The statement that legislative control over administration is not as effective as it ought to be highlights a common challenge in democratic governance. Legislative control is crucial for ensuring accountability, transparency, and responsiveness of the executive branch and bureaucracy. It serves as a vital check and balance, preventing arbitrary rule and ensuring that administrative actions align with public interest and statutory mandates. However, several factors often undermine its effectiveness.

One primary reason for this ineffectiveness is the information asymmetry between the legislature and the administration. Bureaucracies possess specialized knowledge, technical expertise, and detailed information about policy implementation that legislators often lack. This makes it difficult for legislators to scrutinize administrative decisions thoroughly or to anticipate potential issues, leading to a reactive rather than proactive oversight.

Lack of resources and expertise within legislative bodies further exacerbates this problem. Legislatures, especially in developing countries, may not have sufficient staff, research capabilities, or technical experts to match the administrative machinery they are supposed to oversee. This disparity in capacity limits their ability to conduct in-depth investigations, analyze complex policy documents, or monitor implementation effectively.

Political factors also play a significant role. When the executive and legislative branches are controlled by the same political party, legislative oversight can become weak or nominal. Party discipline often means that legislators prioritize party loyalty over their oversight responsibilities, leading to rubber-stamping of executive decisions. Even in systems with strong opposition, the executive can use its influence, patronage, or control over information to circumvent or dilute legislative scrutiny.

Time constraints are another practical impediment. Legislators are often burdened with multiple responsibilities, including law-making, constituency work, and party activities, leaving limited time for detailed administrative oversight. The sheer volume and complexity of administrative activities make comprehensive scrutiny a daunting task.

Furthermore, the delegation of powers to the executive and administrative agencies, while necessary for efficient governance, can inadvertently reduce legislative control. Legislatures often pass broad laws, leaving the details to be filled in by administrative rules and regulations. While this allows for flexibility, it can also create a 'regulatory state' where significant policy is made without direct legislative approval or effective oversight.

Finally, weak enforcement mechanisms for legislative recommendations or findings can render oversight ineffective. If administrative agencies are not compelled to act on legislative reports or if there are no significant consequences for non-compliance, the entire exercise of legislative control becomes a mere formality.

To enhance the effectiveness of legislative control, measures such as strengthening legislative committees, providing them with adequate resources and expert staff, promoting greater transparency in administrative functioning, fostering a culture of accountability, and ensuring independent auditing and evaluation mechanisms are essential. Without robust legislative oversight, the risk of administrative overreach, corruption, and inefficiency significantly increases, undermining democratic principles.