Why Is Ethics in the Public Sector Different from Ethics in the Private Sector?
This book is, as the title states, about ethics in public administration. But one might question the need for ethics specifically for those in the public sector because ethics, it would seem, applies to everyone, regardless of whether one is employed in public, private, or charitable organizations—or not employed at all. Ethics is pervasive. Why restrict the discussion to public organizations?
Unquestionably, everyone should be concerned with ethics, and ethics is not an entirely different subject depending upon one's employment status. However, several factors influence the differing ways that ethics applies under various conditions. A doctor, an attorney, a university professor, and a priest may all share the same ethical beliefs but under different professional assumptions. Each is ethically required to keep the confidence of those under their care or ministry, but in each case, the type of information to be kept confidential, the limits of the confidentiality, and the reasons for it are different.
Within public administration, there are many specific professions with their special ethical environments. The environments may vary even among those in the same profession, depending upon factors such as a job's specific duties, the culture of the organization, and the significant conditions that pertain at a specific time. Nevertheless, factors are at work in public administration in general that are different from those in the private sector or in charitable organizations. In this chapter, we will examine those factors and discuss their ethical import.
WHO OWNS THE SHOP?
A private company is owned by one person or a small number of people, and they run their business as they see fit within the law for their own private interest. A corporation is run by a relatively large number of shareholders, who, like the private company owners, are legally permitted to govern the organization in their collective interest. A public organization cannot be said to have an owner, at least in the traditional sense of "owner." We may use the cliché "owned by the people," but the phrase is largely devoid of meaning because if everyone owns something, no one owns it. We can say, however, that public organizations are responsible to the general public in a manner roughly similar to that in which a company is ultimately responsible to its ownership. The company or corporation does what its owners tell it to do, but the public organization must answer to a public charge specified by people speaking for the entire society.
The private company or corporation must make a profit; the public agency must serve the public. The owners of the private company or corporation seek to benefit financially from their venture. If a private corporation loses money consistently, it eventually closes down unless subsidized, at which point it ceases to be an independent entity. Public agencies are very different in this regard. The public agency is generally not required to make money but only to respond to a public charge that the public is willing to fund. The public agency is successful when it uses money productively rather than when it makes money.
While one might say that the public as a whole owns the public agency and the few owners or stockholders own the company, the difference in ownership bespeaks a major distinction. For the owners of the company, its productivity is a means to financial benefit. But for the "owners" of a public agency, the productivity of the organization is a final end rather than a means to an end. The public wants the agency to do a job that the public deems worthy and is willing to pay for. The owners of the corporation pay dollars in order to make more dollars.
The difference in the nature of the ownership has deep ethical implications. The public agency is created to serve values that the public considers worthy. In funding groups such as those that oversee the environment, assist the impoverished, or provide care for the aged, the public is asserting a moral value in saying that these social benefits are worth the sacrifice of public funds. Although there might be some self-interest that motivates people to fund such activities (such as the self-interest of cancer patients in the advancement of cancer research), most people support the activities of government to help the society as a whole rather than just themselves. A society must be moved by values above mere profit to charge a public agency with tasks and provide funds for those tasks.
While it might be said that a society's values are ultimately evident in the products that it buys, those values are more directly expressed in the agencies that it deliberately creates. Societies permit private companies and corporations to exist, but societies mandate the work of their public agencies. A society can allow an industry, such as the tobacco industry, to exist without approving of its products or encouraging people to buy them. But when the society creates and funds public agencies, it expresses a value that the society in general considers worthy.
The society's values are implicit not only in the public organizations that it creates, but also in the manners in which it requires those organizations to function. The people may choose to demand more ethical treatment of employees, respect for the environment, or financial disclosure from public agencies than from private firms. The governmental limitations on private organizations, even when they are imposed, express the society's ideas of how an organization is permitted to do its business, but the mandated structure of public agencies, in that they are created, maintained, and ultimately run by the society, expresses how they should conduct business.
In commenting upon the difference between public and private organizations, we do not mean to imply that private organizations are inherently unethical or amoral. The owners and stockholders of a private organization may, and often do, make ethical choices. Moreover, a private organization might even be founded upon ethical values. A private firm must, however, make a profit in order to stay in business. The public organization, by contrast, need not make a profit but must further the society's values as expressed in the organization's mission. Furthermore, even when the private organization chooses to advance ethical values, they are those that the owners, stockholders, and organization as a whole consider worthy. The public agency must advance the values that the public considers worthy.
WHO's RUNNING THE SHOP?
The employee implicitly acknowledges the values of the society in choosing to work in a public organization. He or she may not personally accept all of those values but must assume them as the foundation of his or her professional environment. That assumption is especially important in the case of the public administrator, who must make professional decisions on behalf of the society and its values.
Public administrators have often been characterized as public stewards, or people who manage the property and finances of the society on its behalf. As such, the public administrator must act as if he or she represented the public as a whole. But the role of public steward extends beyond just protecting property and paying bills. The steward must make evaluative decisions for the public at large.
The ethical commitment of the public agent is most critical in the stewardship capacity. The public administrator must consider more than the "bottom line." While efficiency and frugality are values that societies largely accept, they value other things as well. In making budgetary decisions, the public administrator must consider not only the cost, but also the importance of the activity under consideration. For example, the building of a shelter for the homeless may not be a cost-effective project. It could never "pay for itself," it requires expensive maintenance, and, because of a limited capacity, it serves relatively few people. A for-profit corporation would be extremely unlikely to enter the "business" of homeless shelters unless the government were paying for the project. The public administrator must make decisions relative to the building, repair, and maintenance of such projects with a view not only to saving public funds but also to what the public is willing to pay for.
The public administrator is also often forced into an ethical decision when the public interest conflicts with that of his agency. It may be in competition with other agencies for public funding. As committed as the administrator may be to the goals of his or her own division, the first consideration of the public steward is attainment of the society's values. The ideal public administrator would sacrifice his or her own interests for those of the public. While the ideal public administrator, like the ideal human being, may not exist, the acknowledgment of ideals has a magnetic appeal.
We do not imply that the manager of a private firm is not also a steward. However, the public administrator and the administrator in the private firm differ significantly in that the first is a steward of the public and the second is a steward of private interest.
In general, the private organization exists to make a profit, and the public organization exists to promote values that the public as a whole deems worthy. The public administrator expresses those values in stewardship. The difference can lead to different mind-sets among private and public administrators. The private administrator can rationalize his or her own pursuit of professional self-interest, even to the point of inhibiting or opposing the interest of the organization by an act of "twisted consistency." The private employee can argue that the firm is "in it for the money" and that he or she is therefore justified in operating on the same motive. The twisted consistency of the private employee becomes a virtuous consistency for the public employee, for whom the rationale would be transformed into: "The organization exists to serve the public, and therefore, so must I."
Research has provided evidence that public employees differ in significant ways from private employees. Two well known studies, one of graduate students preparing for positions in the public service (Rawls, Ulrich, and Nelson 1975) and the other of public employees (Rainey 1983), indicate that people who choose to work in public administration usually value money less and social improvement more than do private employees. If the results of those studies are accurate, public service attracts people who come into the profession already strongly influenced by ethical values. Such people would be well matched for a profession with significant ethical demands.
WHAT DOES THE SHOP SELL?
Private businesses provide goods and services that the public chooses to purchase. Those goods and services include chewing gum, massage therapy, radar detectors, tattoos, and anything else that can turn a profit. Unless a question arises concerning whether a product is harmful, there is usually no need for the private firm to justify the existence of its product. One does not have to show that licorice, nose rings, or whitewall tires benefit the public at large for an entrepreneur to sell them. While private businesses often provide products that benefit the general population, such as housing and means of transportation, a private business need not demonstrate that it can provide such benefits to establish its legality or legitimacy.
In contrast, public agencies generally exist only because they provide a service that the public at large considers worthy. Defense, education, and programs for the disadvantaged may be questioned by some citizens, but most people would recognize the importance of those universally recognized governmental functions as self-evident. But if the government were to go into the cocoa business, one would ask, for a good reason, why. Governmental involvement in such an enterprise would need justification. In some cases, such a justification could exist; if a nation were highly dependent upon cocoa for its economic survival, the government might be entrusted with producing it. However, unlike private firms, government must justify its activities as being in the public interest. The services that public agencies provide are therefore usually socially very important. The importance of providing those services imposes a moral burden on the providers.
There are exceptions to nearly all generalizations, and we must mention some here. In some cases, public agencies may provide goods and services that are seen as inessential. If a business that employs many people is in jeopardy of failing, the government may step in to keep the organization alive. In such a case, the product may not be important to the society in general, but the existence of the business itself may be. Also, government may be entrusted with the sale of potentially harmful products in order to control them. In the UK, for example, the government provides drugs to addicts. The state of New Hampshire controls the sale of alcoholic beverages by means of a government monopoly. But the apparent exceptions prove the rule. For government to justify participation in such businesses, it must cite a significant public benefit.
In heavily socialized countries, government may provide most or all goods and services. But the existence of such societies does not refute the claim that governmental involvement must be justified as being in the public interest. Socialized societies are founded upon a system based on the assumption that governmental control of the means of production is important for the progress of the society as a whole. A private firm in a free-market society does not, as a rule, have to justify its existence by citing any such progress.
Succinctly stated: If government does something, it must be important. That importance imposes a special ethical demand upon public organizations and their employees. Moreover, that importance may be a major factor in attracting people with a strong social commitment to public service.
We do not mean to imply here that business does not do things that the society considers important. Business provides the wealth of goods and services in a free-market economy and thus benefits society immeasurably. However, it is not a prerequisite of business that it supply products that the society in general considers valuable. Business can supply food and clothing, which is of generally accepted social value, but business can also supply nose rings, which appeal to only a few and may even be disdained by most of the society. The sale of such items by a private business may be considered fully legitimate, but few people would consider them suitable matters for public agencies.
Private business benefits society by the products that it offers, the jobs that it supplies, and the vitality of the economy that it promotes. In theory, what is good for business is, on the whole—though not necessarily in every instance—generally good for a society. But even the strongest supporters of capitalism and the free market recognize that the intent of a private business is to make profits for itself. The net effect of a complex of businesses pursuing their private interest is, if all goes well, a more productive society. Nevertheless, the foremost concern of the private business is its own success. If the society is properly structured, the best interests of the whole will result, but the whole is a remote concern for the private organization. Individually, private organizations need not justify their existence by demonstrating a direct benefit to the society, but the public agency must justify its existence by showing that it has a general public charge.
Nor do we intend to suggest that private businesses ought not be ethical. On the contrary, everyone should be ethical. We argue, however, that there is an important difference between the nature of the ethical commitment of the two types of organizations. The private organization should obey ethical principles in the course of its activities, but the fundamental basis of the public organization is the ethical commitment to a value that the society deems important. Private business should operate within ethical restraint, but public organizations are ethical in their very being.
SOCIAL VALUES ARE ESSENTIAL TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Barry Bozeman (1987) has argued that the distinction between the public and the private organization is somewhat blurry. He points out, for example, that private organizations are often under public regulation and political pressure. He prefers to speak of degrees of "publicness" and argues convincingly that virtually all private firms are public—that it, possess publicness—to some degree. If so, employees of private organizations are not exempt from some of the ethical pressures that apply to government agencies. Nevertheless, even if the difference is one of degree, government agencies have a much higher degree of publicness than most private sector companies.
Public agencies express public values, and managers of public organizations are responsible to those values. While private concerns may be influenced by those values and may show respect for them, public values are intrinsic to the public agency. Social values are not merely the context in which the public agency operates; they form its essence. It is therefore not surprising that those attracted to careers in public service are generally more committed than their counterparts in the private sector to social concerns. Their own personal fulfillment, that of the organization, and that of the society at large are in a harmonious unity.
Public service must rely heavily upon that unity to function properly. In a competitive environment like that under which some, though not all, private firms operate, the competition encourages quality performance. Public agencies must rely on two kinds of pressures for excellence, one external and the other internal. The external is the political pressure, often inspired by public dissatisfaction or at least skepticism. That pressure is often difficult to marshal against entrenched public agencies. But perhaps more importantly, that pressure is usually negative, in the form of threat. The internal pressure is that applied by public administrators to themselves in the quest for excellence. This pressure is positive because it is inspired by the desire to perform one's job well. This positive pressure comes from one's ethical values, and public administration depends upon them heavily.
ETHICS STATEMENTS IN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES
Public administration is not one profession but innumerable professions combined to work for the public interest. Each has its own specific functions, problems, social benefits—and ethical issues. But since these professions are all included within public agencies, one would expect them to share some common ethical features that are different from those in private organizations. An examination of the ethics statements of public and private organizations confirms that such differences exist.
Medical Ethics Statements As Models
One of the earliest, if not the earliest, ethics statements on record is the Hippocratic oath (see Exhibit 2.1).
Exhibit 2.1 Hippocratic Oath
Hippocratic Oath
I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation—to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!
Source: Center for Study of Ethics in the Profession, Illinois Institute of Technology, Accessed July 17, 2001.
There are several noteworthy factors in the oath. For example, there are no specified punishments, at least from earthly sources. While there is an invocation of possible divine punishment, there is little evidence to suggest that the oath-takers, including Hippocrates, feared such powers. While one might complain that such an oath has no "teeth" in it, the absence of any penalty identifies the oath as ethical rather than a legal or quasi-legal requirement. If the oath were enforced by punishment, those who adhere to it would do so out of self-interest rather than ethics.
In addition, we recognize that today many people would reject some of the specific prohibitions, such as that against abortion. However, taken as a whole and understood within the context of Hippocrates' time, the oath encourages the doctor to be altruistic and principled in his or her behavior. The general tone of respect for the life and health of patients and for the responsibilities of medical practice are more important than any of the more detailed statements. The intent, or "spirit," is more important than the letter.
A modern statement of medical ethics focuses more on the spirit than on the details (see Exhibit 2.2).
Exhibit 2.2 International Code of Ethics
The World Medical Association, Inc.
INTERNATIONAL CODE of MEDICAL ETHICS
Adopted by the 3rd General Assembly of the World Medical Association, London, England, October 1949, and amended by the 22nd World Medical Assembly Sydney, Australia, August 1968, and the 35th World Medical Assembly Venice, Italy, October 1983.
DUTIES OF PHYSICIANS IN GENERAL
A PHYSICIAN SHALL always maintain the highest standards of professional conduct.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL not permit motives of profit to influence the free and independent exercise of professional judgment on behalf of patients.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL, in all types of medical practice, be dedicated to providing competent medical service in full technical and moral independence, with compassion and respect for human dignity.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL deal honestly with patients and colleagues, and strive to expose those physicians deficient in character or competence, or who engage in fraud or deception.
The following practices are deemed to be unethical conduct:
a) Self advertising by physicians, unless permitted by the laws of the country and the Code of Ethics of the National Medical Association.
b) Paying or receiving any fee or any other consideration solely to procure the referral of a patient or for prescribing or referring a patient to any source.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL respect the rights of patients, of colleagues, and of other health professionals and shall safeguard patient confidences.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL act only in the patient's interest when providing medical care which might have the effect of weakening the physical and mental condition of the patient.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL use great caution in divulging discoveries or new techniques or treatment through non-professional channels.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL certify only that which he has personally verified.
DUTIES OF PHYSICIANS TO THE SICK
A PHYSICIAN SHALL always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL owe his patients complete loyalty and all the resources of his science. Whenever an examination or treatment is beyond the physician's capacity he should summon another physician who has the necessary ability.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL preserve absolute confidentiality on all he knows about his patient even after the patient has died.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL give emergency care as a humanitarian duty unless he is assured that others are willing and able to give such care.
DUTIES OF PHYSICIANS TO EACH OTHER
A PHYSICIAN SHALL behave towards his colleagues as he would have them behave towards him.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL NOT entice patients from his colleagues.
A PHYSICIAN SHALL observe the principles of the "Declaration of Geneva" approved by the World Medical Association.
Source: Center for Study of Ethics in the Profession, Illinois Institute of Technology, Code_of_Medical_Ethics_October_1994.html). Accessed July 17, 2001.
The World Medical Association's (WMA's) statement may appear more vague than the Hippocratic oath, but its generality is its strength. The WMA provides the principles for medical professionals to follow while leaving the judgment concerning how they are to be applied in specific cases to the professional. The WMA statement therefore includes more "spirit" than "letter" and is not as closely tied to a particular society or culture. The Hippocratic oath used specifics to express general ideals, while the WMA statement articulates the ideals themselves.
That difference notwithstanding, there are significant similarities between the two statements. Like the Hippocratic oath, the WMA statement specifies no penalties and is therefore ethical rather than legalistic. Moreover, neither contains any statement suggesting that the medical practitioner follow ethical principles to promote more business from the general public. The statements are intended not to improve public relations but to express concern for the public welfare and reverence for the ideals upon which the profession is founded—which themselves promote the public welfare. The statements promote ethics for the sake of the people served rather than for medical salesmanship.
The statements are also similar in the important respect to which the philosopher J. L. Austin (1975) refers as the "performative" aspect. Austin observed that many linguistic utterances, including those that have the grammatical form of descriptive statements, are not as important for what they say as for the linguistic act that the speaker performs in speaking them. For example, when someone says, "I do" in the course of a wedding service, one is not merely describing one's state of mind at the time but, more importantly, committing to a marriage. When a Muslim says, "God is Great," he or she is not only describing God or offering an opinion about him, but also expressing a commitment to the Islamic faith. And when someone on a beach yells, "I'm drowning!" he or she is not merely providing information for the curious, but calling for help.
Despite their differences at the literal level, the Hippocratic oath and the WMA statement are essentially the same at the performative level. Both strongly express the commitment that medical practitioners should have to the welfare of the patient rather than to themselves. As we examine ethics statements in other professions, both in the public and private sectors, we will note their important performative implications.
One might wonder why a medical statement should be considered a model for public administration. Doctors are not public administrators, but the profession has significant connections with public service. While doctors in the United States are largely privately employed, they often work in public hospitals. Furthermore, in countries that have national health care systems and that are included within the scope of the WMA, medical professionals are public agents. The Hippocratic oath and the WMA statement can apply in both a public and a private context and therefore provide models for both public and private professions.
In summary, we have identified three characteristics that are desirable in an ethics statement: (1) absence of specified penalties; (2) expression of general principles; and (3) commitment to the interests of those that the profession serves rather than to the interests of the professionals.
Ethics Statements in the Private Sector
Ethics statements in the private sector generally express broadly recognized ethical ideals and are therefore similar to the Hippocratic oath and the WMA statement at the performative level. For example, the following is an excerpt from an ethical statement of the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA):
We hold that, to discharge this responsibility, advertising agencies must recognize an obligation, not only to their clients, but also to the public, the media they employ, and to each other. As a business, the advertising agency must operate within the framework of competition. It is recognized that keen and vigorous competition, honestly conducted, is necessary to the growth and the health of American business.
Source: Center for Study of Ethics in the Profession, Illinois Institute of Technology, Accessed July 17, 2001.
The excerpt expresses admirable sentiments: concern for clients; concern for the public at large; concern for the health of the national economy. However, the very next sentence of the statement suggests that, in addition to honoring those concerns, the statement performs a very different linguistic act:
However, unethical competitive practices in the advertising agency business lead to financial waste, dilution of service, diversion of manpower, loss of prestige, and tend to weaken public confidence both in advertisements and in the institution of advertising.
In this portion of the statement, we find an allusion to the financial interests of advertisers, who would be injured by negative publicity if advertisers were to engage in wanton unethical behavior. That allusion is made more explicit later in the statement.
These Standards of Practice of the American Association of Advertising Agencies come from the belief that sound and ethical practice is good business. Confidence and respect are indispensable to success in a business embracing the many intangibles of agency service and involving relationships so dependent upon good faith.
Here, the implication is unmistakable: Be ethical and business will be better for all of us.
Let us not be cynical, however. In the entire statement, much concern is expressed for ethics in general and for the public interest, as well as for the interest of clients. The statement is not merely a recommendation of business policy but, in large measure, an admirable expression of ethical concern. But while it is not only an appeal to self-interest, it is at least in part such an appeal.
But even in the matter of self-interest, we should not be too critical of AAAA. Its mission includes advancing the interests of advertisers, and in performing that mission, AAAA is doing exactly what it is expected to do. One might even argue that it has an ethical responsibility to the welfare of its members. We do not criticize AAAA's statement. On the contrary, we recognize that its combining of ethics with professional interest is perfectly legitimate for a private advertising business. The mere concern for ethics as included in the statement is admirable.
But advertising is not medicine. We do not observe such an appeal to business interest in either the Hippocratic oath or the WMA statement. We might have been dismayed if we had found such a statement, as for example "These standards of practice of medical profession come from the belief that sound and ethical practice in saving lives is good business."
The AAAA is not alone among private organizations in combining business with ethics. The Building Owners and Manager's Institute, which offers educational programs for people who own or manage buildings, provides a strong ethics statement but also includes the following:
This code of professional ethics and conduct is designed to foster trust and mutual respect among those working in the industry, as well as the public at large. It is not intended to discourage fair and healthy competition within the industry, but to increase the esteem of the designations and the individuals who have earned them. We consider industry relationships critical to the industry's success.
Source: Building Owners and Managers Association, Accessed July 17, 2001.
The last sentence especially suggests that ethics is a means to a profitable end. By contrast, the American Association of Cost Engineers provides a detailed ethics code that makes no statement to the effect that ethics is good business. The inclusion of such a statement in one ethics code and not the other may reflect the nature of the professions. While the welfare of the public depends upon good ownership and management of buildings, the construction of buildings and other edifices is a more important matter.
The American Society of Appraisers is another association of private businesses with an ethics statement that makes no obvious mention of ethics for self-interest. (See: Center for Study of Ethics in the Profession, Illinois Institute of Technology, However, the profession of appraising has close ties to public agencies, as any building owner is reminded when the property tax arises. It is possible that appraising is influenced as much by the public sector as by the private.
The concern for ethics as a matter of good business policy is evident also in the statements of specific firms. Here are some examples.
Cummins Engine Company:
The Code of Business Conduct is an important foundation for Customer Led Quality. Our pursuit of Customer Led Quality will lead to Cummins being the best there is in products, customer support and business operations, and, as a result, growing our profitability to the benefit of all of our stakeholders.
Our success in realizing Customer Led Quality depends in large part on the trust that our stakeholders—customers, employees, suppliers, shareholders and the countries and communities in which we live and work—have in Cummins.
Source: Center for Study of Ethics in the Profession, Illinois Institute of Technology, Accessed July 17, 2001.
Caterpillar Tractors:
The company's most valuable asset is a reputation for integrity. If that becomes tarnished, customers, investors, suppliers, employees, and those who sell our products and services will seek affiliation with other, more attractive companies. We intend to hold to a single high standard of integrity everywhere. We will keep our word. We won't promise more than we can reasonably expect to deliver; nor will we make commitments we don't intend to keep.
Source: Center for Study of Ethics in the Profession, Illinois Institute of Technology, Accessed July 17, 2001.
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company:
Supply personnel must exercise sound business judgment and maintain a high ethical and moral standards in their business and personal conduct. Therefore, supply personnel must avoid any conflict of interest or other behavior that might mar PPG's reputation for integrity.
By observing absolute honesty in all transactions and correspondence, respecting supplier companies' confidences, and avoiding compromising obligations to supplier companies or representatives. Supply personnel can advance PPG's good name.
Source: Center for Study of Ethics in the Profession, Illinois Institute of Technology, Glass_Company.html. Accessed July 17, 2001.
The references to profitability in the Cummins statement and to competitive advantage in the Caterpillar statement clearly indicate that promotion of business interests is one of the purposes of ethical behavior. The Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company statement is not so obviously commercial in its intent, but the two references to improving the company's reputation suggest a concern for more than merely ethics for its own sake.
One must keep some points in mind when examining these ethics statements by private companies. First, self-interest is not the only reason that private businesses, including those that we have noted, offer for ethical behavior. The inclusion of self-interest statements does not nullify the other aspects of the statements that may be purely ethical. Furthermore, since private companies are generally in business to make a profit, they are not to be condemned for advertising their ethical behavior to impress their clientele, so long as they also recognize that ethics is good in itself.
There is a notable difference between reasonable self-interest and selfishness or egotism. We expect private firms to pursue self-interest within an ethical framework and with respect for the public. A firm becomes unethical when it pursues self-interest without regard for ethics or the public interest.
What is most important in these statements is not their inclusion of self-interest as a motive for ethical behavior but that there is nothing especially surprising or shocking about such inclusions. One expects that private firms will behave in a manner that increases their competitive status. But as we noted earlier, we would be disappointed to find such inclusions in medical ethics statements. One would also assume that statements in public administration would make little reference to ethics as a means of financial success. A random selection of ethics statements from professions closely associated with public service supports that assumption.
Ethics Statements in the Public Sector
The centrality of social values to public service is evident in the nature of the ethics statements of public agencies. Like the statements of private agencies, those of public agencies usually evoke general ethical ideals in the context of the work that the agency does. And also like private sector statements, those of the public sector usually preserve the purely ethical aspect by specifying no punishments or rewards. But unlike many private sector statements, public sector statements generally do not refer to material benefits that might accrue to the organization in return for ethical behavior. We would do well to begin with the broadest such organization in the United States, the American Society for Public Administration. It provides the following statement, quoted in full in Exhibit 2.3.
Exhibit 2.3 American Society for Public Administration Code of Ethics
American Society for Public Administration
Code of Ethics
The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) exists to advance the science, processes and art of public administration. The Society affirms its responsibility to develop the spirit of professionalism within its membership and to increase public awareness of ethical principles in public service by its example. To this end, we the members of the Society, commit ourselves to the following principles:
I. Serve the Public Interest
Serve the public, beyond serving oneself. ASPA members are committed to:
1. Exercise discretionary authority to promote the public interest.
2. Oppose all forms of discrimination and harassment, and promote affirmative action.
3. Recognize and support the public's right to know the public's business.
4. Involve citizens in policy decision-making.
5. Exercise compassion, benevolence, fairness, and optimism.
6. Respond to the public in ways that are complete, clear, and easy to understand.
7. Assist citizens in their dealings with government.
8. Be prepared to make decisions that may not be popular.
II. Respect the Constitution and the Law
Respect, support, and study government constitutions and laws that define responsibilities of public agencies, employees, and all citizens.
ASPA members are committed to:
1. Understand and apply legislation and regulations relevant to their professional role.
2. Work to improve and change laws and policies that are counter-productive or obsolete.
3. Eliminate unlawful discrimination.
4. Prevent all forms of mismanagement of public funds by establishing and maintaining strong fiscal and management controls, and by supporting audits and investigative activities.
5. Respect and protect privileged information.
6. Encourage and facilitate legitimate dissent activities in government and protect the whistle-blowing rights of public employees.
7. Promote constitutional principles of equality, fairness, representativeness, responsiveness, and due process in protecting citizens' rights.
III. Demonstrate Personal Integrity
Demonstrate the highest standards in all activities to inspire public confidence and trust in public service.
ASPA members are committed to:
1. Maintain truthfulness and honesty and not to compromise them for advancement, honor or personal gain.
2. Ensure that others receive credit for their work and contributions.
3. Zealously guard against conflict of interest or its appearance: e.g., nepotism, improper outside employment, misuse of public resources or the acceptance of gifts.
4. Respect superiors, subordinates, colleagues, and the public.
5. Take responsibility for their own errors.
6. Conduct official acts without partisanship.
IV. Promote Ethical Organizations
Strengthen organizational capabilities to apply ethics, efficiency, and effectiveness in serving the public.
ASPA members are committed to:
1. Enhance organizational capacity for open communication, creativity, and dedication.
2. Subordinate institutional loyalties to the public good.
3. Establish procedures that promote ethical behavior and hold individuals and organizations accountable for their conduct.
4. Provide organization members with an administrative means for dissent, assurance of due process, and safeguards against reprisal.
5. Promote merit principles that protect against arbitrary and capricious actions.
6. Promote organizational accountability through appropriate controls and procedures.
7. Encourage organizations to adopt, distribute, and periodically review a code of ethics as a living document.
V. Strive for Professional Excellence
Strengthen individual capabilities and encourage the professional development of others.
ASPA members are committed to:
1. Provide support and encouragement to upgrade competence.
2. Accept as a personal duty the responsibility to keep up to date on emerging issues and potential problems.
3. Encourage others, throughout their careers, to participate in professional activities and associations.
4. Allocate time to meet with students and provide a bridge between classroom studies and the realities of public service.
Source: Center for Study of Ethics in the Profession, Illinois Institute of Technology, Accessed July 17, 2001.
The ASPA statement strongly supports ethics for its own sake. Particularly noteworthy are the entries, "Service to the public is beyond service to oneself," and, "[s]ubordinate institutional loyalties to the public good." The statement, in its overall performative aspect, suggests a profound respect for the public, which deserves the highest ethical treatment.
One of the entries could be interpreted as self-interested. Section III speaks of inspiring public confidence and trust, so one might infer that the purpose of such safeguarding is to promote the interests of public administration as a profession. However, the entry does not indicate that to be the purpose. In the context of the whole statement, a more reasonable interpretation is that the entry is merely stating that the public trust is essential to the social order, and, for that reason, ethical principles must be observed.
The legal profession has close connections to public service. Although police officers are not administrators, they are public agents, and their ethics statements are composed by law enforcement administration. The ethics statement of the Michigan Police Department, shown in Exhibit 2.4, is typical of departments throughout the United States.
Exhibit 2.4 Michigan Police Department Ethics Statement
AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence, or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality, and justice.
I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all and will behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to me or my agency. I will maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the law and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.
I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice, or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.
I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of police service. I will never engage in acts of corruption or bribery, nor will I condone such acts by other police officers. I will cooperate with all legally authorized agencies and their representatives in the pursuit of justice.
I know that I alone am responsible for my own standard of professional performance and will take every reasonable opportunity to enhance and improve my level of knowledge and competence.
I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession—law enforcement.
Source: Michigan State Police Post #38 Lapeer, Accessed July 12, 2001.
Nothing in the police statement suggests any motive other than devotion to duty.
Attorneys represent another portion of the legal profession. They are, to some extent, similar to doctors in their relation to public administration in that both attorneys and doctors are generally in private practice in the United States, but, because of the importance of their work, they are public agents in many other countries. However, attorneys may be more influenced by the public mind-set because attorneys often become members of the judiciary or public prosecutors.
Ethics statements in the legal profession are longer and more detailed than police department statements, as one might expect from legal scholars, but their performative aspect is similar. By specifying minimal numbers of hours to be spent in providing free legal services to the needy and requiring attorneys to lower their fees for those who cannot pay, the profession makes evident its recognition that the attorney is to serve the public before himself or herself. Also, in enjoining attorneys to refrain from frivolous proceedings in behalf of clients, the statements imply that the legal system is more important than the attorney's private interest or those of his or her client. ( Accessed July 12, 2001.)
While higher education is not necessarily a part of public administration, a very large portion of institutions of higher learning are public, and an even larger portion of students in the United States attend public colleges and universities. Their ethics statements reflect the commitment, more evident in public statements than in private industry statements, to social mission over personal or institutional interest. The excerpt shown in Exhibit 2.5 is from a statement by the American Association of University Professors.
Exhibit 2.5 American Association of University
Professors Ethics Statement
I. Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.
II. As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student's true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom.
III. As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect for the opinions of others. Professors acknowledge academic debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution.
IV. As members of an academic institution, professors seek above all to be effective teachers and scholars. Although professors observe the stated regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not contravene academic freedom, they maintain their right to criticize and seek revision. Professors give due regard to their paramount responsibilities within their institution in determining the amount and character of work done outside it. When considering the interruption or termination of their service, professors recognize the effect of their decision upon the program of the institution and give due notice of their intentions.
V. As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution. When they speak or act as private persons they avoid creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.
Source: Center for Study of Ethics in the Profession, Illinois Institute of Technology, Accessed July 17, 2001.
The samples that we have considered suffice to demonstrate a difference in tone between the public and private sectors, as expressed in ethics statements. In the philosophical language of Austin (1975), they perform both the act of asserting the importance of ethics in itself and also the act of recommending ethics to make business more profitable. Public sector statements also assert ethics for its own sake, but not for profit. Instead, public sector statements imply that ethics is central to the public service of which each public agency is a part. But it is not merely important that public sector statements contain little reference to the use of ethics as an instrument for personal or organizational advancement, but that any such statements would appear unseemly, as they would in the Hippocratic oath or in the WMA declaration. The context of private business is much more welcoming to the notion that ethics is a means to a material end.
THE NEED FOR ETHICAL JUDGMENT
In emphasizing the public good rather than personal reward or negative consequences, public sector ethical statements treat the public employee as a moral individual who is capable of making the choice to do that which is right, regardless of self-interest. The statement tells the public agent what is right and leaves the responsibility for choosing it up to the individual.
In addition, the statements most often express general principles, values, and concerns rather than designating specific actions. The principles must be interpreted and practiced with good judgment in individual cases. The public agent cannot be a mere rule follower, but must look to the intent of the rule in order to properly understand and apply it. An example illustrates the result of following rules too rigidly.
The United States National Park Service requires permits for demonstrations at national monuments. Any group of twenty-six or more people who attract an audience constitutes a demonstration. Both the requirement and the definition of a demonstration appear to be reasonable, but even the most reasonable rules often must be applied with good judgment.
A group of high school students, numbering more than the specified twenty-six, were gathered at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D. C. They were winners in a nationwide essay contest conducted by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Overcome by patriotic pride, the students spontaneously began singing the United States National Anthem and, in doing so, attracted a crowd. A park ranger, applying the Park Service regulations literally, silenced the students' unlawful demonstration just as they were singing the last stanza. Ironically, the topic of their essay contest was "What price freedom."
The National Park service reprimanded the ranger, who was described as a new employee.
One can sympathize with the ranger, who knew the rule and followed it. What the ranger lacked—probably because of inexperience, was the judgment needed to apply a rule properly. There is a well known fallacy called "Misuse of a General Principle," which, as the name implies, is the application of a principle to cases in which it does not apply. Using a principle properly, determining how and when it applies, and understanding the intent of a principle require judgment. The public sector ethics statements that we have examined, as well as some of the private sector statements, presuppose good judgment. The ethical public administrator must understand the nature of ethical values in order to exercise such judgment, rather than blindly following regulations. But developing and refining ethical understanding is a difficult, lifelong process.
In this chapter we have noted significant differences between ethics in the private sector and ethics in the public sector. Early in the chapter, we noted that the Hippocratic oath and the ethics statement of the World Medical Association express a commitment to ethics in itself because the medical profession is ethical to its very core. We noted, by contrast, that many private organizations, while acknowledging the importance of ethics, often treat it as a means to better business. The general environment of the public agency, as evidenced in its ethics statements, is closer to that of the medical profession than to that of most private firms. Public agencies' statements reflect more unqualified concern for ethical values in themselves.
The greater concern for ethics among public agencies is a natural concomitant of the nature of public service. The public agency is ethically bound to the society, which expresses its most important values by entrusting them to the public service. The public agent must embody those values, and they must motivate him or her in a more positive and noble way than the profit motive and competition drive private enterprise. People in private business are ethical because they are human beings, all of whom have the responsibility to be good, but in the public service, ethics is not only in the nature of the human animal, but also in the nature of the profession. Ethics should influence, limit, and, at least to some degree, inspire private enterprise, but ethics is at the heart of public administration. The following chapters will develop the concept of the essentially ethical nature of the public agency.
Our paradigm examples of good ethical statements are from the medical profession, which is, in some countries such as the United States, largely in private hands. Other private professions, such as the law, also place a strong emphasis on ethics. One might argue that the concern for ethics as an essential aspect of a profession exists within the private as well as the public sector.
We reply by agreeing that private professions may also partake in the same ethical commitment as public service. The public sector has no monopoly on professions in which ethics is essential. But in professions such as those mentioned, the ethical commitment follows from the specific nature of the profession itself and not from its status as a private business. Medicine is essentially ethical because it is medicine and not because it is a business. Like the priesthood or the ministry, medicine may be considered a calling more than a mere means of employment. Public service may likewise be considered a calling.