final) prongs of proportionality analysis. 34 It is worth setting out the features of reasonableness review, and the early setting in Grootboom: a more-than-administrative, less-than-categorical, attention to the needs of the most vulnerable. First, the conception of reasonableness employed in South Africa is far greater than a traditional administrative law model of review. The relationship between reasonableness and administrative law has been much debated in this context, and requires an excursion into comparative administrative law. For, if proportionality can be said to have administrative law roots, even as it now resembles a central feature of global constitutionalism, 35 so too can the standard of reasonableness, but they are of English, rather than Continental, origin. That is, the review of reasonableness in administrative law emerged as a stronger incarnation of the very deferential administrative standard of Wednesbury review.36 That standard, which asked if the decision is so unreasonable that no decision maker could have made it, was a relaxed form of rationality review that could rarely defeat an administrative decision. Over time, Wednesbury began to heighten in intensity, with the courts identifying a general rule that “the graver the impact of the decision upon the individual affected by it, the more substantial the justification that will be required.”37 Prior to the enactment of the 34 Cf. MÖLLER, supra note 12, at 179. Cohen-Eliya & Porat, supra note 13; Stone Sweet & Mathews, supra note 11. 36 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK). 37 Michael Taggart, Proportionality, Deference, Wednesbury, 2008 N.Z. LAW REV., 423, 433, citing Sir John Laws, "Wednesbury", in THE GOLDEN METWAND AND THE CROOKED CORD: ESSAYS ON PUBLIC LAW IN HONOUR OF SIR WILLIAM WADE (Forsyth & Hare eds., 1998) 185. 35 7