Administrative Bloat: Critics Point to Fourfold Growth of Regulations Over Congressional Laws

A recent exchange on social media between Twitter user Baron Douro and author Adrian Wooldridge has brought renewed attention to concerns over the increasing size and complexity of the administrative state in the United States. Baron Douro, identified as the Twitter handle for the current Duke of Wellington, articulated a view that "complacency and ideology" are leading to "active support for bloated administrative law, with ever more procedural legal obligations making action impossible." This sentiment resonates with critiques from policy experts and academics regarding the efficiency and accountability of modern governance.Two more.Adrian Wooldridge, a global business columnist for Bloomberg Opinion and co-author of "The Wake-Up Call," has extensively argued that Western governments have overreached, with their public sectors becoming less efficient and trusted since the mid-1960s. Wooldridge's work suggests that government failures are often rooted in execution issues and excessive bureaucracy. This aligns with the tweet's assertion of "blindness to the precipice we stand on, believing we can afford this bloat."The sheer scale of the U.S. administrative state is highlighted by data indicating a significant disparity between regulatory output and legislative acts. The Code of Federal Regulations, which contains agency-issued rules, spans 242 volumes and over 185,000 pages, a volume four times larger than the U.S. Code of Laws passed by Congress. This expansion has led to concerns about "ossification" of regulatory processes, making agencies less nimble in responding to new challenges.Critics argue that this growth fosters "initiation myopia," where regulatory policy originates at lower levels of government without sufficient political oversight, potentially undermining accountability. Furthermore, the administrative state is accused of "zigzagging regulation," where policies frequently shift between administrations, creating instability and hindering long-term planning. Instances of "regulatory carve-outs" are also cited, benefiting well-connected groups and distorting regulatory fairness.The implications of such extensive administrative power, often operating with limited judicial review, include reduced governmental effectiveness and potential for arbitrary decision-making. Experts like Aaron L. Nielson advocate for a "deconstruction" of the administrative state, not its destruction, but a re-examination and reform of its underlying principles to improve policy quality and legitimacy. This ongoing debate underscores the need for greater balance between necessary administrative functions and democratic accountability.