The 'Red Light' and 'Green Light' theories offer fundamentally different perspectives on the role and objectives of administrative law. The Red Light theory, rooted in classical liberalism, views the state with suspicion, emphasizing the need to control governmental power and protect individual liberties from potential administrative overreach. It advocates for strong judicial review, strict adherence to the rule of law, and procedural fairness to ensure that administrative actions are lawful and do not infringe upon individual rights. Its primary objective is to act as a 'brake' on state power.

In contrast, the Green Light theory, associated with the rise of the welfare state, sees the state as a benevolent actor responsible for delivering public services and achieving social and economic objectives. It emphasizes administrative discretion, efficiency, and the proactive role of government in promoting the public interest. This theory views administrative law as a 'catalyst' or 'enabler' for effective governance, allowing administrators the flexibility to achieve policy goals.

To determine which theory is more effective in achieving the objectives of administrative law, it's crucial to first understand these objectives. They are multifaceted and include ensuring governmental accountability, promoting transparency, safeguarding individual rights, ensuring efficiency and effectiveness in public service delivery, and facilitating the implementation of public policy for the common good.

Neither theory, in its pure form, can fully achieve all these objectives. A purely Red Light approach, while excellent at protecting rights and controlling power, might stifle innovation, hinder efficient service delivery, and make it difficult for the state to respond effectively to complex social problems. Conversely, a purely Green Light approach, while promoting efficiency and policy implementation, risks unchecked administrative power, potential for abuse, and inadequate protection of individual liberties.

Therefore, the most effective approach to administrative law in a modern democratic welfare state is a synthesis or a balanced integration of both theories. The objectives of administrative law are best served by a framework that:

1. Embraces Green Light principles for effective governance: It allows the administration the necessary discretion and flexibility to design and implement policies, deliver services efficiently, and proactively address societal needs. This is crucial for a state committed to welfare and development.
2. Incorporates strong Red Light safeguards: Simultaneously, it must establish robust mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and judicial oversight to prevent abuse of power, ensure fairness, and protect individual rights. These safeguards act as essential checks on administrative discretion, ensuring that the state's proactive role does not come at the cost of fundamental liberties.

For instance, while a Green Light approach might enable a public health agency to rapidly implement vaccination programs, Red Light principles would ensure that these programs respect privacy, are non-discriminatory, and provide avenues for redress if individuals are harmed. Similarly, environmental regulations (Green Light) must be implemented transparently and fairly, with opportunities for public participation and judicial review (Red Light).

In conclusion, rather than choosing one over the other, the effectiveness of administrative law lies in its ability to strike a dynamic balance. It must empower the state to act for the public good while simultaneously holding it accountable and protecting citizens from arbitrary power. A system that integrates the enabling aspects of the Green Light theory with the protective mechanisms of the Red Light theory is best positioned to achieve the comprehensive objectives of administrative law in contemporary governance.