Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Taxonomy of arguments about agency dynamics
| What are the five pillars of the administrative state? Ballotpedia's five pillars of the administrative state provide a framework for understanding the authority, influence, and actions of administrative agencies, as well as the policies and arguments surrounding them. The five pillars focus on the control of administrative agencies related to the (1) legislative, (2) executive, and (3) judicial branches of government, (4) the public, and (5) other agencies or sub-agencies. |
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Agency control |
|
•Court cases |
| More pillars |
| •Judicial control • Executive control •Legislative control • Public control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
This page contains the main arguments related to agency control of the administrative state.
The appropriate degree of control over administrative agencies is a subject of debate within the administrative state. Disagreement centers on the qualifications of agency employees, the relationship between agencies and the constitutional order, the requirements imposed by the Administrative Procedure Act, and the mechanisms for ensuring political accountability. These debates are commonly organized into four areas: arguments related to agency employee qualifications, arguments related to agency interaction with the constitutional order, arguments related to the Administrative Procedure Act, and arguments related to agency political accountability.
Arguments related to agency employee qualifications
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Agency expertise strengthens public policy
2. Argument: Agency expertise contributes to regulatory stagnation
3. Argument: Administrative judges lack the expertise to preside over adjudication
4. Argument: Administrative judges' expertise meets the demand for adjudicative roles
Arguments related to agency interaction with the constitutional order
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Agency adjudication violates the separation of powers
2. Argument: Agency adjudication does not violate the separation of powers
- Claim: The combination of functions within agencies does not create an unconstitutional risk of bias
Arguments related to the Administrative Procedure Act
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Informal procedures are insufficient to govern agency action
- Claim: Informal rulemaking fuels the growth of the administrative state
- Claim: Informal rulemaking lacks sufficient procedural protections
2. Argument: Informal procedures are sufficient to govern agency action
- Claim: The U.S. Supreme Court supports the increased use of informal adjudication
- Claim: Administrative Conference of the United States supports increased use of informal rulemaking
3. Argument: The Administrative Procedure Act is out of date and should be modernized
- Claim: The APA does not reflect current agency practices
- Claim: Calls for APA reform date to the mid-twentieth century
5. Argument: Agency theory and practice should align
- Claim: Agencies sidestep the rulemaking process by setting policy through adjudication
- Claim: Agencies abuse guidance to issue binding regulations
Arguments related to agency political accountability
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Agencies are accountable to the executive and legislative branches
3. Argument: Agencies operate outside of the bounds of political control
4. Argument: Independent agencies are politically accountable
- Claim: Cause-removal protections prevent the executive from controlling independent agencies
- Claim: Independent agencies evade political accountability by circumventing OIRA review
