines in the management of the regulatory state could be characterized in the following manner:
1930’s – 1960’s Budget Analysts
1960’s – 1990’s Economists (Documented in forthcoming book (2019) by Professor Elizabeth Berman)
1990’s – 2020’s Attorneys
In addition to the legal profession two emerging disciplines are beginning to opine on governance of the administrative state; political scientists and practitioners of comparative administrative law.
Centralized regulatory review, whose most basic roots can be traced to actions taken by the Johnson Administration, has been controversial from its beginning. In the year 2017, nearly a half century from its inception, centralized regulatory review is not only controversial but may becoming more so as a result of the recent emphasis placed on it to implement Presidential policy by both the current and the former Administration.
The ensuing debate will be impacted in large part by the writings of the following three academic disciplines:
Here is an essay the administrative law community considers to be of extraordinary merit since it received an award in a law student writing contest; see a library of papers prepared by administrative law scholars.
Here is a paper from a political science scholar, see a library of such papers. The concept of centralized regulatory review is not on the front page of the political science community as a whole but it should be given its interest in an interdisciplinary approach to issues in the social and behavioral sciences.
Comparative Administrative Law
Comparative Administrative Law is a relative newcomer to the debate of centralized review but its penetrating views are read throughout world capitols. Here is a paper from two scholars who practice comparative administrative law. The initial step in establishing a library is here .
It should be noted that although members of the above institutions provide much of the intellectual capital in the debate over centralized regulatory review that in order for their writings to have an impact they must be advocated by NGO’s, the regulated community, trade associations and think tanks working through the Congress, the Executive Branch, the Press and sometimes the Courts.
CRE facilitates this linkage by inserting the works of recognized academicians into the heart of the political process. To this end CRE has published and continues to update the most comprehensive library of information on centralized regulatory review presently in existence and thus helps satisfy the insatiable appetite of advocacy organizations for studies and commentary dealing with centralized regulatory review.