This paper presents research on a typical subject in comparative law: doctrinal thinking about (and teaching methods for) administrative law in Brazil and the United States. The paper’s initial research hypotheses are as follows: 1) in contrast to the United States, in Brazil, legal scholarship (legal academic writing) has significantly influenced the construction of the theoretical principles that form the basis of the public administration system; 2) the Brazilian understanding of administrative legal scholarship is distinct from that of the United States regarding several specific but representative issues; 3) in Brazil, administrative law textbooks and monographs focus on general principles and direct state intervention, whereas in the United States, administrative law education focuses on regulatory issues; and 4) regulatory (and policy or decision-making) concepts are more complex than they initially appear. These initial hypotheses will either be confirmed or refuted at the end of the study. The methodological research scope is an analysis of the study, teaching, and theoretical approach to the science of administrative law through a comparison of the two systems. The conclusions aim to assist legal researchers in both countries by broadening the understanding of the differences in meaning between apparently similar institutions and expressions while analyzing relevant semiological differences. Therefore, the paper does not represent an analysis of the particular legal systems but instead offers a methodology for understanding the two jurisdictions under consideration.
© 2017 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston