Expanding Horizons: Psychological, Cultural, Institutional, and Technological Perspectives

Abstract

Scholars in comparative administrative law have long grappled with the issue of methodological uncertainty. Much of this research focuses on two or perhaps three countries regarding a single doctrinal issue. This kind of research is often plagued by common methodological problems related, for instance, to random selection. In this chapter, I have suggested that scholars in comparative administrative law adopt an integrated methodology: placing human subjectivity in the network of accountability. This chapter focuses on four interconnected topics that can lead us to envision the dynamic development of comparative administrative law now and in the future. The first section discusses behavioral insights into administrative procedure and judicial review, which may broaden our perspective on rationality review. I illustrate the application of behavioral science to comparative administrative law with examples of reason-giving, proportionality, and cost-benefit analysis. The second section addresses the desk-level operations of bureaucratic administration and calls for greater attention to how cultural differences — especially in the shadow of colonialism — have perhaps transformed or reinvented administrative law doctrines infused with the characteristics of locality. The third section deals with the complexity of institutions through the eyes of comparative administrative law. Finally, the chapter shifts to a future-oriented discussion about potential conflict and collaboration between governmental use of artificial intelligence and such traditional administrative law doctrines as legislative delegation and judicial deference. The emergence of artificial intelligence, while raising doubts about accountability, has enabled us to contemplate the future of self-government and democracy.