American Society for Public Administration - Vol. 28 No. 7 - July 2005

Return to July PA TIMES menu

David Bergman

People are essentially the same. Our sense of ethics is internal to ourselves, dictated by our consciences. Most people would agree that we are born with generally equal potential for moral and ethical behavior with some exceptions either way at the margins. This innate potential is forged by the values we absorb from our families and society at large, then tempered by our reactions to life's experiences. The social context within which this plays out has a significant impact on its outcome. We are constantly being challenged by our choices. As public administrators we make decisions regarding a community's resources in a manner that affects other individuals in that community. The implications of unethical behavior can be far reaching and affect the nature of the community itself. Public administrators have a unique responsibility in a democracy in service to the public, the sovereign people.

Being a public administrator in a democracy does not guarantee ethical behavior, however. The nature of the individual and of the society still affects the choices that are made on a day-to-day basis. Public administration is viewed differently in different societies and therefore attracts people with differing motivations for a career in public service. These motivations strongly reinforce ethical behavior when the individual identifies closely with the general public interest. This is true in degrees among the mature democracies of the developed world, but less so in younger democracies that are still striving.

In a mature democracy such as the United States, David Rosenbloom argues that ethics in public administration is influenced by two political cultures--a political-machine-based culture and a civic culture. The machine-based culture is based on political exchanges between a political 'boss' and citizens, and between the machine and businesses, where patronage is used to obtain votes and other forms of support. The patronage could be jobs, favors, contracts, etcŠin exchange for work on campaigns, votes and money. The system is inherently corrupt as it leads to the transgression of administrative norms and fosters an environment where the occurrence of corruption becomes normal. A civic-culture is one in which the good of the community is the main value and is based on law and universally applicable rules. Its goal is fair and equal treatment of all citizens and professional stewardship of the government's resources. It is "community regarding" and views the state as the protector of citizen interests. It is the ideal of modern public administration.

Most democracies begin with a machine-based culture and evolve toward a civic-culture. The two cultures can co-exist in most cases to varying degrees. Public administration in the United States is primarily influenced by a civic-culture, however vestiges of a machine-based culture remain throughout the levels of government from the municipal level to the office of the president. Compared to a younger democracy corrupt behavior by individual bureaucrats is relatively rare but unethical and self-serving choices continue to be made.

In India, a younger democracy, people who go into public service have a variety of motivations but often stem from the value that government work is a means to wealth and status. An acquaintance of mine, Anshuman S. from a major Indian city, told me of his cousin. This man was basically a middle manager somewhere in the Indian civil service and owns eleven houses, ten undoubtedly obtained through graft. Upon a return visit to his home city the customs agent tried to shake Anshuman down for a couple hundred dollars, but settled for $20.00 cash and let him pass through customs unsearched. The civic-culture is weak in India from the top to the street-level and the machine-based culture fosters a spoils system where most are out to accumulate as many resources as possible regardless of the public interest. Unethical behavior related to the distribution of resources is widespread and prevalent in all areas and sectors. At the same time, India has also evolved a bureaucracy that can launch satellites from Bangalore and potentially lob nuclear missiles at Islamabad. This has been achieved with the widespread understanding that most players involved in these undertakings are corrupt.

It is a sign of the maturing of the United States as a political entity that we are so concerned with ethics in public administration. The political system encourages ethical behavior through its constitutional checks and balances, yet there is always room for independent action and therefore choice on the part of individual bureaucrats. The overall culture for the federal and most state and local governments is strongly "community regarding" and as mentioned, bureaucrats are generally personally motivated to do a good job. Examples of blatant corruption such as accepting bribes for favors are rare. However, ethical dilemmas are pervasive and real for functionaries in the modern American administrative state and often involve the issue of who one serves.

In a machine-based culture bureaucrats need to please their patrons above all as their livelihood depends on it. In modern America the ideal is that the public is served above all else as manifest in the civic-culture. However, many people experience a tension in their professional lives when the demands of their political masters conflict with the public interest. Often what is at stake is no less than what a bureaucrat in India may face, the loss of livelihood and friends. In India the choice is clear, one generally protects one's livelihood because of lack of alternatives. In the United States there are alternatives, a variety of other jobs are available in private and non-profit sectors. Also, American law has developed some protections for whistleblowers in the public service. An environment that offers alternatives when an individual is faced with a compromising demand better supports ethical choices. However, the higher up the chain of responsibility in government one goes, the fewer alternatives exist due to one's level of authority and reputation in a narrow circle of government, corporation and foundation positions. Ethical dilemmas get oddly closer to the ones faced by the common Indian bureaucrat.

According to Daniel Ellsberg there are 12 levels of security clearance in the federal government and each reflects one's ability to tell lies and perjure oneself. Among his cynical list of priorities is, one's highest loyalty is to the president and if he wants you to lie, your job is to support him. This ethic filters through the administration and emerges as part of the civic-culture. The cost may be a limited chink in your reputation as in the case of Clinton's cabinet during the Monica Lewinski affair, or it may be a more serious cost to society such as the Vietnam War or the current action in Iraq. Richard Clarke upheld his oath to the constitution by telling the truth to the American people about the non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi threat to the United States in general. Many people in government had similar knowledge but kept silent.

Ellsberg felt he served his country best by exposing the misrepresentation of the truth at the highest level during the time of Watergate. He feels that it is worth the risk to one's professional life to reveal the truth. He fears that under the current president the fetish with secrecy hides a lot of untruth and damages American democracy, which needs transparency to flourish. His logic is sound.

Democracy is best served by a thorough commitment to the public interest above all else at all levels of government by public employees. This is an ideal that the United States typically achieves; its public servants are committed and honest. However, a culture of loyalty to the constitution needs to infuse the upper reaches of government and other areas where partisanship is rife. The result would be to change the system itself, causing it to be more democratic, transparent and meritocratic; a condition that also supports our economic well being in the long run. We may not be able to change systems on our own, but through infusing a public administration career with the values of civic culture we will strengthen our democracy and we will each have much to offer our counterparts in other parts of the world.

David Bergman is an MPA student at San Francisco State University.

Return to July PA TIMES menu