Machine-learning algorithms are transforming large segments of the economy as they fuel innovation in search engines, self-driving cars, product marketing, and medical imaging, among many other ...technologies. As machine learning’s use expands across all facets of society, anxiety has emerged about the intrusion of algorithmic machines into facets of life previously dependent on human judgment. Alarm bells sounding over the diffusion of artificial intelligence throughout the private sector only portend greater anxiety about digital robots replacing humans in the governmental sphere. A few administrative agencies have already begun to adopt this technology, while others have clear potential in the near term to use algorithms to shape official decisions over both rulemaking and adjudication. It is no longer fanciful to envision a future in which government agencies could effectively make law by robot, a prospect that understandably conjures up dystopian images of individuals surrendering their liberty to the control of computerized overlords. Should society be alarmed by governmental use of machine-learning applications? We examine this question by considering whether the use of robotic decision tools by government agencies can pass muster under core, time-honored doctrines of administrative and constitutional law. At first glance, the idea of algorithmic regulation might appear to offend one or more traditional doctrines, such as the nondelegation doctrine, procedural due process, equal protection, or principles of reason-giving and transparency. We conclude, however, that when machine-learning technology is properly understood, its use by government agencies can comfortably fit within these conventional legal parameters. We recognize, of course, that the legality of regulation by robot is only one criterion by which its use should be assessed. Agencies should not apply algorithms cavalierly, even if doing so might not run afoul of the law; in some cases, safeguards may be needed for machine learning to satisfy broader, good-governance aspirations. Yet, in contrast with the emerging alarmism, we resist any categorical dismissal of a future administrative state in which algorithmic automation guides, and even at times makes, key decisions. Instead, we urge that governmental reliance on machine learning should be approached with measured optimism about the potential benefits such technology can offer society by making government smarter and its decisions more efficient and just., Machine-learning algorithms are transforming large segments of the economy as they fuel innovation in search engines, self-driving cars, product marketing, and medical imaging, among many other technologies. As machine learning's use expands across all facets of society, anxiety has emerged about the intrusion of algorithmic machines into facets of life previously dependent on human judgment. Alarm bells sounding over the diffusion of artificial intelligence throughout the private sector only portend greater anxiety about digital robots replacing humans in the governmental sphere. A few administrative agencies have already begun to adopt this technology, while others have clear potential in the near term to use algorithms to shape official decisions over both rulemaking and adjudication. It is no longer fanciful to envision a future in which government agencies could effectively make law by robot, a prospect that understandably conjures up dystopian images of individuals surrendering their liberty to the control of computerized overlords. Should society be alarmed by governmental use of machine-learning applications? We examine this question by considering whether the use of robotic decision tools by government agencies can pass muster under core, time-honored doctrines of administrative and constitutional law. At first glance, the idea of algorithmic regulation might appear to offend one or more traditional doctrines, such as the nondelegation doctrine, procedural due process, equal protection, or principles of reason-giving and transparency. We conclude, however, that when machine-learning technology is properly understood, its use by government agencies can comfortably fit within these conventional legal parameters. We recognize, of course, that the legality of regulation by robot is only one criterion by which its use should be assessed. Agencies should not apply algorithms cavalierly, even if doing so might not run afoul of the law; in some cases, safeguards may be needed for machine learning to satisfy broader, good-governance aspirations. Yet, in contrast with the emerging alarmism, we resist any categorical dismissal of a future administrative state in which algorithmic automation guides, and even at times makes, key decisions. Instead, we urge that governmental reliance on machine learning should be approached with measured optimism about the potential benefits such technology can offer society by making government smarter and its decisions more efficient and just.
Public officials must not only comply with administrative procedures based on administrative rulebooks but also follow particular procedures requested by their supervisors in a bureaucratic system, ...which might be even more significant in a hierarchical culture. Noting that the impact of hierarchical procedures on red tape perception has not been extensively examined, this study investigates the potential difference in the effects of administrative and hierarchical procedures on the perception of red tape. Using a 2 × 2 × 2 experiment design to examine the effects of the nature of procedures, outcome favorability, and degree of procedures, vignette-based experiments were conducted for empirical analysis. This study suggests that the red tape perception resulting from hierarchical procedures is only significantly affected by the nature of outcomes (positive versus negative) and not by the degree of hierarchical procedures. In contrast the red tape perception related to administrative procedures is affected by both outcome favorability and degree of procedures. Among various Confucian values, this study also finds that face-saving and humility affect the perception of red tape.
This paper focuses on transformation in sustainable urban governance by examining the prospect of fostering sustainable development through top-down urban governance. It takes a case study of urban ...development in Saudi Arabia, which had been administered through a centralized framework devoid of the environmental assessment of policies and plans. Urban planning documents made limited references to the environment. Consequently, Saudi cities have been ranked low on environmental sustainability. However, recently, due to the political imperative of addressing the problems, low oil prices, and the Arab Spring, there has been a remarkable transformation in urban governance. The planning of some of the major cities has been decentralized and some policies implemented to curb unsustainable development. This article reviews these changes to investigate how top-down approaches might still be relevant in promoting sustainable development. It concludes that there is a need to implement a framework of legislation and administrative procedures integrated with strategic environmental assessment (SEA) to ensure proper sustainable institutionalised urban governance. The findings could serve as lessons for those operating under similar political contexts especially in developing countries.
•Examines the prospect of fostering sustainable development through top-down urban governance•Examines urban governance in Saudi Arabia as a case study•Highlights the transformation in sustainable urban governance in Saudi Arabia•Top-down approach is relevant in promoting sustainable urban governance in some contexts.
When reviewing agency action, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) instructs courts to "review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party." The Supreme Court has interpreted this brief ...statement as a restriction on the evidentiary scope of judicial review under the APA. Courts may consider only the administrative record compiled by the agency, which includes all materials before the decisionmaker at the time he or she made the decision. The Supreme Court has recognized one exception: plaintiffs may supplement the administrative record if they make a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior on the part of the agency.
Courts consistently apply the record rule to arbitrary and capricious claims. It is less clear whether the rule applies to constitutional claims. This issue crept into two recent, high-profile Supreme Court cases—Department of Commerce v. New York and Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security—but the Court has yet to definitively resolve the issue. In the meantime, lower courts have developed three alternative approaches. This Comment argues that the record rule, though one with a robust bad faith exception, should apply to all constitutional challenges to agency action. It analyzes the APA's text, legislative history, pre- and post-APA precedent, and policy considerations to argue for a record rule approach.
Uz žalbu u upravnom postupku, prigovor je drugi redoviti pravni lijek prema Zakonu o općem upravnom postupku. Prigovor pruža pravnu zaštitu na pet područja upravnog prava izvan upravnog postupka: kod ...triju vrsta upravnih postupanja (iniciranje pokretanja postupka po službenoj dužnosti, obavješćivanje o uvjetima ostvarivanja i zaštite prava, zaštita od drugih oblika postupanja javnopravnih tijela), kod postupanja pružatelja javnih usluga te kod neispunjavanja obveza koje javnopravno tijelo ima prema upravnom ugovoru. Osim razlika u materiji svakog od pet instituta kod kojih se prigovor primjenjuje, pojedine vrste prigovora razlikuju se po tome aktivira li se njihovim podnošenjem upravni postupak, jesu li remonstrativni ili devolutivni, koja im je svrha, po propisanim rokovima i dr. U odnosu na sve vrste prigovora sudska zaštita osigurana je u upravnom sporu.
The APA Gets No Respect Sapper, Arthur G
Regulation (Washington. 1977),
12/2021, Volume:
44, Issue:
4
Journal Article, Magazine Article
The Administrative Procedure Act was supposed to be, according to a chief sponsor, "a bill of rights" for those regulated by federal agencies. But a bill of rights is worthless if ignored, and in ...many cases important provisions of the APA are ignored, not just by lawyers and scholars but by courts. Here, Sapper details how the courts ignore the APA provision.
Dual citizenship is often seen as an indication that states are adopting more open membership policies. In some cases, however, dual citizenship is imposed because states lay claim to populations ...beyond their borders, and prohibit the renunciation of citizenship. This research note presents new data to describe which countries prohibit renunciation. First, we find that some states prohibit renunciation in administrative practice, even though national legal frameworks formally allow renunciation. Roughly one in five states — 38 total — prohibits citizenship renunciation in de facto or de jure terms. Second, prohibitions are regionally clustered in Latin America and the Caribbean (13 countries) and the Middle East and North Africa region (11 countries). Third, among the countries that prohibit renunciation, democracies and authoritarian regimes are fairly balanced (17 democracies vs. 21 autocracies). Fourth, democracies are more likely to formally prohibit renunciation, while autocracies also rely on de facto prohibition through administrative barriers, arbitrary procedures, or a failure to process requests. We connect citizenship prohibitions to diaspora governance, discuss its implications for citizens, and propose avenues for further research.
PDF
