Lesson Thirteen Administrative Authority and Respo...
Contemporary public administration is of fundamental concern not only because it is large and expensive，but also because of its authority and responsibilities.It is sometimes difficult to imagine that public employees have emerged as major—in some policy areas，the major—actors in complex political systems such as the United States.After all，what does a postal letter carrier，a government accountant，a personnel official，a record-keeping clerk，or a typist have to do with the exercise of governmental power?What kind of impact can even high-level officials have in administrative systems that are dominated by organizations rather than individuals，that are rule-bound，and that place major constraints on individual action?These questions hint at a paradox of contemporary public administration.Cumulatively，public administrators have a great deal of authority，but individually they are often likened to cogs in a machine over which they have little control.Each administrator's discretion is constrained by many rules，procedures，and checks，yet public administration has become a center for the development of policy choices for American society as a whole.
One place to begin a consideration of the nature of administrative authority is with a consideration of what public administrators do.As was discussed earlier，public administrators have become a vehicle through which society has chosen to carry out public action aimed at securing political objectives，such as economic development and regulation to promote the public's health and safety.The scope of their activities is astounding.It is difficult to find more than a few interests or concerns in the society that are not in some way addressed through administrative action.Births and deaths are recorded by administrators;so are marriages and divorces.They inspect food and drugs and regulate radio and television broadcasting.Entrance into a wide variety of occupations—from the most manual to the most cerebral—requires an administrative stamp of approval.Transportation，housing，education，health service，banking，wages and hours for work，employment，and many more aspects of daily life are subject to some kind of administrative action.There is no denying that the contemporary administrative state is characterized by a high degree of penetration of the daily life of society.This is true whether it steers，rows，or both.
The centrality of public administration does not automatically make it powerful.It is at least theoretically possible that public administrative action could be wholly directed by law and political arrangements to the extent that it carried simply out the will of the elected legislative and executive officials.But in practice administrative organizations have considerable independence，for at least two reasons.
First，public administrators develop a great deal of expertise upon which the society becomes dependent.All the functional specialization，record keeping，and information gathering that go on in public administration enable public administrators to develop expertise on some matters that cannot be matched elsewhere in society.Who else but an administrator is likely to know how much of a particular crop was produced in any given year，or how much of some product was imported，or how many people were naturalized，or took an occupational licensing examination?Sometimes one is puzzled by the kind of information collected by public agencies，but，in the end，the cumulative information held by public administrators becomes an important source of expertise and influence.Organizational and policy specialization compound this situation.Not only do public administrators often know more about many aspects of national life than does anyone else，they also know more about how to accomplish programmatic ends than do legislators or elected officials.(https://www.daowen.com)
Second，elected officials frequently delegate decisionmaking authority to public administrators.In part this delegation flows from deference to administrative expertise.It also stems from recognition that public administrative directives are more flexible than legislation in the sense that they can be redrafted or abolished through a far less elaborate process than enacting a statute.Where the legislature believes that standards for regulation or for eligibility for various governmental benefits will have to be changed frequently，or applied in a great variety of circumstances，it may be apt to delegate power to administrative agencies.For instance，the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act(1970)mandates that“so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation［shall have］safe and healthful work conditions.”Among other issues，implementing this mandate requires that somebody determine which levels of which substances used in manufacturing and other sectors are toxic.Given the vast number of production practices and potentially toxic chemicals used(not to mention their combination)，it is unlikely that Congress could address every such danger through specific legislation.Instead，it has delegated its legislative authority to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to make and enforce rules regarding workers'safety.
Another example is the National Labor Relations Board.Charged with enforcing federal law against unfair labor practices，it has adjudicated thousands of cases since its creation in 1935.It is inconceivable that Congress could have written a statute that either specified all the unfair labor practices the board has thus far declared or was so precise that it eliminated all controversy regarding the distinctions between fair and unfair practices.
Delegations of legislative authority can contain clear and forceful legislative guidance.As a matter of constitutional law at the federal level，delegations must contain an“intelligible principle”to guide administrative action.But this requirement is frequently honored in the breach.Congress may place only the vaguest of conditions on the exercise of powers it delegates to public administrators.For example，the Federal Communications Commission(FCC)，which regulates radio and television broadcasting，is supposed to exercise the powers granted to it by Congress in“the public convenience，interest，or necessity”.If you were chairperson of the FCC，what kind of guidance would you find in these words?Confronted with an equally unspecific charge，a chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board(CAB)，which regulated the airline industry，once said that the“philosophy of the［CAB］changes from day to day”，something that could not occur if its authority was constrained by strict standards laid down by Congress.Delegations with little guidance often result from the legislature's inability or unwillingness，for political reasons，to set clear standards for the use of the powers it delegates to administrative agencies.Sometimes the subject matter of the agency's jurisdiction is so complex that the legislature does not have the time or staff resources truly to master it.At other times，political expediency dictates that the legislature will not take a firm stand on an issue，which may be politically controversial，divisive，and lead to a loss of support among segments of the electorate.The net result of reliance on the expertise of public administrators，and the scope and frequency of vague delegations is that public administrators，as a group，become influential in policymaking.They are consulted by committees and subcommittees in Congress，by officials in the Executive Office of the President，and by the politically appointed department heads and their staffs.Moreover，despite the denunciations of“bureaucratic power”at election times，political officials often acknowledge the legitimacy of including agency administrators in the policymaking process.
Public administrators are even more influential when it comes to choosing the means through which public policies will be implemented.The choice of means and the pace and regularity of enforcement can be as much a policymaking exercise as the choice of ends.In many cases，universal enforcement is precluded by inadequate resources.Consequently，selective enforcement and nonenforcement are common.Where selective enforcement manifests a pattern—aimed at large firms rather than small ones，for example，or poorer neighborhoods rather than richer areas—administrative decisions have clear political consequences because they determine the distribution of benefits and/or burdens created by public policies.Alleged racial profiling by police and other enforcement agencies is an example that has attracted a good deal of attention in recent years.
Public administrative authority in the United States is also evidenced in the volume of rule making by administrative agencies，which far exceeds the volume of legislation passed by the nation's legislatures;that even with crowded judicial dockets，more adjudication，such as hearings，takes place in administrative agencies;and in the reality that despite the vast publicity given to presidential and gubernatorial policy initiatives，public administrative agencies remain a main source of ideas for new legislation.The power of individual agencies and officials varies with a variety of factors，a topic generally called bureaucratic politics.But，overall，administrative influence has developed to such an extent that it has had a major impact on the nature of the other branches of government.The rise of the administrative state was perhaps the most important governmental development of the twentieth century:It transformed the nature of the political system.