Twenty-first-century Administrative Law is marked by a broad movement of transformation, driven by the pursuit of efficiency and integrity and by the need for the State to act as a driver of development and innovation. The rigidity of the old command-and-control model is giving way to a framework that seeks to balance legality and pragmatism, hierarchy and dialogue, stability and adaptation. Based on the developments in the field since its constitutionalization, it is possible to identify four pillars of this change.

The first is administrative consensualism: far from a mere expedient, it has become an instrument of legitimacy and rationality, even though it reveals tensions typical of a State that is learning to negotiate without abandoning its foundations. Administrative agreements have become “genuine instruments of public action and an autonomous legal category of Brazilian administrative law”, whose expansion reveals a “normative and empirical reality that imposes itself on legal doctrine”¹.

about:blankabout:blankabout:blankabout:blankabout:blankabout:blankabout:blank

It should be noted, however, that the asymmetry between the State and private parties can give rise to “abusive consensualism”, in which apparent dialogue conceals unilateral impositions — administrative arm-twisting²: if there is asymmetry between the parties and it is not mitigated, the risk that one of them will suffer abuse is real.

Recent case law reflects this concern. In Case No. 1025786-77.2022.4.01.3400, the judgment ending the dispute acknowledges the existence of a defect of consent in a leniency agreement and recognizes the possibility of judicial review of coercion and duress.

This trend is reinforced by the institutionalization of alternative dispute resolution methods, such as Dispute Avoidance and Resolution Boards (DABs), the subject of a public consultation by the AGU/CGU (Notice NEA/CGU No. 4), created to prevent disputes and ensure speed in contract performance. The US experience also points to the importance of controlling administrative action: in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, SCOTUS revisited judicial deference to agencies’ interpretive choices and expressed concern about the legitimacy of decision-making in environments of technical complexity and information asymmetry, a discussion that resonates with the Brazilian context of administrative agreements and external oversight.

This context reveals a State that, beyond dialogue, needs to (re)build lasting administrative capacities — the second pillar that can be drawn from the changes discussed here. Hence the relevance of neo-Weberian bureaucracies and strategic management³, a contemporary reference model for administrative reform designed to overcome the limitations of both the traditional bureaucratic model and managerialist reforms. These are bureaucracies that play a decisive role by combining professionalization, a public ethos and coordination capacity. The goal is no longer merely to modernize processes, but to consolidate institutions capable of operating in complex environments, with enough stability to ensure predictability while remaining open to innovation and continuous learning. This logic reinforces the idea that the State must develop permanent structures of expertise, capable of sustaining mission-oriented policies and evidence-based decisions.

The administrative reform proposal currently under discussion in Congress reorganizes the administration around Management by Results, bringing the State closer to a mission-oriented approach, so that public policies are “green, digital and inclusive”⁴. Examples include (i) the requirement of a Strategic Plan for Results, to be published within 180 days after taking office, and (ii) the adoption of Results Agreements, which incorporate a logic of coordination and continuous evaluation. These instruments show a trend toward consolidating a culture of professionalization: less fragmentation of careers, cross-functionality, mobility and merit-based rather than merely seniority-based progression. Perhaps the most emblematic example is the Unified National Civil Service Exam (CNU), a potential model for streamlining recruitment at the various levels of the federation.

Integrity emerges as the third pillar, perhaps a cross-cutting one and a condition for legitimacy. The State must rebuild mechanisms of transparency and control over private influence, especially in the regulation of lobbying. The Courts of Auditors are also reinventing themselves: the administrative reform proposal mentioned above provides that they adopt consensual instruments, monitor the Public Management by Results System and may approve binding precedents to standardize interpretations. In public finance, the proliferation of super-salaries and indemnity payments that circumvent the constitutional salary cap is being tackled by setting specific budget limits, reinforcing the demand for systemic integrity — integrity that builds trust and feeds legitimacy.

The digital era intensifies tensions and opportunities; hence the fourth pillar is the Digital State and data governance. Brazil needs to advance in building Digital Public Infrastructures (DPIs), such as Pix and CAR, which structure State action through interoperable platforms. The design of these infrastructures should follow the principle of the common good, ensuring public value and not just technical efficiency⁵.

At the same time, however, it must not be forgotten that digitalization amplifies risks. The leak of health data in Feira de Santana, Bahia, for example, shows that State liability for sensitive data requires immediate and effective redress, failing which the LGPD and human dignity are violated⁶. Data protection thus becomes part of administrative law doctrine itself. As the 2025 Global Risks Report highlights, the global landscape is marked by accelerating technological, informational and institutional risks, in “one of the most divided periods since the Cold War”⁷, in which technological progress increases both disinformation and pressure on State capacities.

From these pillars come prospects pointing to an Administrative Law that rejects authoritarianism disguised as consensus, embraces mission-oriented managerialism and demands transparency in data management. The ultimate challenge is to ensure agile stability⁸ within the logic of the Entrepreneurial State: to transform without losing its institutional center of gravity; to innovate without breaking with legality; to negotiate without giving up the public interest.

In this process, it is inevitable to recognize that consensualism, especially under strong asymmetry, becomes a democratic issue. By requiring proportionality and consequentialist reasoning, the LINDB indicates that administrative agreements cannot be instruments for the informal expansion of power; they must be open to social oversight and technical scrutiny. The global trend thus points to an Administrative Law anchored in public justification, proportionality and auditability.

In Brazil, this agenda is linked to the need for the State to develop dynamic capabilities, able to sustain innovative action without sliding into opacity or paternalism. The future of Administrative Law will therefore depend on the ability to combine institutional robustness, transparency and real — not merely performative — openness to dialogue. In short, I would venture to say that the challenge of the 21st century is this: to build a State that learns continuously, coordinates complex actors and generates public value amid uncertainty. An Administrative Law capable of dialoguing, professionalizing, integrating and protecting.

1. OLIVEIRA, Gustavo Justino de. Os acordos administrativos na dogmática brasileira contemporânea. In: MOREIRA, António Júdice; NASCIMBENI, Asdrubal Franco; BEYRODT, Christiana; TONIN, Mauricio Morais (org.). Mediação e arbitragem na administração pública: Brasil e Portugal. São Paulo: Almedina, 2020. p. 103-113. ↩︎
2. CYRINO, André; SALATHÉ, Felipe. A consensualidade abusiva no direito administrativo: notas iniciais de teorização. Revista Estudos Institucionais, v. 10, n. 2, p. 634-660, maio/ago. 2024. ↩︎
3. GOMIDE, Alexandre; LOTTA, Gabriela. Building Resilience, Agility, and Trust: The Neo-Weberian State as a Referential Model for Brazilian Public Administration. Journal of Policy Studies, 39(3), 2024. ↩︎
4. MAZZUCATO, Mariana (ed.). Transformação do Estado no Brasil: desenhando compras públicas, empresas estatais e infraestrutura pública digital orientadas por missões para promover o crescimento sustentável e inclusivo. Londres: UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, jan. 2025. Relatório de Políticas. ↩︎
5. Ibidem. ↩︎
6. VENTURINI, Otávio; OLIVEIRA, Gustavo Justino de; GLASSMAN, Guillermo. Vazamento de dados sensíveis de HIV/AIDS e a responsabilização do Estado. CartaCapital, 2 out. 2025. Disponível  aqui. ↩︎
7. WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. The Global Risks Report 2025: 20th Edition. Cologny/Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2025. Disponível aqui. ↩︎
8. KATTEL, Rainer; DRECHSLER, Wolfgang; KARO, Erkki. Como construir um estado empreendedor: por que a inovação precisa da burocracia. Tradução por IA e revisão técnica de tradução, Lisandro Lusry Abulatif. Brasília: Enap, 2025. ↩︎

Published by ConJur (in Portuguese).