Book Review: Reasoned administration and democratic legitimacy: How administrative law supports democratic government

• Published date: 01 January 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074020973003
• Date: 01 January 2021
• Subject Matter: Book Reviews

Book Reviews 73

OIG-agency conflict and cooperation. However, the authors

acknowledge this limitation, and provide short, illustrative

“exhibits” of specific OIG projects in Chapter 6 that partially

mitigate this methodological difficulty.

In a final substantive chapter, Johnson and Newcomer

tackle the thorny question of IG effectiveness. What does an

effective OIG look like? Measuring the impact of IG work is

notoriously elusive. Beyond tallying such categories as the

number of indictments and potential funds saved, there is no

reliable way to measure the effect of permanent, in-house

monitoring on agency behavior. Daniel Carpenter has

recently described such challenges as one of the limits of the

“countability of things bureaucratic” (Carpenter, 2020).

Cognizant of this methodological challenge, Johnson and

Newcomer attempt to give depth to important explanatory

concepts, such as organizational capacity. They also consider

the indirect ways in which IG work affects policy perfor-

mance, such as through prevention, as well as highlight vari-

ous unquantifiable factors that affect IG performance, such

as timing and persistence. Moreover, their analysis is guided

by a variety of theoretical insights from the social and behav-

ioral sciences. Nevertheless, the reader hopes for more con-

ceptual innovation: is there a way to conceptualize the

preventative effect of IG scrutiny on bureaucratic actors?

The problem here lies less with Johnson and Newcomer, who

signal these difficulties, and more with conceptual lacunae

within the public administration subfield.

The authors conclude with a short set of recommendations

that echoes the views of many IGs. These include improving

the appointment process, and ensuring that vacant positions

are filled; building the reputation and trust of IGs within gov-

ernment circles; and developing the evaluative categories

used by both IGs and their observers to deepen our under-

standing of the effects that IGs have on federal actors.

Throughout the volume, Johnson and Newcomer adopt a

methodologically rigorous and diverse approach to outlining

the fundamentals of IG work. They present data culled from

the IG coordinating body, the Council of the Inspectors

General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and combine

this with extensive interview data and comprehensive survey

responses from a wide set of OIGs. Each chapter returns to

the basic explanatory framework that positions the IGs within

a strategic environment. What emerges is the importance of

robust organizational capacity and the centrality of strong,

personal relationships to the success of IG work. This volume

will be of great use to public administration scholars in under-

standing the institutional landscape that conditions this form

of accountability, but also to public officials seeking to reform

and strengthen the IG role.

Although Johnson and Newcomer’s volume is a wel-

come—and much needed—explication of the IG universe,

their analysis invites further investigation. There remains the

underlying question of whether the core evaluative categories

used to assess the IGs should emerge from IG work itself, or

from more theoretical perspectives elucidated in public

administration scholarship. Overall, the volume is strongest

as a detailed technical overview of the IG profession and IG

work. Although neither the thematic organization of the book,

nor the conclusions will be a surprise to observers of the IGs,

it provides thoughtful, rigorous analysis based on much origi-

nal data. Johnson and Newcomer’s survey results provide a

wealth of raw material for further analysis. What would be

welcome in future scholarship would be a return to the funda-

mental question of policy effectiveness: how have IGs

changed the management of government, and has this been

for the better or for the worse? What marks do they leave on

the federal bureaucracy, and—given the widely recognized

difficulty in “measuring” IG effects—how do we know? Is

their value merely technical in nature, or do they provide a

more profound form of accountability? In other words,

beyond enhancing agency efficiency, do IGs create a height-

ened moral ethos in the federal bureaucracy? While Johnson

and Newcomer’s work will prove to be an invaluable resource

for public administration scholars and congressional reform-

ers for years to come, a return to these more fundamental

questions will be necessary for broader understandings of the

IGs’ democratic role in turbulent times.

ORCID iD

Nadia E. Hilliard https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5657-9347

References

Carpenter, D. (2020). On categories and the accountability of

things bureaucratic. Perspectives on Public Management and

Governance, 3(2), 83–93.

Light, P. C. (1993). Monitoring government: Inspectors general

and the search for accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings

Press.

Mashaw, J. L. (2018). Reasoned administration and democratic

legitimacy: How administrative law supports democratic government.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 210. $29.99

(paperback). ISBN 978-1108413114.

Reviewed by: Christopher J. Walker , The Ohio State

University Moritz College of Law, Columbus, USA.

DOI: 10.1177/0275074020973003

The U.S. Supreme Court has long read the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA) to require agencies to engage in rea-

soned decision making. As the Court famously said in 1983,

in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm

Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., “a court is not to substi-

tute its judgment for that of the agency,” but “the agency

must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory

explanation for its action.” During the Trump Administration,