The rule of law is foundational to Public Administration (PA), yet the field has long lacked a clear conceptualization of what the rule of law entails and, furthermore, an objective measurement system. Grounded in the “thin” conception of the rule of law and integrated within the public administration context, we propose a three-dimensional framework: Regulations, Organization, and Decision-making. We operationalize this framework as the Public Administration Rule of Law Index (PARLI), a composite measure built from three level-1 and seven level-2 indicators, using objective data to ensure replicability. We apply this index to measure the rule of law in China's 31 provinces (2020–2024) and validate it by examining its relationship with key socioeconomic outcomes. The results align with theoretical expectations: PARLI scores are positively correlated with entrepreneurship and innovation but negatively correlated with government responsiveness. These findings simultaneously confirm the measure's validity and reveal the inherent tensions in applying the rule of law within the public administration. This study makes two primary contributions. First, it provides scholars with a coherent framework to overcome knowledge fragmentation and cumulate scientific inquiry. Second, it offers a replicable and objective measurement toolkit for policy analysis.
AnthonyR. A. (1992). Interpretive rules, policy statements, guidances, manuals, and the like–should federal agencies use them to bind the public. Duke lJ, 41(6), 1311–1384. https://doi.org/10.2307/1372817
2.
AshE.MorelliM.VannoniM. (2025). More laws, more growth? Evidence from US states. Journal of Political Economy, 133(7), 2139–2179. https://doi.org/10.1086/734874
3.
BednerA. (2010). An elementary approach to the rule of law. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 2(1), 48–74.
4.
BednerA. (2018). The promise of a thick view. In MayC.WinchesterA. (Eds.), Handbook on the rule of law (pp. 34–47). Edward Elgar Publishing.
CarrollJ. L.HavemanR. H.KaraganisJ. V. (1983). When complex facts threaten court reviews: Litigation over navigation projects. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2(3), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/3324450
9.
ChenT.ShengY.XuW.YuX. (2024). Judicializing public interests: Administrative performance under the shadow of judicial review. The American Review of Public Administration, 54(7), 630–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740241245387
10.
City of Ontario v. Quon. (2010). 560 U.S. 746.
11.
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985). 470 U.S. 532.
12.
Clouser MccannP. J.ShipanC. R. (2022). How many major US laws delegate to federal agencies? (almost) all of them. Political Science Research and Methods, 10(2), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2021.32
13.
CooperP. J. (1997). Public law as a set of tools for management. In CooperP. J.NewlandC. A. (Eds.), Handbook of public law and administration (pp. 104–120). Jossey-Bass.
14.
CooperP. J. (2015). Conflict or constructive tension: The changing relationship of judges and administrators. In KoenigH. O.BeckettJ. (Eds.), Public administration and law (3rd ed (pp. 96–113). Routledge.
15.
CraigP. (2017). Formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law: An analytical framework. In BellamyR. (Ed.), The rule of law and the separation of powers (pp. 95–115). Taylor & Francis.
16.
DavisK. C. (1969). Discretionary justice: A preliminary inquiry. LSU Press.
DimockM. E. (1980). Law and dynamic administration. Praeger.
19.
FallonR. H. Jr. (1997). “The rule of law” as a concept in constitutional discourse. Columbia Law Review, 97(1), 1–56.
20.
Federal Narcotics Agents (1971[MNF17]). Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
21.
FeldmanD. (2012). The limits of law: Can laws regulate public administration?. In PetersB. G.PierreJ. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (2nd ed., pp. 346–359). SAGE.
22.
FinnisJ. (2011). Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford University Press.
FullerL. L. (1969). The morality of law. (Rev. ed.). Yale University Press.
25.
Garcetti v. Ceballos. (2006). 547 U.S. 410.
26.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. (1985). 469 U.S. 528.
27.
GellhornE.RobinsonG. O. (1975). Perspectives on administrative law. Colum. L. Rev, 75(4), 771–799. https://doi.org/10.2307/1121686
28.
GinsburgT. (2008). The judicialization of administrative governance: Causes, consequences and limits. In ChenA. H. Y.GinsburgT. (Eds.), Administrative law and governance in Asia: Comparative perspectives (pp. 1–19). Routledge.
GoodnowF. J. (1905). The principles of the administrative law of the United States. G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
32.
GortnerH. F.MahlerJ.NicholsonJ. B. (1987). Organization theory: A public perspective. Dorsey Press.
33.
GowderP. (2016). The Rule of Law in the Real World. Cambridge University Press.
34.
HarterP. J. (1983). Dispute resolution and administrative law: The history, needs, and future of a complex relationship. Villanova Law Review, 29(5&6), 1393–1436.
KaufmannD.KraayA.MastruzziM. (2010). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and analytical issues (Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374105-9.00014-9
38.
KerwinC. M. (1997). Public law and public management: A conceptual framework. In CooperP. J.NewlandC. A. (Eds.), Handbook of public law and administration (pp. 26–40). Jossey-Bass.
39.
KerwinC. M.FurlongS. R. (2019). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy (5th ed). Sage Publications.
40.
KettlD. F. (2024). Politics of the administrative process. Sage Publications.
41.
KleinfeldR. (2006). Competing definitions of the rule of law. In CarothersT. (Ed.), Promoting the rule of law abroad: In search of knowledge (pp. 31–74). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
42.
KochtcheevaL. V. (2009). Administrative discretion and environmental regulation: Agency substantive rules and court decisions in US air and water quality policies. Review of Policy Research, 26(3), 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00381.x
43.
KoenigH. O.BeckettJ. (2005). Public administration and law. M.E. Sharpe.
44.
KreverT. (2011). The legal turn in late development theory: The rule of law and the world bank’s development model. Harv. Int’l LJ, 52(1), 287–319.
LeeY. S.RosenbloomD. H. (2005). A reasonable public servant: Constitutional foundations of administrative conduct in the United States. M.E. Sharpe.
47.
LevinR. M. (1992). Nonlegislative rules and the administrative open mind. Duke Law Journal, 41(6), 1497–1507. https://doi.org/10.2307/1372821
48.
LimbockerS.ReshW. G.SelinJ. L. (2022). Anticipated adjudication: An analysis of the judicialization of the US administrative state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(3), 610–626. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab040
49.
Lynn JrL. E. (2009). Restoring the rule of law to public administration: What frank goodnow got right and leonard white didn’t. Public Administration Review, 69(5), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02030.x
50.
MitchellC. E. (2009). Retaliation lawsuits held applicable for federal employees under the age discrimination in employment act: A victory for older federal workers: The supreme court’s decision in gomez-perez v. Potter. Postmaster General. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(1), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X08327091
51.
MoeR. C.GilmourR. S. (1995). Rediscovering principles of public administration: The neglected foundation of public law. Public Administration Review, 55(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/977179
52.
MøllerJ. (2018). The advantages of a thin view. In MayC.WinchesterA. (Eds.), Handbook on the rule of law (pp. 19–33). Edward Elgar Publishing.
53.
MøllerJ.SkaaningS. E. (2011). On the limited interchangeability of rule of law measures. European Political Science Review, 3(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000421
54.
MøllerJ.SkaaningS.-E. (2014). The rule of law: Definitions, measures, patterns and causes. Palgrave Macmillan.
55.
Monroe v. Pape. (1961). 365 U.S. 167.
56.
NardulliP. F.PeytonB.BajjaliehJ. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring rule of law constructs, 1850–2010. Journal of Law and Courts, 1(1), 139–192. https://doi.org/10.1086/668543
57.
NewboldS. (2011). No time like the present: Making rule of law and constitutional competence the theoretical and practical foundation for public administration graduate education curriculum. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(4), 465–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2011.12001657
58.
O'Connor v. Ortega. (1987). 480 U.S. 709.
59.
ParrilloN. R. (2018). The endgame of administrative law: Governmental disobedience and the judicial contempt power. Harvard Law Review, 131(3), 685–794.
60.
ParrilloN. R. (2019). Negotiating the federal government’s compliance with court orders: An initial exploration. North Carolina Law Review, 97, 899–932.
61.
PeerenboomR. (2002). Let one hundred flowers bloom, one hundred schools contend: Debating rule of law in China. Michigan Journal of International Law, 23(3), 471–544.
62.
PeerenboomR. (2003). Varieties of rule of law: An introduction and provisional conclusion. In PeerenboomR. (Ed.), Asian discourses of rule of law (pp. 1–28). Taylor & Francis.
63.
Pickering v. Board of Education. (1968). 391 U.S. 563.
64.
RasoC. (2015). Agency avoidance of rulemaking procedures. Administrative law Review, 67(1), 65–132.
65.
RazJ. (2017). The rule of law and its virtue. In BellamyR. (Ed.), The rule of law and the separation of powers (pp. 77–94). Routledge.
66.
RobertsR. (2023). The rule of law and public service. In RiccucciN. M. (Ed.), Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges (7th ed (pp. 122–135). Routledge.
67.
RosenbloomD.ReneH. (2016). Shrinking constitutional tort accountability: Developments in the law and implications for professional responsibility. Public Performance and Management Review40(2), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2016.1177561
68.
RosenbloomD. H. (1980). Public administrators’ official immunity and the supreme court: Developments during the 1970s. Public Administration Review, 40(2), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.2307/975627
69.
RosenbloomD. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review, 43(3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.2307/976330
70.
RosenbloomD. H.KravchukR. S.ClerkinR. M. (2022). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector (9th ed.). Routledge.
71.
SantosA. (2016). The World Bank’s Use of the “Rule of Law” Promise in Economic Development.
72.
ShapiroM. (1994). Discretion. In Handbook of regulation and administrative law (pp. 501–517). Marcel Dekker.
73.
SimonH. A. (1944). Decision-making and administrative organization. Public Administration Review, 4(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/972435
SunsteinC. R.VermeuleA. (2020). Law and Leviathan: Redeeming the Administrative State. Harvard University Press.
80.
TamanahaB. Z. (2004). On the rule of law: History, politics, theory. Cambridge University Press.
81.
UrueñaR. (2015). Indicators and the law: A case study of the rule of law index. In KingsburyB.DavisK. E.MerryS. E. (Eds.), The quiet power of indicators: Measuring governance, corruption, and rule of law (pp. 175–195). Cambridge University Press.
82.
VallinderT. (1995). When the courts go marching in. In TateC. VallinderT. (Eds.), The global expansion of judicial power (pp. 13–26). NYU Press.
WaltenburgE. N.SwinfordB. (1999). The supreme court as a policy arena: The strategies and tactics of state attorneys general. Policy Studies Journal, 27(2), 242–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01966.x
85.
WhiteL. D. (1939). Introduction to the study of public administration (Rev. ed). The Macmillan Company.
World Bank. (2000). Bolivia: From patronage to a professional state: Bolivia institutional and governance review (Report No. 20115-BO).
88.
YackeeJ. W.YackeeS. W. (2010). Administrative procedures and bureaucratic performance: Is federal rule-making ‘ossified’?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup011. Oxford University Press
89.
Zajac-SannerholmR. (2012). Extending Rule of Law Promotion beyond Criminal Justice: Rule of Law and Public Administration in Conflict, Post-conflict and Fragile States. Innovations in Rule of Law, 75.
90.
ZalmanovitchY. (2014). Don’t reinvent the wheel: The search for an identity for public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(4), 808–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314533456
91.
ZhanZ. (1992). 论行政法规、行政规章以外的其他规范性文件 [Lùn xíngzhèng fǎguī, xíngzhèng guīzhāng yǐwài de qítā guīfàn xìng wénjiàn] [on normative documents other than administrative regulations and administrative rules]. 中国法学[Zhōngguó Fǎxué] [Chinese Journal of Law], 2, 108–113.
