Interest Representation in Administrative Regulation
| Author | Avery Leiserson |
| Published date | 01 May 1942 |
| Date | 01 May 1942 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000271624222100113 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
78
Interest
Representation
in
Administrative
Regulation
By
AVERY
LEISERSON
HY,
again
and
again,
have
W the
important
Federal
regulatory
statutes,
from
the
Act
to
Regulate
Commerce
in
1887
down
to
the
Na-
tional
Labor
Relations
Act
of
1935,
been
attacked
as
&dquo;class
legislation&dquo;?
It
would
seem
obvious
that
in
each
law
the
coercive
power
of
government
was
used
to
protect
or
improve
the
position
of
one
economic
class
or
group
with
re-
spect
to
another.’
The
courts
do
not
construe
these
acts
as
denying
equal
protection
of
the
laws.
In
1787,
in
the
beginning
of
our
history
as
a
nation,
James
Madison
pointed
out
the
inescap-
able
function
of
government
as
a
regu-
lator
of
economic
interests,2
and
more
recently
A. F.
Bentley
demonstrated
the
insights
to
be
gained
by
approaching
law
and
government
as
a
process
grow-
ing
out
of
the
conflicting
group
pres-
sures
in
society.3
3
Invidious
epithets
do
not
clarify
dis-
cussion
of
the
relations
between
gov-
ernment
and
the
various
forms
of
eco-
nomic
organization.
They
cloak
the
impotence
of
legislatures
themselves
to
deal
directly
with
problems
of
regula-
tion,
and
becloud
the
necessity
for
dele-
gating
to
administrative
agencies
the
difficulties
raised
by
the
impact
of
pub-
lic
controls,
expressed
through
broad
legislative
policy,
upon
group
interests.
It
may
be
helpful
toward
avoiding
such
confusion
to
attempt
(1)
to
define
what
is
meant
by
an
economic
class,
(2)
to
emphasize
the
distinction
between
legis-
lative
and
administrative
policy-making,
and
(3)
to
analyze
the
role
of
group
or-
ganizations
on
both
levels.
GROUP
INTERESTS
AND
PUBLIC
RELATIONS
In
order
to
clarify
discussion
of
&dquo;in-
terests&dquo;
and
&dquo;interest
groups,&dquo;
it is
help-
ful
to
distinguish
the
idea
of
group
as
class
from
that
of
group
as
organiza-
tion.
A
class
is
a
category
of
persons
presumed
or
observed
to
possess
speci-
fied
characteristics
in
common,4
whereas
an
organization
is
an
association
of
in-
dividuals
collectively
seeking
certain
ob-
jectives
perhaps
best
described
by
their
institutional
practices
or
forms
of
be-
havior.
The
class
concept
is
an
intellectual
abstraction,
capable
of
re-creation
or
re-definition
by
each
individual
ob-
server.
As
such
it
is
useful,
and
in-
deed
may
achieve
objective
description,
when
one
attempts
to
explain
social
be-
havior
in
terms
of
economic
stratifica-
tion,
or
to
make
generalizations
about
motives,
purposes,
relative
rights
and
duties,
or
even
the
&dquo;inevitable
historic
mission&dquo;
of
social
groupings
as
he
chooses
to
define
them.
On
the
other
hand,
the
idea
of
group
as
organization
leads
to
a
study
of
the
constitution
and
tactics
of
specific
associations,
from
which
investigations
may
be
discovered
the
purposes
embodied
in
practices
that
constitute
the
members’
indigenous
ideas
of
their
group
interest
or
welfare.’
1
U.
S.
Commission
on
Industrial
Relations,
Final
Report
(1916),
64th
Cong.,
1st
sess.,
Sen.
Doc.
415,
"Commissions
and
Class
Conflicts,"
pp.
182-91;
J.
M.
Landis,
The
Administrative
Process
(New
Haven:
Yale
University
Press,
1938),
pp.
16, 36-42.
2
The
Federalist,
No.
X.
3
The
Process
of
Government,
Chicago:
Uni-
versity
of
Chicago
Press,
1908.
4
G.
A.
Lundberg,
Foundations
of
Sociology
(New
York:
Macmillan,
1939),
pp.
339-42;
R.
M.
MacIver,
"Interests,"
Encyclopaedia
of
the
Social
Sciences,
VIII,
pp.
144-46.
5
S.
and
B.
Webb,
Industrial
Democracy
(London:
Longmans
Green,
1902),
p.
vii;
S.
Perlman,
A
Theory
of
the
Labor
Movement
(New
York:
Macmillan,
1928),
pp.
6-10.
at SAGE PUBLICATIONS on December 4, 2012ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
To continue reading
Request your trial