ion making methods and demonstrates that these paradigms are the underlying framework for both calibrating the degree of judicial deference accorded to administrative agency decisions and for the normative prescriptions about administrative procedure. At the beginning of the chapter, he emphasizes that the correspondence between this trichotomy and the three branches of government reflect the continuing power of the separation of powers doctrine (Edley, 1990, p 13).
The adjudicatory fairness paradigm is composed of several principles that are familiar in settings other than the judiciary. These elements include consistency over time (stare decisis), consistency across situations (treating like cases alike), reasoned elaboration, neutrality of the decision maker5, and notions of hearing and confrontation. The paradigm of science or expertise emphasizes methods of reasoning and choice which are characterized by rationality, objectivity, deductive reasoning, and specialized knowledge. It also emphasizes process values such as the scientific method and managerial efficiency, rather than public disclosure or broad participation. The politics paradigm includes interests accommodation or balancing, but also extreme or limiting cases in which dissenting interests are underweighted to allow straightforward application of the decision maker's personal values, partisan preferences, or ideology. The differences between these paradigms serve three broad functions: doctrinal, sociological, and normative (Edley, 1990, pp. 13-19).
Chapter Three discusses the conceptual failings of the trichotomy. At the outset, the author states that the most immediate difficulty with the trichotomy is its three paradigms are almost impossible to separate. S
...