Comparative Law and Regulation
Show Less

Comparative Law and Regulation

Understanding the Global Regulatory Process

Edited by Francesca Bignami and David Zaring

Governance by regulation – rules propounded and enforced by bureaucracies – is taking a growing share of the sum total of governance. Once thought to be an American phenomenon, it is now a central form of state action in every part of the world, including Europe, Latin America, and Asia, and it is at the core of much international lawmaking. In Comparative Law and Regulation, original contributions by leading scholars in the field focus both on the legal dimension of regulation and on how this dimension operates in those places that have turned to regulation to meet their obligations.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 11: Proportionality review of administrative action in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China

Cheng-Yi Huang and David S. Law


Judicial control of administrative action is not a novel idea in East Asia, but it has emerged under less than promising conditions. Much of the political economy literature has identified pervasive state management of the economy as the key to the unprecedented prosperity enjoyed by East Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and more recently China (Johnson, 1982; Wade, 1992; Kohli, 2004). It is not immediately obvious why a regime that relies on extensive administrative control to achieve economic success would invite or even tolerate judicially imposed limits on the very administrative apparatus responsible for that success. Nevertheless, in all four of these countries, regulators face a variety of limits on their power, and courts play a role in enforcing those limits. In South Korea and Taiwan, democratization led to demands that state regulation be more responsive to the wishes of private actors and subject to statutory constraints (Baum, 2011). In China, judicial review has joined political control by the ruling partyand internal control by the bureaucratic hierarchy as an added restraint upon administrative decisionmaking. Even in an authoritarian state such as China, judicial review of administrative action can be valuable to the regime as a means of monitoring its own bureaucrats and reducing agency costs (Ginsburg, 2008; He, 2009: 148–50). Thus, across a wide range of political and institutional settings in East Asia, courts find themselves in the position of having to regulate the regulators, and that task involves at least some substantive review of agency action.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.