Explain the reasons for the rapid growth of administrative agencies in the United States
What will be an ideal response?
Administrative agencies have proliferated rapidly since the late 1890s for the following reasons:
a. Flexibility: Unlike court proceedings, administrative agency hearings are not governed by strict rules of evidence. For example, hearsay rules are waived in most cases.
b. Need for expertise: The staff of each of the agencies has technical expertise in a relatively narrow area, gained from concentrating on that area over the years. It would be impossible, for example, for 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators to regulate the television, radio, and satellite communication systems of the United States on a daily basis. Only the Federal Communications Commission staff has that expertise.
c. Prevention of overcrowding in courts: If administrative agencies did not exist, our highly complex, often litigious, society would have to seek redress of grievances through the federal and state court systems. Both corporations and individuals are already seeking alternatives to the overburdened court system.
d. Expeditious solutions to national problems: After the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Depression, Congress sought to give investors confidence in the securities markets by creating the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1934. The SEC was intended to be a "watchdog" agency that would ensure full disclosure of material information to the investing public and prevent a repetition of the fraudulent practices that marked the freewheeling 1920s. When the public became concerned about the deterioration of the nation's water, land, and air, Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement air, water, and waste regulations.
You might also like to view...
While the cost of doing marketing research can be estimated accurately, determining the true value of the expected information remains difficult.
a. true b. false
With an unlimited amount of funds, a firm could accept all positive NPV projects. However, with limited budgets, managers are forced to accept some positive NPV projects while rejecting others
What overall financial rule should managers follow when choosing the portfolio of projects to accept? Why? What will be an ideal response?