Delegation, Risk Diversification, and the Properly Political Project of Administrative Law


Daniel B. Rodriguez

Responding to Matthew C. Stephenson, Legislative Allocation of Delegated Power: Uncertainty, Risk, and the Choice Between Agencies and Courts , 119 Harv. L. Rev. 1035 (2006)

Professor Matthew Stephenson’s fascinating article provides (with apologies to Robert Bork) an intellectual feast for those scholars interested and invested in the emerging positive political theory (PPT) of legislative decisionmaking and bureaucratic performance. Perhaps less obviously, there is a feast here as well for anyone intrigued by the perennial puzzles of modern administrative law. My objective in this short response is two-fold: First, I describe, using the same basic analytical tools upon which Professor Stephenson relies for his argument, some of the important ways in which the agency-courts-legislature model is incomplete. Second, I use Professor Stephenson’s illuminating model as a springboard to considering some of the potential implications of his analysis for modern administrative law.



119 Harv. L. Rev. F. 202 (2006) | DOWNLOAD PDF

Online Forum

Freeing Employee Choice: The Case For Secrecy in Union Organizing and Voting

Cynthia Estlund :: In his article Enabling Employee Choice, Professor Benjamin Sachs provided a nuanced analysis of what is wrong both with current law and with the leading reform proposal. In this response, Professor Cynthia Estlund argues that Professor Sachs’s reform proposal is likely to set the terms for future scholarly analysis and for serious public debate over the role of law in union organizing regardless of the fate of labor law reform in the current Congress. READ MORE

Not All Statistics Are Created Equal

D. James Greiner :: In Statistics Is a Plural Word, a response to my article Causal Inference in Civil Rights Litigation, Dean Steven Willborn and Professor Ramona Paetzold take issue both with my critique of regression as it is currently used in civil rights litigation and with my advocacy of the potential outcomes framework. In this Reply, I argue that Dean Willborn and Professor Paetzold’s response does not address (and thus cannot refute) the central lessons of Causal Inference, despite purporting to agree with those lessons. In particular, after “agree[ing] wholeheartedly” that a definition of a causal effect is necessary for the use of statistics in civil rights, Plural does not offer a definition. In the absence of such a definition, the purpose of statistics in civil rights litigation is unclear. The potential outcomes framework, in contrast, provides the needed definition and clarifies many subsidiary concepts, with salutary consequences following naturally from a start in the right place. READ MORE

FORUM ARCHIVE


Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)