Andor

Commercial art doesn't lead the way; it tries to ride the wave. In that, it can be instructive.

Andor Is a Star Wars Show About the Brutality of Bureaucracy

The TV show apparently has an all-powerful intelligence agency (the “Imperial Security Bureau”). A key priority for the agency is developing and deploying a new clean energy system. Oh, wait. The new clean energy system is a budgetary ruse and political cover for the construction of the Death Star. And if the Imperial bureaucracy has to kill a bunch of people to do so, then so be it.

Do the suits at Disney know this is what they made? Or, ironically, is their supervisory bureaucracy wildly inefficient?

‘This makes it easy to forget that the Empire is a government, a ruling authority with military and governing bodies, populated mostly by rule-following and rule-making humans rather than wizards. Those humans operate as government functionaries often do—as bureaucrats, tasked with overseeing staff and systems in order to achieve the Empire's governing objectives, whatever they might be.

‘It's easy to forget that those bureaucrats and functionaries are not only just as bad as any of the dark magic-wielding wizards slaying innocents with laser swords—they are the chief implementers and supervisors of the Empire's evil intentions.‘

Bill calls for accountability for unelected bureaucrats

Modernizing the Administrative Procedure Act post Loper sounds like a step in the right deregulatory direction.

‘The Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA) would ensure that regulations are transparent and lawful, the senators said, while preventing agencies from bypassing Congress and the Constitution.

‘“For too long, unelected bureaucrats have been writing binding rules with little accountability to Congress or the American people,” Lankford said. “Now that the Court has ended Chevron, it’s time for Congress to step up and make that accountability permanent. The Regulatory Accountability Act ensures that agencies follow the law, not write it.”

‘Officials said the legislation would modernize the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 to require transparency, cost-benefit analysis and consistent procedures. Additionally, it will restore independent judicial review to ensure the courts don’t “blindly defer to agency interpretations of law,” the lawmakers said.’

How to make bureaucracies better

The Administrative Procedure Act is only as good to the extent that it is employed. It is interesting to see an academic describe it as “quasi-constitutional.”

‘One major change happened in the wake of the Great Depression, when the federal government took a stronger lead. An alphabet soup of new agencies and regulatory bodies emerged, issuing rules that carried the force of law. This sudden expansion prompted public concern: Wasn’t it Congress that was supposed to be making the laws? Members of Congress grew increasingly uneasy. In response, they enacted the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 1946 — a piece of legislation that may sound dry but is something all Americans should know more about.

‘The APA is often described as quasi-constitutional. It established procedures by which administrative agencies may create rules with the force of law. For example, agencies must provide public notice about proposed rules and give people time to comment, and then they must be explicit about how they incorporate those comments, which injects a certain amount of accountability.

‘This is one of the greatest constraints on agency rulemaking, and one of the greatest constraints on deregulation. It takes a long time to make a rule or take one away. Agencies must provide a justification that can withstand judicial review and isn’t deemed “arbitrary and capricious.” That’s hard.’

Opinion: Is Trump’s battle against bureaucracy a game-changer or just a short-lived stunt?

There’s the rub. Executive orders are reversible. Legislation is relatively persistent.

‘But regulatory reformers must heed a lesson from Trump’s first term: executive orders aren’t enough. Permanent reform demands congressional legislation.’

Not Just Less Regulation - Better Regulation

It is amusing that the EU thinks that their regulatory approach is a competitive advantage.

That’s cute. There’s no other word for it.

‘The results of the questioning of 40 companies are clear: it is not the objectives of European regulation that are criticised, but its implementation. The majority of respondents feel that bureaucratic requirements are disproportionate, overly complex and difficult to implement in day-to-day business. Documentation and reporting obligations as well as complex authorisation procedures are particularly burdensome. In response to this feedback, cep is developing a comprehensive concept for reducing bureaucracy. It centres on the idea of combining concrete relief with a new regulatory approach: simpler, more comprehensible, more digital and geared towards entrepreneurial incentives.

‘"Companies are not demanding blanket deregulation, but better rules - understandable, proportionate and practicable," emphasises Matthias Kullas, cep economist. The so-called "Brussels effect", with which the EU sells its regulations as a global competitive advantage, often remains ineffective. The administrative costs clearly outweigh the strategic benefits. For cep, one thing is certain: smarter regulation must be an integral part of a forward-looking European location policy that is attractive worldwide.’

Trump Strikes a Welcome Blow Against the Executive Branch

What kind of President seeks to diminish the relative standing of the Executive Branch?

‘Consider, by way of example, the executive order that President Trump issued last Friday. At first blush, the missive appears to be yet another attempt at executive-led deregulation. “The United States,” it begins, “is drastically overregulated. The Code of Federal Regulations contains over 48,000 sections, stretching over 175,000 pages — far more than any citizen can possibly read, let alone fully understand.” And yet, when one proceeds further into the text, it becomes clear that, while the document’s literal purpose is, indeed, deregulatory, its real aim is to impose stricter limits on the freestanding power of the executive. The situation has become so dire, it continues, “that no one — likely including those charged with enforcing our criminal laws at the Department of Justice — knows how many separate criminal offenses are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations.” This, it concludes, is a problem not only because it makes life difficult for the citizenry but because “it allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it.”’

When Bureaucracy Betrays: The Urgent Need For Rule Of Law In Pakistan

Bureaucrats don’t recognize the rule of law, Pakistan edition.

‘One is then forced to lament about the bureaucracy’s evolving character that is now reigning supreme in our Land of Pure. From the most petty function to the most complex, people are made to run from pillar to post and from one table to another in a bid to move their files unless they are willing to pay everyone or find a strong reference. In a country that claims to have been created in the name of a religion that teaches piety, where officials are quick to respond to the call of prayer in specially assigned rooms in their buildings, where bribery is considered a major sin and service to humanity is akin to worship, a corrupt bureaucracy is nothing more than anti-thesis of the great religion or in plain language, dearth of rule of law.

‘The rule of law is the principle that no one is above law, even those who enact, interpret and administer them. It serves as a safeguard against tyranny, because fair, just, and impartial laws ensure that rulers do not become corrupt or despotic. Under the study of jurisprudence, the concept of ‘rule of law’ is quite complicated but in simple terms, it implies that all persons, regardless of their status, are subject to law.‘

Rule By Bureaucracy: Can Visionaries Like Musk And Milei Prevail?

It’s an obvious, though overlooked, point. The existence of regulations gives tremendous optionality to the bureaucrats who make and enforce the rules to act according to the preferences of one group at the expense of another. Company A, company B, and company C (all large entities) may push for aggressive regulation that hinders the growth of smaller competitors D, E, and F.

If it is in the interests of the regulator to go along with this scheme, say because of future employment purposes or other real or perceived pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits, they will help A, B, and C out.

This is what reformers are up against.

No wonder they’re having such a tough time. Bureaucratic rule is not the rule of law. Musk is just one man. What Milei has accomplished to date deserves canonization in some religion of liberty.

‘William E. Simon (1927-2000), former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, presented a paper with a striking critique: “Throughout the last century, the commitment of business and labor leaders to the free enterprise system that has provided them with so many benefits has weakened dramatically. Much of the coercive regulation we now have has actually been invited by the private sector to avoid the risks of competitive markets.”’