Eisenberg: Rural Disaffection & the Regulatory State
In Rural Disaffection and the Regulatory State, law scholar Ann M. Eisenberg (South Carolina Law) examines how rural people and rural communities relate to the federal regulatory state. The article ultimately argues that rural political disaffection stems in part from a crisis of legitimacy within that regulatory state.
In particular, Eisenberg argues that much of rural America’s negative relationship with the regulatory state is driven by experiences of exclusion, abandonment, and disillusionment. The article observes that issues of class, race, and geography function as barriers to rural populations’ meaningful participation in agency decisionmaking.
The article draws on a synthesis of literature on rural perceptions of the regulatory state, legitimacy theory, and a critical assessment of federal administrative law and institutions. First, Eisenberg explores the structure of and controversies surrounding the regulatory state, the rural views of the regulatory state as a symptom of legitimacy problems, and how the regulatory state aligns with rural views.
Eisenberg lends credence to some of rural populations’ sentiments as they evoke common concerns about democratic accountability and inadequately guided decisionmaking within the regulatory state. Eisenberg asserts that the rhetoric surrounding rural communities fails to acknowledge the intricacies of the communities themselves and their people. Additionally, she contemplates that some of the distrust of federal institutions in rural communities can be explained by federal laws and structures that do systematically disadvantage or otherwise have tangible negative impacts on rural communities. In other words, the article theorizes that some antigovernment sentiment may simply be a rational reaction to government doing a less-than-optimal job.
Finally, Eisenberg contemplates possibilities for reform based in recognized pathways to help establish institutional legitimacy – including procedural, distributive, and restorative justice – with a view of defusing rural alienation by building a regulatory system that is more trustworthy, effective, and fair for all. Ultimately, Eisenberg argues that over-emphasis on conservative, white, rural anger diminishes meaningful rural concerns while simultaneously erasing other rural views and communities, especially communities of color. The discussion brought forth in this article reorients the conversation toward more diverse, subjective experiences and demonstrates how the regulatory state’s simultaneous abandonment of, and imperfectly managed encroachment into, rural communities is a structural factor that is exacerbating urban and rural tensions.
