Ethical and Moral Public Administration

Discussion Board: The Ethics of Public Administration

According to Plant (2018), ethics in public administration is a continual balance between a moral approach to decision-making and external demands of politics and rule-determined behavior. Political influence includes the democratic will of the people, the influence of legislators and legislation, as well as a necessary negotiation between different factions, including other administrators and lobbying groups. Traditional views of ethical administration have stressed the need for the bureaucrats to use intelligence and expertise to make decisions during such negotiations, for example, in setting standards for drug approval or safety standards for flying on airplanes, while still following the letter of their defined responsibilities, or a “balance between strict obedience-based responsibility and professional discretion and judgment” (Plant, 2018, p.S38). This harkens to the Biblical dictate of the letter of the law kills, versus honoring the spirit behind the law, or the notion that spirit and letter are often not the same and can even seem in conflict. Even civics textbooks emphasize a balance the need for a legal compliance, human development, or a hybrid approach to ethics in organization” (Bowman, Berman, & West, 2001, p.198).

A good administrator, in other words, cannot simply go rogue and do what he or she likes, particularly within a bureaucratic structure, but, on the other hand still has responsibilities to act in a human fashion. Additionally, as noted by Hijal-Moghrab & Sabharwal (2018), the idea of an independent, autonomous bureaucracy which was not affected by the politics of the moment or political patronage was seen as an important antidote to the influence of political corruption and inappropriate influence. For example, in making public health decisions, it is critical that an administrator be guided by evidence-based medicine, not by what is popular with the American public at the time, or the influence of powerful lobbying groups. In the Progressive and New Deal eras, this meant honoring what was called the holy trinity of “efficiency, effectiveness, and economy” (Hijal-Moghrab & Sabharwal, 2018, p.460). However, other, contrasting ideals, such as that of Woodrow Wilson’s concept of a public administrator acting out of conviction with personal, ethical vigor and independence, could often contrast with this construct of scientific management.

There has always been a tension, and there continues to be a tension between efficiency and rule-following, and what in the 1960s was later called the “thinking and valuing” model of New Public Administration, which critics often saw as inefficient and wasteful of government spending and taxpayer money (Hijal-Moghrab & Sabharwal, 2018, p.461). On the other hand, it is possible to argue that if one of the core values of public administration is ethical statesmanship, a person in a position of trust has a responsibility to use his or her position and expertise to advance public welfare, even if not directly elected. Furthermore, excessive adherence to bureaucracy can actually be inefficient and wasteful, and examples such as emergency approval of vaccines are testimony to the fact that sometimes creative and agile responses are needed to promote the spirit or intension of the law and public good.