Efforts to structure administrative processes through legality are well known in the United States. However, they are seldom analyzed in a comparative context, with an effort to explain how legal procedures are structured into administrative process. Political disputes criticizing bureaucracy and arguing for more legal accountability have occurred in Britain as well as the United States, culminating in statutes. But the extensive postwar debate in Britain led to a statute that did not accomplish as much as the American Administrative Procedure Act. This article explains the efforts and the somewhat different outcomes in Britain and the United States with an analysis of the coherence of and divisions within legal ideology and how the legal profession interacted with the different configuration of state institutions in Britain and the United States.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ABA Committee on Administrative Law . (1938). Report. ABA Reporter, 63, 331-346.
2.
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Abel, R. L. (1988a). Lawyers in the United States. In R. L. Abel & P.S.C. Lewis (Eds.), Lawyers in society. Vol. 1: The common law world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
Abel, R. L. (1988b). Lawyers in England and Wales. London: Basil Blackwell.
Administrative Tribunals, Notice and Hearing . (1934). Michigan Law Review, 32, 1157-1158.
8.
Allen, C. K. (1931). Bureaucracy triumphant. London: Oxford University Press.
9.
Andrews, J. B. (1941). Legalistic disharmony v. modern reform: Why the President vetoed the Walter-Logan bill. American Labor Legislation Review, 31, 14-17.
10.
Anti-bureaucrats. (1940, April 15). New Republic, pp. 492-493.
11.
Ashford, D. E. (1980). Policy and politics in Britain. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
12.
Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization of Colorado, 239 U.S. 441 (1915).
13.
Block, F. (1987). Revising state theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
14.
Bok, D. (1983, January/February). Law and its discontents: A critical look at our legal system. Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, pp. 12-33.
15.
Boyd, J. O. (1938). The court system contrasted with the bureau system. Iowa Law Review, 24, 25-29.
16.
Brown, R. D. (1955). The battle of Crichel Down. London: Bodley Head.
17.
Burger, W. E. (1983). Today's challenges: Improving the administration of justice. Judicature, 66, 394-407.
18.
Caporaso, J. A. (1989). Introduction: The state in comparative and international perspective. In J. A. Caporaso (Ed.), The elusive state. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19.
Chester, N. (1954). Crichel Down. Public Administration, 32, 389.
20.
Chorley, L. (1946). Law-making in Whitehall. Modern Law Review, 9, 26-41.
21.
Comment . (1954a). British Journal of Administrative Law, 1, 1-2.
22.
Comment . (1954b). British Journal of Administrative Law, 1, 34.
23.
Comment . (1956). Public Law, p. 1.
24.
Committee on Tribunals and Inquiries . (1956). Minutes of evidence. London: HMSO.
25.
Committee on Tribunals and Inquiries. (1957). Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries (Cmnd. 218). London: HMSO.
26.
Cooper, J. , & Dhavan, R. (1986). Public interest law. New York: Blackwell.
27.
Denning, A. (1949). Freedom under the law. London: Hamlyn Lectures.
28.
Derthick, M. (1983). Policymaking for social security. Washington, DC: Brookings.
29.
deSmith, S. A. (1955). A conservative approach to administrative law reform. British Journal of Administrative Law, 2, 3-18.
30.
Dicey, A. V. (1920). Introduction to the law of the Constitution (4th ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
31.
Due Process Requirements of Notice and Hearing in Administrative Proceedings (1934). Columbia Law Review, 34, 332-344.
32.
Friedmann, W. (1946). The new public corporations and the law, Part 2. Modern Law Review, 10, 377.
33.
Galanter, M. (1983). Reading the landscape of disputes: What we know and don't know (and think we know) about our allegedly contentious and litigious society. UCLA Law Review, 31, 4-71.
34.
Gellhorn, W. (1986). The Administrative Procedure Act: The beginnings. Virginia Law Review, 72, 219-230.
35.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
36.
Gower, L.C.B. (1946). The future of the English legal profession. Modern Law Review, 9, 211-234.
37.
Greenhouse, C. (1986). Praying for justice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
38.
Griffith, J.A.G. (1954). Judicial attitudes toward administrative power. British Journal of Administrative Law, 1, 41-50.
39.
Griffith, J.A.G. , & Street, H. (1951). Principles of administrative law. London: Allen & Unwin.
40.
Haines, C. G. (1932). Effects of the growth of administrative law upon traditional Anglo-American legal theories and practices. American Political Science Review, 26, 875-894.
41.
Halliday, T. (1987). Beyond monopoly. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
Hamson, C. J. (1954a). Executive discretion and judicial control. London: Stevens.
43.
Hamson, C. J. (1954b). The real lesson of Crichel Down. Public Administration, 32, 383-387.
44.
Harlow, C. , & Rawlings, R. (1983). Law and administration. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
45.
Harrington, C. , & Merry, S. E. (1988). Ideological production: The making of community mediation. Law and Society Review, 22, 708-735.
46.
Hawkins, K. (1984). Environment and enforcement. New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
Heclo, H. (1974). Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
Heuston, R.F.V. (1952). Book review. Law Quarterly Review, 68, 250.
49.
Hewart, G. B. (1929). The new depositism. New York: Little & Ives.
50.
House of Commons . (1958, July 3). Parliamentary debates (Vol. 590, Series 5). London: HMSO.
51.
Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society . (1953). The rule of law. London: Conservative Political Centre.
52.
Irons, P. (1982). The New Deal lawyers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53.
Jaffe, L. L. (1956). The American Administrative Procedure Act. Public Law, pp. 218-221.
54.
Jowell, J. , & Oliver, D. (1990). The changing Constitution (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon.
55.
JUSTICE/All Souls Committee for the Review of Administrative Law in the United Kingdom . (1988). Administrative justice: Some necessary reforms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56.
Keller, M. (1980). Anglo-American politics, 1900-1930, in Anglo-American perspective: A case study in comparative history. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22, 458.
57.
Kelman, S. (1981). Regulating America, regulating Sweden. Cambridge: MIT Press.
58.
Krock, A. (1941, January 28). In the nation. New York Times, p. 28.
59.
Labour Party . (1953). Personal freedom. London: Author.
60.
Laitin, D. (1986). Hegemony and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61.
Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley, University of California Press.
62.
Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908).
63.
Lord Chancellor's Department. (1936). Report of the Lord Chancellor's Committee on Minister's Powers (Cmd. 4060). London: HMSO.
64.
Mansbridge, J. J. (1990). The rise and fall of self-interest in the explanation of political life. In J. J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
65.
March, J. G. , & Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. New York: Basic Books.
66.
Martin, I. (1986). Combining casework and strategy: The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. In J. Cooper & R. Dhavan (Eds.), Public interest law. New York: Blackwell.
67.
MacKinnon, C. (1988). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
Mashaw, J. (1983). Bureaucratic justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
69.
McAuslan, P. (1989). Administrative justice: A necessary report?Public Law, pp. 402-412.
70.
McCubbins, M. D. , Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3, 243-277.
71.
McCubbins, M. D. , Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1989). Structure and process, politics and policy: Administrative arrangements and the political control of agencies. Virginia Law Review, 75, 431-482.
72.
McGuire, O. R. (1939). The American Bar Association's Administrative Law Bill. Louisiana Law Review, 1, 550-554.
73.
Melnick, R. S. (1983). Regulation and the courts. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
74.
Meyer, J. W. , & Rowan, B. (1983). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In J. W. Meyer & W. Richard Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
75.
Merry, S. E. (1990). Getting justice and getting even. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
76.
Moe, T. (1990). Political institutions: The neglected side of the story. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 6, 213-253.
77.
Moley, R. (1940, December 3). Frankenstein, M. C. Newsweek, p. 60.
78.
Moore, S. F. (1978). Law as process: An anthropological approach. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
79.
More check than balance; Logan-Walter bill. (1940, April 27). Nation, pp. 528-529.
80.
Morrison, F. (1973). Courts and the political process in England. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
81.
Nelson, R. L. (1988). Partners with power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
82.
New bill reforms agency procedure (Acheson Reports) . (1941, January 25). New York Times, pp. 1, 8.
83.
Nicolson, I. F. (1986). The mystery of Crichel Down. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
84.
Offe, C. (1983). Disorganized capitalism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
85.
Perkins, L. P. (1981). Member recruitment to a mixed goal committee: The House Judiciary Committee. Journal of Politics, 43, 348-361.
86.
Pound, R. (1933). A comparison of ideals of law. Harvard Law Review, 47, 1-17.
87.
Powell, M. (1988). From patrician to professional elite. New York: Russell Sage.
88.
Prosser, T. (1982). Test cases for the poor. London: Child Poverty Action Group.
89.
R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal ex p. Shaw (1952), 1 K.B. 338.
90.
Reforming the reformers. (1940, February 24). Business Week, p. 64.
91.
Rifkin, J. (1984). Mediation from a feminist perspective: Promise and problems. Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 2, 1-13.
92.
Rockman, B. A. (1989). Minding the state - Or a state of mind? Issues in the comparative conceptualization of the state. In J. A. Caporaso (Ed.), The elusive state. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
93.
Roosevelt, F. D. (1941). Veto message. American Bar Association Journal, 27, 52-53.
94.
Ruggie, M. (1983). The state and working women in Britain and Sweden. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
95.
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).
96.
Schwartz, B. (1947). The American Administrative Procedures Act, 1946. Law Quarterly Review, 63, 43-64.
97.
Schwartz, B. (1948). American Administrative Justice. Law Quarterly Review, 64, 519-532.
98.
Schwartz, B. (1950). American administrative law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
99.
Selznick, P. (1969). Law, society and industrial justice. New York: Russell Sage.
100.
Shapiro, M. (1986). APA: Past, present, future. Virginia Law Review, 72, 447-492.
101.
Shapiro, M. (1989). Political jurisprudence, public law, and post-consequentialist ethics. Studies in American Political Development, 3, 88-102.
102.
Shepsle, K. , & Weingast, B. D. (1987). The institutional foundations of committee power. American Political Science Review, 81, 85-105.
103.
Simon, J.E.S. (1954). Administrative procedure and the rule of law. British Journal of Administrative Law, 1, 12-21.
104.
Sinfield, A. (1989). Literature, politics and culture in postwar Britain. Berkeley: University of California Press.
105.
Skocpol, T. (1985). Bringing the state back in. In P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back in. New York: Cambridge University Press.
106.
Smart, C. (1989). Feminism and the power of law. London: Routledge.
107.
Steinmo, S. (1989). Political institutions and tax policy in the United States, Sweden and Britain. World Politics, 41, 500-535.
108.
Sterett, S. (1990). Keeping the law up to date: The idiom of legalism and the reform of administrative law in England and Wales. Law and Social Inquiry, 15, 731-764.
109.
Stewart, R. (1975). The reformation of American administrative law. Harvard Law Review, 88, 1667-1813.
110.
Stone, I. F. (1941). One sided horse trade. Nation, 152, 120-121.
111.
Street, H. (1950). Book review. Yale Law Journal, 59, 590.
112.
Suleiman, E. N. (1987). Private power and centralization in France. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
113.
Sunkin, M. (1987). What is happening to applications for judicial review?Modern Law Review, 50, 432-467.
114.
Sunstein, C. (1983). Deregulation and the hard look doctrine. Supreme Court Review, pp. 177-212.
115.
Swann, D. (1990). The retreat of the state: Deregulation and privatization in the United Kingdom and the United States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
116.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action. American Sociological Review, 48, 273-286.
117.
Symposium on Administrative Law Based Upon Legal Writings 1931-1933, A . (1933). Iowa Law Review, 18, 129-248.
Treves, G. E. (1946). Administrative discretion and judicial control. Modern Law Review, 10, 276-291.
120.
Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 6 & 7 Eliz. 2, c. 66. (1958).
121.
Use of land for defence: Procedure under review . (1954, February 18). The Times, p. 3.
122.
U.S. Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure. (1941). Report (S. Doc. No. 8, 77th Cong., 1st Sess.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
123.
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary . (1946). Administrative Procedure Act: Legislative history (S. Doc. 248, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
124.
Verkuil, P. (1978). The emerging concept of administrative procedure. Columbia Law Review, 78, 258-277.
125.
Vogel, D. (1986). National styles of regulation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
126.
Wade, E.C.S. (1947). The courts and the administrative process. Law Quarterly Review, 63, 164-173.
127.
Wade, E.C.S. (1950). Introduction. In B. Schwartz, American administrative law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
128.
Weir, M. , & Skocpol, T. (1985). State structures and the possibilities for “Keynesian” Responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain and the United States. In P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back in. New York: Cambridge University Press.
129.
What is the public interest? (1954, June 19). The Economist, pp. 951-952.
130.
Wheare, K. C. (1975). Crichel Down revisited. Political Studies, 23, 390-415.
