Moreover, the Congress has an oversight function, and it can and does react when people respond negatively to administrative actions, as occurred in the SSI and disability review examples (Derthick, p.153). Of course, the Court system is the major overseer in the United States. Derthick maintains that courts and administrative agencies perform sufficiently similar roles, making their potential for conflict great (Derthick, p.131). Both courts and administrative agencies are tasked with filling in statutes, but courts are generalists while administrators are specialists, making conflict between their decisions almost inevitable (Derthick, p.131). Moreover, courts may interpret laws differently in different jurisdictions, meaning that a single federal agency could ostensibly have to meet several different federal guidelines (Derthick, p.131). In both the SSI and the review scenarios, court involvement complicated the agency's task, with some courts making demands upon the agency...
Her examples helped highlight how too many decision-makers can leave administrative agencies with unclear mandates. Moreover, she demonstrated how conflicting mandates in even a single decision-making group, can misdirect an administrative agency. For example, Congress wanted the SSA to tighten up restrictions and help prevent social security fraud, but was unwilling to give it adequate resources to do so. Her examples not only demonstrate why the SSA continues to struggle as an agency, but also why so many federal administrative agencies seem inefficient and unable to accomplish their tasks.
Works Cited
Martha Derthick. Under Stress: the Social Security Administration in American Government.
Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution, 1990.
