ETHICAL CONCERNS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

‘Ethics’ is a difficult term to define. The meaning, nature and scope of ethics have expanded in
the course of time. ‘Ethics’ is integral to public administration. In public administration, ethics
focuses on how the public administrator should question and reflect in order to be able to act
responsibly. We cannot simply bifurcate the two by saying that ethics deals with morals and
values, while public administration is about actions and decisions. Administering accountability
and ethics is a difficult task. The levels of ethics in governance are dependent on the social,
economic, political, cultural, legal-judicial and historical contexts of the country. These specific
factors influence ethics in public administrative systems. This Unit will discuss the
meaning, evolution, foci and concerns of ethics. It will bring out the different dimensions
of ethics and their relevance for public administration. The significance of an ethical code for
administrators will be analysed and the nature of work ethics will be discussed. This Unit will
also examine the obstacles to ethical accountability.

ETHICS: MEANING AND RELEVANCE

‘Ethics’ is a system of accepted beliefs, mores and values, which influence human behaviour.
More specifically, it is a system based on morals. Thus, ethics is the study of what is morally
right, and what is not. The Latin origin of the word ‘ethics’ is ethicus that means character.
Since the early 17th century, ‘ethics’ has been accepted as the “Science of morals; the rules of
conduct, the science of human duty.” Hence, in common parlance, ethics is treated as moral
principles that govern a person’s or a group’s behaviour. It includes both the science of the good
and the nature of the right.
The ethical concerns of governance have been underscored widely in Indian scriptures and other
treatises such as Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagvad Gita, Buddha Charita, Arthashastra,
Panchatantra, Manusmriti, Kural, Shukra Niti, Kadambari, Raja Tarangani, and
Hitopadesh. At the same time, one cannot ignore the maxims on ethical governance provided
by the Chinese philosophers such as Lao Tse, Confucius
and Mencius.
In the Western philosophy, there are three eminent schools of ethics. The first, inspired by
Aristotle, holds that virtues (such as justice, charity and generosity) are dispositions to act in
ways that benefit the possessor of these virtues and the society of which he is a part. The
second, subscribed to mainly by Immanual Kant, makes the concept of duty central to morality:
human beings are bound, from a knowledge of their duty as rational beings, to obey the
categorical imperative to respect other rational beings with whom they interact. The third is the
Utilitarian viewpoint that asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest
happiness (or benefit) of the greatest number (Hobson, 2002). The Western thought is full of
ethical guidelines to rulers, whether in a monarchy or a democracy. These concerns are
found in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Penn,
John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, and others.
Rawl’s theory of justice revolves around the adaptation of two fundamental principles of justice,
which would, in turn, guarantee a just and morally acceptable society. The first principle
guarantees the right of each person to have the most extensive basic liberty compatible with
liberty of others. The second principle states that social and economic positions are to be: (a) To
everyone’s advantage, and (b) Open to all. A key issue for Rawls is to show how such principles
would be universally adopted, and over here his work borders on general ethical issues. He
introduces a theoretical ‘veil of ignorance’ in which all ‘players’ in the social game would be
placed in a situation, which is called the ‘original position’. Having only a general knowledge
about the facts of ‘life and society’ each player is to make a ‘rationally’ prudential
choice concerning the kind of social institution they would enter into contract with. By denying
the players any specific information about themselves it forces them to adopt a generalised point
of view that bears a strong resemblance to the moral point of view. This view point revolves
around moral conclusions can be reached without abandoning the prudential standpoint and
posting a moral outlook merely by pursuing one’s own prudential reasoning under certain
procedural bargaining.
The gist of wisdom on administrative ethics is that the public administrators are the “guardians”
of the Administrative State. Hence, they are expected to honour public trust and not violate it.
Two crucial questions raised in this context are “why should guardians be guarded? And “Who
guards the guardian?” (Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, 2005). The administrators need to be
guarded against their tendency to misconceive public interest, promote self-interest, indulge in
corruption and cause subversion of national interest. And they need to be guarded by the
external institutions such as the judiciary, legislature, political executive, media and
civil society organisations. These various modes of control become instruments
of accountability.

EVOLUTION OF ETHICAL CONCERNS

IN ADMINISTRATION
It is essential to recognise that the discipline of Public Administration has been broadly
influenced in the initial stages of its growth, by Political Science and the science of
Management. While the philosophical premises of Public Administration were influenced
primarily by Political Science, its technological facet was designed by Management Sciences.
The early Political Science was taught as Moral Philosophy and Political Economy, while its
current curriculum is the product of secular, practical, empirical and scientific tendencies of the
past century. The American students of Political Science, in the early years of the last century,
were dismayed at the inadequacies of the ethical approach in the Gilded Age. As a result of their
interaction with the German universities and the influence on their thinking by scholars such as
J.N Burgess, E.J. James, A.B Hart, A.L Lovell, and F.J Goodnow, they sought to recreate
Political Science as a true science. They became increasingly
interested in observing and analysing ‘actual governments’. Natural and Social Sciences
substantially influenced their ideas and approaches.
Later, Logical Positivism of the Austrian School influenced scholars such as Herbert Simon and
thus there emerged a booming faith in developing a Science of Politics and a Science of
Administration that would be able to `predict and control’ political and administrative life. As
Dwight Waldo comments, the old belief that good government was the government of moral
men was thus replaced by a morality that was irrelevant and that proper institutions and expert
personnel were the determining factors in shaping good government. `The new amorality
became almost a request for professional respect’.
The eminence of Behaviouralism until the mid-1960s further marginalised the ethical issues in
the study of Political Science and Public Administration. It was only after the advent of Post-
behaviouralism in Political Science and of the accent on New Public Administration in Public
Administration that the scientific methods of Behaviouralim and humanistic (read `ethical’)
values struck a homogenous chord with administration and the dispute between facts and values
was resolved substantially.
The current discipline of public administration accords primacy to the `values’ of equity, justice,
humanism, human rights, gender equality and compassion. The movement of Good
Governance, initiated by the World Bank in 1992, lays stress, inter alia, on the ethical and
moral conduct of administrators. While the New Public Management movement is more
concerned with administrative effectiveness, the New Public Administration focuses on
administrative ethics in its broader manifestation. Both the movements are complementary to
each other. This complementarity of foci is as truer today as it was a hundred years ago when the
industrial world was experiencing the rise of Scientific Management amidst a strong acceptance
of the notion of administrative responsibility. John Kennedy, during his Presidency (1961-
1963) had averred: “No responsibility of government is more fundamental than
the responsibility of maintaining the higher standards of ethical behaviour.
The ideal-type construction of bureaucracy, propounded by Max Weber also highlighted an
ethical imperative of bureaucratic behaviour. Weber (1947) observed: In the rational type, it is a
matter of principle that the members of the administrative staff should be completely separated
from ownership of the means of production and administration. Officials, employees and
workers attached to the administrative staff do not themselves own the non-human means of
production and administration…. These exists, furthermore, in principle complete separation of
property belonging to the organisation, which is controlled within the sphere of office, and the
personal property of the official, which is available for his own private uses”.
Weber’s analysis underscores the need to prevent the misuse of an official position for personal
gains. Although his ideal-type construct on bureaucracy is not empirical, yet it has an empirical
flavour, for it appears to have taken into account the existential reality of bureaucratic
behaviour. From a normative angle – knowing that Weber was not normative in his ideal type
constructs – also, the message is clear: Don’t misuse official property for personal benefit.
Most critics of real-world bureaucracies, including Harold Laski, Carl Friedrich, Victor
Thompson and Warren Bennis, have criticised bureaucrats for violating the prescribed norms of
moral conduct. Even Fred Riggs, while discussing the traits of a prismatic society like
`formalism’ and ‘nepotism’ points out the yawning gap between the `ideal’ and the `real’ in
administrative behaviour. The deviations from the norms and mores have been too glaring to be
ignored. Immoral behaviour thus has become an integral component of `bureaupathology’

CONTEXT OF ETHICS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION
Ethics, whether in an entire society, or in a social sub-system, evolves over a long period of
time and is influenced, during its nurturance and growth, by a variety of environmental factors.
Administrative ethics is no different. It is the product of several contextual structures and it
never ceases to grow and change. Let us now look
at some of these contextual factors that influence ethics in the public administrative systems:
The Historical Context
The history of a country marks a great influence on the ethical character of the governance
system. The Spoils System in the USA during the initial phase of the American nation vitiated
the ethical milieu of the American Public Administration. “To victor belong the spoils” asserted
American President Jackson. Things would have continued the same way had not a disgruntled
job seeker assassinated President Garfield in 1881. Garfield’s assassination spurred the process
of civil service reforms in the USA, and the setting up of the US. Civil Service Commission in
1883 was the first major step in this direction.
India has witnessed a long history of unethical practices in the governance system. Kautilya’s
Arthashastra mentions a variety of corrupt practices in which the administrators of those times
indulged themselves. The Mughal Empire and the Indian princely rule were also afflicted with
the corrupt practices of the courtiers and administrative functionaries, with ‘bakshish’ being one
of the accepted means of selling and buying favours. The East India Company too had its share
of employees who were criticised even by the British parliamentarians for being corrupt.
The forces of probity and immorality co-exist in all phases of human history. Which forces are
stronger depends upon the support these get from the prime actors of politico-administrative
system. What is disturbing is that a long legacy of unethical practices in governance is likely to
enhance the tolerance level for administrative immorality. In most developing nations having a
colonial history, the chasm between the people and the government continues to be wide. In the
colonial era, the legitimacy of the governance was not accepted willingly by a majority of
population and therefore, true loyalty to the rulers was a rare phenomenon. Although the
distance between the governing elite and the citizens has been reduced substantially in
the transformed democratic regimes, yet the affinity and trust between the two has not been total
even in the new dispensation. Unfortunately, even the ruling elite does not seem to have
imbibed the spirit of emotional unity with the citizens. The legacy of competitive collaboration
between the people and the administrators continues to exist. The nature of this relationship has
an adverse impact on ‘administrative ethics’.
The Socio-cultural Context
Values that permeate the social order in a society determine the nature of governance system.
The Indian society today seems to prefer wealth to any other value. And in the process of
generating wealth, the means-ends debate has been sidelined. Unfortunately, ends have gained
supremacy and the means do not command an equal respect. A quest for wealth in itself is not
bad. In fact, it is a mark of civilisational progress. What is important is the means employed
while being engaged in this quest.
We seem to be living in an economic or commercial society, where uni-dimensional growth of
individuals seem to be accepted and even valued, where ends have been subdued by means, and
ideals have been submerged under the weight of more practical concerns of economic progress.
Can we change this social order? Mahatma Gandhi very much wanted to transform the priority-
order of the Indian society, but there were hardly any takers or backers of his radical thinking
that was steeped in a strong moral order. To put it bluntly, ever since Gandhi passed away, there
has been not a single strong voice in independent India challenging the supremacy of
‘teleology and unidimensionalism’. Neither have our family values questioned this
unilinear growth of society nor has our educational system made serious efforts to
inject morality into the impressionable minds of our youth. We have starkly failed on
these fronts. The need is to evolve fresh perspectives on what kind of the Indians we wish to
evolve and how? Till then, efforts will have to be focused on the non-social fronts.
The issues of morality may or may not be rooted in the religious ethos of a society. Indian
religious scriptures do not favour pursuit of wealth through foul means. Interestingly, Thiru
Valluvar’s Kural, written two thousand years ago in Tamil Nadu, emphasises that earning
wealth brings fame, respect and an opportunity to help and serve others, but it should be earned
through right means only. Can this dictum form
the basis of our socio-moral orientation?
The level of integrity among Protestants and Parsees is believed by some to be relatively higher
when compared to other religions and one can find the roots of such integrity in the well-
ingrained mores of these religions. Nevertheless, it is only one point of view, as there are several
other religious and secular groups, which are known for their high moral conduct. The cultural
system of a country, including its religious orientation, appears to have played a significant role
in influencing the work ethics of its people. For instance, the stress on hard work, so
characteristic of the Protestant ethics, has helped several Christian societies to enhance their per
capita productivity. While Judaism has valued performance of physical labour by its followers,
the Hindu and Islamic societies, on the other hand, have generally considered physical labour to
be of lower rank than the mental work.
Work ethics may or may not be linked with religious moorings. These are subjective issues but
make for an interesting study. The family system and the educational system are influential
instruments of socialisation and training of the mind in its impressionable years. If the values
inculcated through the family and the school have underscored honesty and ethics, the impact
on the mind-set of citizens is likely to be highly positive and powerful.
Legal-judicial Context
The legal system of a country determines considerably the efficacy of the ethical concerns in
governance system. A neatly formulated law, with a clear stress on the norms of fair conduct
and honesty, is likely to distinguish chaff from grain in the ethical universe. Conversely,
nebulous laws, with confusing definition of corruption and its explanations, will only promote
corruption for it would not be able to instill the fear of God or fear of law among those violating
the laws of the land and mores of the society. Besides, an efficient and effective judiciary with
fast-track justice system will prove a roadblock to immorality in public affairs. Conversely, a
slow-moving judiciary, with a concern for letter rather than the spirit of the law, will dither
and delay and even help the perpetrators of crimes by giving them leeway through prolonged
trials and benefits of doubt.
Likewise, the anti-corruption machinery of the government, with its tangled web of complex
procedures, unintendedly grants relief to the accused who are indirectly assisted by dilatory and
knotty procedures. In India, there is hardly any effective anti corruption institution. As we have
read in Unit 7 earlier on in this Course, the Lok Pal is yet to be established, Lok Ayuktas are
feeble and toothless agencies, while the state vigilance bodies are low-key actors. The
consequences are too obvious to warrant any explanation.
The Political Context
The political leadership, whether in power or outside the power-domain, is perhaps the single
most potent influence on the mores and values of citizens. The rulers do rule the minds, but in a
democracy particularly, all political parties, pressure groups and the media also influence the
orientation and attitudes on moral questions. If politicians act as authentic examples of integrity,
as happens in the Scandinavian countries, or as examples of gross self-interest, as found in most
South Asian countries, the administrative system cannot remain immune to the levels of
political morality.
The election system in India is considered to be the biggest propeller to political corruption.
Spending millions on the elections `compels’ a candidate to reimburse his expenses through fair
or foul means – more foul than fair. While fair has limits, foul has none. It is generally argued
that the administrative class – comprising civil servants at higher, middle as well as lower levels
– emerges from the society itself. Naturally, therefore, the mores, values and behavioural
patterns prevalent in the society are likely to be reflected in the conduct of administrators. To
expect that the administrators will be insulated from the orientations and norms evidenced the
in society would be grossly unrealistic.
The argument, propounded here, has a convincing logic, yet there can be a counter point that the
rulers are expected to possess stronger moral fibre than the subjects. Since there are hardly any
instrumentalities to protect and nurture administrative morality vis-à-vis the general social
morality, such an expectation remains at the most an elusive ideal. Hence, there is an obvious
need to go deeper into the problem.
The behaviour of politicians has a demonstration effect on civil servants. Besides, the capacity
of the less honest political masters to control civil servants is immense. It is ironical that the
moral environment in a country like India is designed more by its politicians than by any other
social group. The primacy of the political over the rest of systems is too obvious to be ignored.
If the media is objective and fearless, its role in preventing corruption can be effective. It can
even act as a catalyst to the promotion of ethical behaviour among administrators. Hence, those
who own and manage the media should understand their wider social and moral responsibilities.
The trend in this direction is visible now with many television channels regularly airing
their ‘expose’ on malpractices in the system. This role of the media is important if performed
with intent of social responsibility rather than sensationalism.
The Economic Context
The level of economic development of a country is likely to have a positive correlation with the
level of ethics in the governance system. Even when a causal relation between the two is not
envisaged, a correlation cannot be ruled out. A lower level of economic development, when
accompanied with inequalities in the economic order, is likely to create a chasm among social
classes and groups. The less privileged or more deprived sections of society may get tempted to
forsake principles of honest conduct while fulfilling their basic needs of existence and security.
Not that the rich will necessarily be more honest (though they can afford to be so), yet what is
apprehended is that the poor, while making a living, may find it a compelling necessity to
compromise with the principles of integrity.
It is interesting to note that with the advent of liberalising economic regime in developing
nations, there is a growing concern about following the norms of integrity in industry, trade,
management and the governance system on account of the international pressures for higher
level of integrity in the WTO regime. This is what Fred Riggs would call `exogenous’
inducements to administrative change.

ISSUE OF ETHICS: FOCI AND CONCERNS

An important question arises in connection with the moral obligation of an administrative
system. Is the administrative system confined to acting morally in its conduct or does it also
share the responsibility of protecting and promoting an ethical order in the larger society? While
most of the focus on administrative morality is on the aspect of probity within the administrative
system, there is a need to consider the issue of the responsibility of the governance system (of
which the administrative system is an integral part) to create and sustain an ethical ambience in
the socio economic system that would nurture and protect the basic moral values.
Moral political philosophy assumes that the rulers will not only be moral themselves, but would
also be the guardians of morality in a society. Truly, being moral is a prerequisite to being a
guardian of wider morality. Both the obligations are intertwined.
It is a truism that the crux of administrative morality is ethical decision-making. The questions
of facts and values cannot be separated from ethical decision-making. Thus, the science of
administration gets integrated with the ethics of administration. And in this integrated regime,
only that empirical concern is valued, which respects the normative concerns in the delivery of
administrative services.
Which are the essential concerns in regard to administrative ethics? There can be a long list of
values that are considered desirable in an administrative action. However, in being selective,
one has to focus on the most crucial values. Let us now concentrate on the values of justice,
fairness and objectivity. Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration” (1887), in his
inaugural address averred that justice was more important than sympathy. Thus, he placed
justice at the top of value-hierarchy in a governance system. Paradoxically, there has been a lot
of discussion on the formal legal aspects of administrative law since then, but very little analysis
has been made of the philosophical dimension of administrative justice.
The other two issues of ethical decision-making, viz. fairness and objectivity are, in fact,
integral components of administrative justice. When administrators are true to their profession,
they are expected to be impartial and fair and not get influenced by nepotism, favoritism and
greed while making decisions of governance. Objectivity should not be misconstrued as a
mechanical and rigid adherence to laws and rules. From the decision-making angle, it has
undoubtedly wider ramifications encompassing a set of positive orientations.
Currently, the notion of ethics has expanded itself to involve all major realms of human
existence. Let us attempt to outline certain salient aspects of ethics in public administration.
Broadly, they could be summarised as following maxims:
• Maxim of Legality and Rationality: An administrator will follow the law and rules that are
framed to govern and guide various categories of policies and decisions.
• Maxim of Responsibility and Accountability: An administrator would not hesitate to
accept responsibility for his decision and actions. He would hold himself morally responsible
for his actions and for the use of his discretion while making decisions. Moreover, he would
 be willing to be held accountable to higher authorities of governance and even to the people
who are the ultimate beneficiaries of his decisions and actions.
• Maxim of Work Commitment: An administrator would be committed to his duties and
perform his work with involvement, intelligence and dexterity. As Swami Vivekananda
observed: “Every duty is holy and devotion to duty is the highest form of worship.” This
would also entail a respect for time, punctuality and fulfillment of promises made. Work is
considered not as a burden but as an opportunity to serve and constructively contribute to
society.
• Maxim of Excellence: An administrator would ensure the highest standards of quality in
administrative decisions and action and would not compromise with standards because of
convenience or complacency. In a competitive international environment, an administrative
system should faithfully adhere to the requisites of Total Quality Management.
• Maxim of Fusion: An administrator would rationally bring about a fusion of individual,
organisational and social goals to help evolve unison of ideals and imbibe in his behaviour a
commitment to such a fusion. In situation of conflicting goals, a concern for ethics should
govern the choices made.
• Maxim of Responsiveness and Resilience: An administrator would respond effectively
to the demands and challenges from the external as well as internal environment. He would
adapt to environmental transformation and yet sustain the ethical norms of conduct. In
situations of deviation from the prescribed ethical norms, the administrative system would
show resilience and bounce back into the accepted ethical mould at the earliest opportunity.
• Maxim of Utilitarianism: While making and implementing policies and decisions, an
administrator will ensure that these lead to the greatest good (happiness, benefits) of the
greatest number.
• Maxim of Compassion: An administrator, without violating the prescribed laws and rules,
would demonstrate compassion for the poor, the disabled and the weak while using his
discretion in making decisions. At least, he would not grant any benefits to the stronger
section of society only because they are strong and would not deny the due consideration to
the weak, despite their weakness.
• Maxim of National Interest: Though universalistic in orientation and liberal in outlook, a
civil servant, while performing his duties, would keep in view the impact of his action on his
nation’s strength and prestige. The Japanese, the Koreans, the Germans and the Chinese
citizens (including civil servants), while performing their official roles, have at the back of
their mind a concern and respect for their nation. This automatically raises the level of
service rendered and the products delivered.
• Maxim of Justice: Those responsible for formulation and execution of policies and
decisions of governance would ensure that respect is shown to the principles of equality,
equity, fairness, impartiality and objectivity and no special favours are doled out on the
criteria of status, position, power, gender, class, caste or wealth.
• Maxim of Transparency: An administrator will make decisions and implement them in a
transparent manner so that those affected by the decisions and those who wish to evaluate
 their rationale, will be able to understand the reasons behind such decisions and the sources
of information on which these decisions were made.
• Maxim of Integrity: An administrator would undertake an administrative action on the basis
of honesty and not use his power, position and discretion to serve his personal interest and
the illegitimate interests of other individuals or groups.
There could be many more tenets added to the above catalogue of maxims of morality in
administration. However, the overall objective is to ensure ‘Good Governance’ with a prime
concern for ethical principles, practices, orientations and behaviour. There are no dogmas
involved in defining administrative ethics. The chief concern while doing so is the positive
consequence of administrative action and not just ostensibly rational modes of
administrative processes. In the following Section, a few of the salient concerns and foci of
ethics are being dealt with briefly.

PERTINENCE OF CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS

The concept of ethics has been a latecomer in the realm of public administration. For too long,
doing one’s duty well was considered to be an equivalent of bureaucratic ethics. Interestingly, in
the United States, the original city managers’ and federal code of ethics placed notable stress on
efficiency as ethical concept. In the early 20th century, the perspective began to change. In 1924,
the International City/Country Management Association adopted the public sector’s first code of
ethics that reflected anti-corruption and anti-politics facets of the municipal reforms
movement.
In 1958, the US Congress imposed a code of ethics on the Federal Government and in 1978,
founded the Office of Government Ethics as an upshot of the Ethics in Government Act of
1978. In 1992, the Office of Government Ethics released the Federal Government’s first
comprehensive set of standards of ethical conduct, comprising standards pertaining to gifts,
conflicts of financial interest, impartiality, misuse of office, seeking outside employment, and
outside activities. Almost all the American states have also promulgated their respective codes
of ethics, though compared to the federal initiative, they are less comprehensive.
Today, codes of ethics, ethics boards, and ethics training have been accepted as integral aspects
of public administration in the U.S. Moreover, ethics education has also permeated the discipline
of public administration. The National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Public
Administration has made ethics education a required component of a Public Administration
Programme for its accreditation and has prescribed that all introductory text-books in public
administration should include a discussion on ethics (Browman, Berman and West, 2001).
Eminent professional associations of public administration also offer training programmes on
ethical conduct for public managers.
In India, there are a few training programmes on administrative ethics offered by the Indian
Institute of Public Administration and other institutions for civil servants, but there is hardly any
similar initiative taken up in the realm of education in Public Administration. The American
Society for Public Administration (ASPA) had adopted in 1984 a Code of Ethics for its
members (comprising intellectuals as well as practicing administrators). It was revised in 1994.
Certain salient points of the ASPA’s Code of Ethics are as follows:
• Exercise of discretionary authority to promote public interest
• Recognition and support to the public’s right to know the public business
• Exercise of compassion, benevolence, fairness and optimism
• Prevention of all forms of mismanagement of public funds by establishing and maintaining
strong fiscal and management controls, by supporting audits and investigative activities
• Protection of Constitutional principles of equality, fairness, representativeness, responsiveness
and due process in protecting citizens’ rights
• Maintenance of truthfulness and honesty and not to compromise them for advancement,
honour, or personal gain
• Guarding zealously against conflict of interest or its appearance: e.g. nepotism, improper
outside employment, misuse of public resources or the acceptance of gifts
• Establishment of procedures that promote ethical behaviour and hold individuals and
organisations accountable for their conduct
There are several other `commitments’ that form a part of the ASPA’s Code of Ethics. The
document can serve as a model for various public sector organisations in India and other
countries, which can draft and follow similar codes of ethics. In fact, it would be ideal if all
public administrative agencies – ministries, departments, boards, commissions, public
enterprises, urban administrative authorities, rural administrative organisations and other public
institutions – adopt and honour such codes of ethics, allowing minor variations in view of the
specific nature of their functional areas and organisational requirements. The whole thing has to
turn into a movement, which will certainly take some time to muster popular acceptance and
credence.
In this context, it has been pointed out that even though no ethical code can provide a sure shot
answer for every decisional dilemma, such a code can certainly provide broad guidelines while
dealing with critical moral paradoxes in administrative decisions and actions (Dhameja, 2003).
Surely, it may not be possible to draft comprehensive or exhaustive ethical codes for
administrative decision-making, yet efforts can be made to make them as inclusive as possible.
More importantly, such codes should be drawn up by the administrators themselves and not
imposed from above. These have to strike a balance between what is ideal and what is
possible. Extremities are generally resisted in the empirical world of human affairs.
The conduct rules should not be confined to the ‘don’ts’ of administrative behaviour but should
also be helpful in resolving ethical dilemmas. Cases and illustrations can be helpful in guiding
administrators in complex decisional situations. However, no conduct rule can be absolutely
specific. Certain generalities will always enter the drafting of such rules. But what is of
importance is to scan and scrutinise them at regular intervals and modify them in tune with the
changing social imperatives, revised economic parameters and the prevailing cultural milieu. A
code that is impractical or archaic is rarely honoured in practice (ibid.). We are not advocating
laxity in the enforcement of codes of ethics, but only highlighting the essentiality of `realism’
while defining morality. A judicious blend of `ought’ and `possible’ will make an ethical code a
helpful instrument in sustaining an ethical order.
NATURE OF WORK ETHICS IN PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
An important dimension of ethics in public administration is work ethics. It represents a
commitment to the fulfillment of one’s official responsibilities with a spirit of dedication,
involvement and sincerity. It also implies that a government functionary would love his work
and not treat it as a burden or a load. And that efficiency, productivity and punctuality will be the
hallmark of his administrative behaviour.
Efficiency has been a constant concern of administrative analysis and good governance. The
notion, transcending the Classical School, has permeated the New Public Management
philosophy. Efficiency implies doing one’s best in one’s job, with a concern for maximum
possible utilisation of human, material and financial resources and even for time to achieve the
prescribed and desired objectives (Arora, 2004).
Let us take a fresh look at the notion of efficiency. Can we treat efficiency as `ethics’? Truly yes,
for a genuinely efficient person has a regard for the higher goals of governance, including public
welfare and he devotes himself to the expeditious achievement of those goals. Thus, an
`efficient person is also an ethical person. He or she possesses administrative morality that is
essentially rooted in a conviction in the desirability of ethical conduct. Here, we are not equating
efficiency with mechanical productivity but with higher levels of performance that juxtaposes
the ideal with the applied facets of organisational functions.
This raises another question. Why is that the quality of services and goods produced by the
government organisations relatively poorer than normally observed in non governmental sector?
Government schools, government dispensaries and government offices provide an nsatisfactory
look and render dissatisfactory services. In fact, the overall work culture in public systems in
India is relatively lower than that prevailing in the public sector and that existing in the
government systems in most developing countries. Even when we compare India with China,
South Korea and Japan, we have staggeringly low per capita productivity. The answer might lie
in systemic flaws – poor infrastructure, sloppy monitoring, lackluster control and evaluation and
almost an absence of reward and punishment system. Yet, the major factor behind the
poor quality of output of public systems is the carelessness and callousness on the part
of government functionaries. Most of them do not have a feeling of `one-ness’ with
their organisation and their job. They do not put in their best in their work and are half heartedly
involved in their duties. Resultantly, there are unrealistic policies,
irrational decisions, erratic changes in government systems and an indifference towards the
beneficiaries of the system. All this may not be illegal, yet it is grossly immoral. In rendering
public service, sometimes even being amoral is being immoral.
Once we agree that work ethics is important to organisational morality and once we accept that
sound time management and a respect for punctuality and promptness (as against
procrastination) in work disposal is a valued attribute, we should device strategies for improving
work ethics in developing countries including India. A few corrective steps may be considered
in this context. There should be prescribed specific norms of productivity and work
performance for organisational units and even individuals. A comprehensive and inclusive
performance appraisal system should be adopted. This would be feasible only if job is
descriptive and role and responsibilities of each position are specified. There should be
maximum delegation of powers at every level with a concurrent system of effective monitoring
and work audit.
Punctuality and promptness in administrative affairs must be valued and along with the quality
of work performed; these should become the criteria for reward and punishment in
organisations. The seniors should lead by setting an ethical example. They should motivate their
juniors to take initiative, and responsibility, and also be enterprising and efficient. Conversely,
those suffering from indolence, indecision, inefficiency and dishonesty should be punished. This
would set an example and create a healthy work culture for those who conduct the public
business. The same spirit pervades the pronouncements of public leaders at the helm of
governments in most nations.
Thus, ethics has regained its status as a distinctive characteristic of Good Governance. The trend
is not likely to reverse in the foreseeable future. Hopefully, there would be a greater concern for
quality in public affairs and public service, and the movement of Total Quality Management
(TQM) will pervade the governmental functioning and influence the performance of
governmental structure. Ethics means good service and this maxim applies most to public
systems.
Public administration is designed to serve `public’. By its very nature, it ought to be people-
oriented and even people-centred. While bureaucracies are expected to be guided by laws and
rules, it is not necessary to make them mechanistically rule centric. Public administrative
organisations are human organisations and they ought to
be humane in their policies, decisions, orientation and behaviour. Being responsive to people’s
needs enjoins upon civil servants to be responsive to their psychological needs of being cared
for, nurtured, and helped. It is in this context that administrators ought to evolve and demonstrate
a higher level of emotional as well as spiritual intelligence that would make them empathetic as
well sympathetic to feelings of a common person.
Despite all the visible prosperity in India, one cannot ignore massive and deplorable poverty in
the country. As a long as there is a single poor person in this country, the moral responsibility of
administration remains to help him. But the larger issue of empathy and compassion is not
confined to demonstrating positive behaviour towards the less-privileged sections of society. It
transcends this orientation. In fact, anyone having access to administration should be meted out
a treatment of respect. This treatment should not be just ostensible, but real, authentic and
profound. Ethical behaviour emanates from a pure and kind heart, and therefore, those who are
in the business of serving people should train their heart to be sensitive and compassionate.
Compassion involves a sense of empathy. It does not end with pity. It invokes sensibilities to
understand and even feel the pain of others and motivates one to be truly helpful in overcoming
this pain. Hence, administrative ethics in public affairs envisages that the domain of feelings
and the universe of rationality should find a happy blending in thought as well as actions of civil
servants.
A positive and healthy approach to services entails courtesy and politeness in administrative
behaviour, a desire to help resolve their problems, and satisfy them even when, extra help
cannot be rendered and matters have to be disposed off in accordance with the legal and formal
requirements of the system. A citizen-centric administration would be strengthened through
such an attitude.
Two areas where administrators ought to show an attentive and caring attitude is to provide
correct and useful information to clients when they need it and to redress satisfactorily the
citizens’ grievances. Even when a grievance cannot be redressed, at least a citizen needs be
given an explanation as to why it cannot it be redressed. What
is important is a positive approach in dealing with people and being helpful to them, and not
avoiding them or considering them as burdensome. Ethics entails a respectful attitude to the
citizens.
TOWARDS NEW DIMENSIONS OF ETHICS
Fostering “sunshine” in public administration is one of the finest methods of ensuring higher
standards of administrative ethics. Openness is the enemy of corruption. Almost all countries of
the world have Freedom of Information or Right to Information Acts. In the U.S., at the federal
level, freedom of information and open hearing provisions are an integral part of the
Administrative Procedure Act. In India, the Freedom of Information Act of 2002 was
redesigned as Right to Information Act, which was enacted in 2005. Besides, a number of state
governments including Goa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra have enacted legislations
that help in securing accountability of public employees through this device.
Legislation alone is not enough. Its enforcement would require a will on the part of the State,
willingness on the part of administrators and an initiative coupled with courage on the part of
citizens themselves. The State machinery should be ready to punish those civil servants who
obstruct the implementation of Right to Information Act. The age-old orientation to treat every
information, as `secret’ must give way to greater openness and transparency. This would require
a substantial transformation of the mind-sets of administrators in order to reorient the thinking
of administration at all levels, more particularly at the cutting- edge level.
The movement for the Right to Information cannot succeed unless people themselves become
motivated to ask for the fructification of this Right. Even though, it has culminated in the Right
to Information Act, there are miles to go before we can ensure its effective implementation.
People’s groups, such as the one led by Aruna Roy, will have to continue to take initiative on a
massive scale. Even the educational system and the media will need to play a purposive role in
this realm.
In the American system, ‘whistle blowing’ by public employees is considered as legitimate and
statutorily protected. Public employees are expected to use their voice to protest administrative
activities that are illegal or immoral. They can even resort to resignations from their positions to
give vent to their protests. And these acts are considered moral and appropriate.
In the American federal government, there functions a hotline, called `Fraud Net’,
for preventing fraud, waste and abuse. Through this hotline, employees and others
can anonymously report instances of misconduct for investigation to the General Accounting
Office. Besides, the American public employees enjoy Constitutional protection on speaking out
on matters of public concern like dangers to public health or safety.
In Britain, a new appeals procedure for civil servants has come into effect. Under this procedure,
a civil servant could raise concerns, confidentially, with an individual outside his normal
hierarchy. When he believes that the response is not satisfactory or reasonable, he may report
the matter to the Civil Service Commissioner. The Cnstitutional Review Commission in India
considered the possibility of whistle blowing a statutory activity, but it was not accepted as a
viable choice. The need is to develop a fresh perspective on this issue.

OBSTACLES TO ETHICAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION

Accountability and ethics are closely related. Effective accountability helps the achievement of
ethical standards in the governance system. Legislative or parliamentary control through
questions, debates and committees provide ample opportunity to the people’s representatives to
raise, among other things, issues of ethics and morality in the governance system. More
particularly, the Public Accounts Committee in India, which gives its comments on the report of
the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in its reports, raises matters that directly or
indirectly relate to ethics and good governance.
In the USA, the Office of Government Ethics, an independent agency, helps the Senate in the
process of confirming or rejecting Presidential appointments, particularly in matter of financial
decisions. “Ethics can be considered a form of self accountability, or an `inner-check’ on public
administrators’ conduct” (Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, 2005). Self-accountability and external
accountability are interrelated for it is the latter that imposes expectations on the former.
However, there are certain time-tested norms of moral conduct that determine the nature of self-
accountability. These precepts of moral philosophy may be considered as internal checks.
Essentially, however, it is the synthesis of external as well internal checks that determine the
parameters of administrative ethics. The higher the level of ethics, the lower the need for strong
instruments of external accountability and control. Conversely, lower the level of ethics, higher
the need for potent external means for ensuring accountability.
Max Weber had maintained that the outside (extra-agency) checks on public administration were
inadequate. Hence, the value of self-accountability is immense. The desire to be ethical in one’s
profession should spring from within. Seventy years ago, John Gaus in his book, The Frontiers
of Public Administration (1936) had remarked that public employees were expected to
exercise an “inner check” rooted in professional standards of administration and ideals. This
type of emphasis needs to be seriously reasserted.
David Rosenbloom and Robert S. Kravchuk (op.cit.) raise a pertinent question: “Why is it
difficult to guard the guardians?” There are certain intrinsic features of the administrative
system that make it difficult of the external regulating institutions to control it and also ensure
its accountability. A few of these imponderables are discussed below:
Special Expertise and Information
Public administrators are often experts in their specific area of functioning and it is difficult for
any outside agency to surpass them in their areas of specialisation. Moreover, they generate and
control crucial information that may be difficult to be accessed or even comprehended by law
regulators, much less by the common citizens. Although the Right to Information Act (or similar
legislations) is there in most countries, there is cost to be paid for obtaining information and
verifying its authenticity. The administrators do not easily part with such information and are
too keen to let their citadels remain impregnable.
Full-Time Status
Most public administrators are full-time, while outsiders cannot devote equal amount of time in
overseeing their activities – legislators, judiciary, Comptroller and Auditor General of India and
even the media have relatively less time to keep a watch over the actions of administrators.
They cannot seek all the crucial information from administrators and even if they get it, they do
not have sufficient time to process and use it effectively.
Massive Expansion of Bureaucracy
In a country such as India, the role of public administration has been increasing incessantly. Its
regulatory, developmental, promotional and entrepreneurial responsibilities have been
multiplying and with that also its size. The number of public personnel as well as the agencies
they work for have gone up so much that it is
difficult for the political executive or the legislature to exercise effective control over them.
Likewise, in large-sized organisations like Public Works Department, Income Tax Department,
Police Department, etc., it is impossible for higher officials to keep an eye on the conduct of
their subordinates. The geographical distribution of government agencies also makes the span of
control too wide to be handled effectively. Even computerisation of all personnel records cannot
ensure surveillance over the conduct of all personnel.
Lack of Coordination
The number and kinds of agencies to ensure probity in public administration have also been
increasing continually. In India, for instance the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Central
Vigilance Commission, State Lok Ayuktas, State Vigilance Bodies and Anti-Corruption
Departments are co-existing sans effective coordination among them. There are lacunae in the
working of the vigilance machinery and absence of harmony among the variegated anti-
corruption agencies. For years altogether, the permission to prosecute government officials is
not granted to the Anti-Corruption Departments. The Lok Pal is yet to be appointed at the
national level and there is no agency that is doing the job supposed to be undertaken by him.
The judiciary is slow and there are no fast-track courts for dealing with cases of corruption.
As mentioned already, in the United States, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 created an
Office of Government Ethics (OGE) in the Office of Personnel Management. The Ethics
Reforms Act of 1989 strengthened the OGE, now an independent agency within the executing
branch. No such institution exists in India or in other developing countries.
Excessive Security
Most countries grant protection to civil servants and refrain from punishing them for the
common lapses in the performance of their duties. Besides, there are no punishments prescribed
for non-performance or for low productivity. Article 311 of the Indian Constitution makes it
almost impossible to remove a civil servant. A sense of over-security pervades the personnel
system and the inquiry system is so dilatory and cumbersome that it is devoid of any threat or
fear. Resultantly, a low level of discipline in most government organisations is witnessed. And
when corruption permeates all the echelons of administrators in the organisations, the potential
efficacy of internal control becomes woefully meager.
Misinterpretation of Role and Obligation
Civil servants frequently engage themselves in actions that are unethical and against public
interest. Over time, they get used to defining their role and responsibilities in a parochial
manner that is either self-centered, group-centred or organisation-centred and never people-
centred. Since all-important professional groups, including the politicians, also adopt a tunnel
vision in perceiving social reality, there are hardly any countervailing forces for the prevention
or correction of a parochial interpretation of public interest by the administrative personnel. As
a result, both ethics and accountability suffer.
There is a general tendency among administrators to view public interest from a narrow angle
and tunnel vision. Their specialisation and the specific goals of their organisations prompt them
to focus on the achievement of narrow organisational goals. In this process, the issue of public
interest may get submerged under organisational interest. The Excise Department of a state, for
example, may be interested in opening more wine and beer shops in order to earn more revenue
and thus may ignore the impact this expansion of sale network of intoxicants will have on the
physical and moral health of citizens.
The political pressures imposed from above also colour the vision of
administrators. Occasionally, one notices that the Police Department, because of pressure from
its political bosses is caught between the compulsion of hierarchy and the obligation of duty.
The police officials generally succumb to political pressures in order to save their own interests
and that of their families. Occasionally, `inconvenient’ civil servants are punished with transfers
to `difficult’ locations or postings that may cause problems to their families.
Orthodox Loyalty
In India and in most developing countries, public employees are socialised into developing
loyalty towards the organisation that they serve and to the superior authority under which they
work. It is customary in the Indian society to show respect to the superior and to refrain from
criticism of one’s boss in a public organisation. Any voice against the superiors is considered as
an act of insubordination. In such a cultural climate, even the honest and conscientious
employees do not speak out against unethical practices of their peers and seniors. And the undue
compassion occasionally shown to the subordinates on their errors of omission and commission
also tend to strengthen the sinews of a `soft state’. All this represents a misplaced loyalty and
magnanimity that eats into the vitals of the ethical order in public administrative system. As the
Indian democracy becomes more mature, it is hoped that whistle blowing will be considered a
legitimate and rational activity in the future, and will be protected under the laws and rules.

Trivial and the Substantive Ethics

The conduct rules for civil servants emphasise upon meticulously following the norms of good
conduct. Some of these rules have remained unchanged since long and now appear to be
ridiculous. No wonder, these are ignored by all. Likewise, there is a stress that official property;
equipment and stationery should not be used for personal purposes. These relate, inter alia, to
the use of official vehicles and phone. Such rules are `conspicuous, more in their violation than
in their enforcement, and compared to broader issues of ethics and morality, these are at best,
examples of trivial or petty morality. Not that they should be ignored but they must not be
permitted to replace the more crucial ethical concerns of duty, fairness, objectivity and
commitment. In matters of administrative ethics, occasionally we tend to be ‘penny wise and
pound foolish’. It means we delve into the trivial rather than more pertinent and serious issues
of ethics. We need to guard against this trend.
Employees’ Unions
Another impediment in the way of enforcing discipline and codes of conduct is the tendency of
employees’ unions to resist the managerial action against their members even when they have
blatantly violated ethical norms. Assertive or aggressive unions can throttle any action, even a
legitimate one, against their members. As a result, the supervisory level leadership in public
systems gets exasperated and starts ignoring the unethical actions of their subordinates. In a
political system, where employees’ unions are aligned with powerful political parties – whether
in power or in opposition – administrative leadership refrains from taking a tough stand even
against the culprit employees for fear of compulsive back-tracking or humiliation. It has been
observed that collective bargaining agreements seriously jeopardize the authority of
managers to discipline their employees. Occasionally, the courts also show greater concern
for the protection of the so-called ‘Constitutional’ rights of the workers than those of the
citizens-irrespective of the ethical issues involved.
Corruption
Corruption is the abuse of official authority for personal gains. It is betrayal of public trust for
protecting private interests. Corruption is currently viewed as a universal phenomenon, although
the nature and quantum of corruption differ from nation to nation. The international and the
Indian national press is replete with instances of corruption in government. Politicians and
administrators are generally in league with each other in perpetuating corruption. Citizens thus
become the victims of immorality in governance. It also denotes the existence of corruption in
cross-national settings.
In the Middle East and in India, because of the Mughal influence, baksheesh is a tip that is
used to seek the favours of an administrative functionary at the lower level; Its name changes to
dash in Western Africa. ‘Speed money’ in India implies a fee to expedite the processing of a
governmental favour; la mordida or ‘the bite’ are popular forms of bribes in the Latin America;
shtraff is the Russian version of a small bribe; la bustarella cannotes a little envelope
(containing bribe) in Italy; while in Israel, ‘protekzi’” refers to the exploitation of personal
contracts to achieve a favourable treatment from administrators (Rosembloom and Kravchuk,
op.cit). In the United States – a country rated high on the integrity index of the Transparency
International, one comes across strange term such as Watergate, Iran-Contragate and White
Watergate which refer to carrying favours and bribery.
Unfortunately, in India the standards of ethics in the governance system have
differed staggeringly in proclamations and in practice. The Constitution, laws,
policies, manifestoes of political parties and speeches of politicians are replete with direct
or indirect references to ethical basis of governance, but in practice, however, there is a gross
violation of moral precepts in the functioning of the politico-administrative system. The critical
reasons behind administrative corruption are scaricity of what people want from public
administrators and the inconveniences involved in the normal channels of administrative
decisions. As Michael Johnston (1982) explains:
The demand for government’s rewards frequently exceeds the supply, and routine decision-
making processes are lengthy, costly, and uncertain in their outcome. For these reasons, legally
sanctioned decision-making processes constitute a ‘bottleneck’ between what people want and
what they get. The temptation to get around the bottleneck – to speed things up and make
favourable decisions more probable – is built into this relationship between government and
society. To get around the bottleneck, one must use political influence – and corruption, which
by definition cuts across established and legitimate processes, is a most effective form of
influence.
Because of the scarcity of what people want from the government, they are willing to pay bribes
in exchange for jobs, land, licences, quotas, admissions, passports, utility service connections
etc. or even for getting them speedily or illegitimately. They may also bribe administrators for
escaping arrests, punishments, fines or major
inconveniences. All these are examples of a transactional corruption. This acquires frightening
proportions when it becomes an accepted trait of the socio-cultural system.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower who was the American President from 1953 to 1961, had once
warned his nation of the existence of a ‘military-industrial complex’, which promoted a culture
of ‘transactional corruption’ based on quid pro quo. C. Wright Mills in his monumental work
The Power Elite (1956) had also broached the issue of such alliances and their impact on
government decision-making. In India, B.B. Vohra, the then Home Secretary of India, had
presented in 1995, a report on the activities of crime syndicates/mafia organisations which had
developed links with or were being protected by government functionaries and political
personalities. The conclusions of the Vohra Committee reflect a moral crisis in the Indian
governance system. Not that the decline is irreversible, strong and honest efforts can sincerely
halt the process of decline. Certain Asian countries have already proven that it is possible to
combat and curb corruption. It requires effective political and administrative will to do so.
Almost all kinds of political systems are affected by administrative corruption. (Heidenheimier,
1970). In totalitarian societies and military regimes, corruption might get concentrated at the
higher echelons of party, military or civilian bureaucracy, while in democracies, it might spread
throughout the system. In ‘Soft States’ particularly, political as well as administrative corruption
has greater potentiality of percolating the governance system. Weak control and supervisory
mechanisms cannot prevent corruption and consequently, these become its catalysts.
In a civic culture or democratic society like India’s, politicians who get elected on people’s
support and vote, are primarily concerned with strengthening their constituencies, and thus are
keen to dole out benefits to those who are their supporters. Administrators, on the other hand,
are keener to follow the prescribed procedures. In situations of conflict between the politicians
and administrators, there is either a stalemate, or eventually, the politicians win. But the most
convenient course for the politician is to win over administration to their side and make them
partners or collaborators in corruption. With the protective hands of politicians above them and
with a temptation for gaining extra (illegitimate) benefits, administrators consciously align with
their political masters and indulge in corruption. Very rarely, do the honest and strong
administrators stand up to the politician and refuse to succumb to politicians’ pressures and
cajoling. Likewise, there may be only a few politicians who actually apply brakes to the
bandwagon of administrative corruption.
One can often witness ‘Weather-cock’ syndrome in relation to government corruption. When
the top rung of the political or administrative executive gets tough on corruption, the middle and
lower level hierarchy in both the systems get cautious about issues of ethics. Greed is curbed by
fear but only as long as fear is genuinely feared.
Subversion
While corruption is endemic in government organisation, there is another ethical blemish that
afflicts, though rarely, the administrative system. Certain government servants, working in
sensitive organisations like ordinance factories, nuclear energy establishments and defence
forces, may pass on critical secrets to enemies in exchange for pecuniary benefits or for the sale
of extra-territorial loyalty. In contemporary times of global competition, even economic
subversion is possible. There may be, within the government, attempts to subvert friendly
relations with foreign countries. In extreme cases, civil servants may subvert certain government
programmes like family planning or prevention of illegal migration. There can be many other
cases involving ethical issues in public administration. Attempts should be made to devise
strategies to combat such subversions.
New Public Management: A Counterview
The traditional Public Administration had laid great emphasis on efficiency and economy.
Likewise, conventional Management Science was greatly concerned with productivity and
performance. The New Public Management, with its Neo-Taylorism orientation, has focused
almost exclusively on performance and results.
During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Al Gore, the U.S. Vice President, advocated through the
National Performance Review’s (NPR) version of the NPM, that ethics implied achieving high
degree of customer satisfaction. It believed that people – in government or outside – were
basically honest and well intentioned and there was no need for wasting time and energy on
focusing on corruption. Trusting them is bound
to lead to a favourable climate for ethical behaviour. The cost of deterring corruption is too high
in terms of red tape that such efforts create. The NPR underscored that reinventing government
required innovations, which in turn implied deviations from the grooves of tradition. Distrusting
and accusing people for their creative initiatives dampens their enthusiasm for innovation.
Trusting the employees as well as the people they serve would help carve a more effective
administrative system in the self governing democracy (Gore 1993; 1995).
Al Gore seems to have transcended even Douglas McGregor’s ‘Theory Y’ and created an image
of a human being who is creative and honest. Naturally, such a person in government would not
need measures of external control over him for he has internalised very well the canon of self-
accountability. Even if we consider Al Gore’s portrayal of government personnel to be too
idealistic, it has a lesson to offer. Should we not question our excessive concern with prevention
of corruption and instead adopt a more balanced perspective on the issue of ethics? Does not an
over-concern with corruption take our attention away from the more crucial issues of people’s
welfare through innovative measures and well-intentioned initiatives on the part of public
employees?
In other words, there are high costs of combating corruption that we should be conscious of. No
doubt, such awareness should not cause a laxity in tackling corruption. Instead, it should help
appreciate the value of promoting greater trust in public system. Trust begets trust. Optimum
vigilance is a requisite to the reinforcement of a climate of trust for they are complementary and
mutually supportive. It would appear that such an emphasis on trust and de-emphasis on control
would be more applicable to societies having a higher level of integrity and probity in public life
than to those, which have low standards of morality. Thus, there cannot be any uniform
approach to tackling corruption in the governance system. Much would depend upon the levels
of morality and rectitude prevailing in each society.
Training
An important aspect of bureaucratic socialisation is training. As is well known, there are three
kinds of training that an administrator undergoes. Here, we are not discussing pre-entry training
such as provided in the professional educational stream. We are primarily concerned with
training that is imparted and obtained after a person enters the administrative service. First is
the induction training comprising foundational, institutional and field training organised soon
after an administrator’s career starts. The second is in-service training that is imparted
throughout the service career in the form of refresher courses, orientation programmes, seminars
and conferences. The third is on-the job training that is subtly provided by job performance and
observation. What is paradoxical is that despite a great deal of talk on ethical aspect of
administration, the stress on ethical training in the induction training as well in-service training
is woefully meager.
There is a pervasive feeling in the administrative circles that morality cannot be taught through
training. May be this is true, but there is no way to prove or disprove it, since no concrete
organised research has gone into it. We must not however abandon the option of ethical training
and hence not take systematic initiatives to make ethics an integral and prominent part of
induction as well as in-service training. Already, national and international training institutions
have prepared modules on this theme. The need is to establish our faith in this kind of training
and execute the idea with appropriate acumen and skill.
As for the on-the-job training, the impact on the mind-set of a government functionary of the
immediate work-environment around him is immense. Principled and honest superiors and
members of the peer group are bound to promote morality in the conduct of a government
servant. Conversely, if the official ambience encourages
ethical laxity and compromises, it becomes easier for the personnel to join the bandwagon of
immorality. No wonder, certain departments such as Income Tax, Excise, Customs, Commercial
Taxes, Public Works Department and Police are infamous for their low ethical standards, for the
countervailing and corrective forces therein are feeble.
The question, which needs deliberation, is that can this situation change? No doubt, it can. The
will and the efforts, however, must match the challenge. This is a tall order, but not too
formidable to be real. Many nations, whether Kamal Pasha’s Turkey or contemporary South
Korea have shown resilience in transforming their bureaucratic order and its attendant mind-set.
Other countries can also follow suit, and they must.
The Media
In an open society, media can play an important role in highlighting unethical practices in the
governance system. The role that Washington Post played in exposing the Watergate Scandal
in USA earned laurels from all sections of society. In India, The Indian Express, The Hindu
and a few other newspapers have performed like active watchdogs over public affairs.
Vernacular press has also acted responsibly in this respect. Recently, the sting operations by a
few TV channels on the Commercial Taxes and Public Works Departments in Delhi have also
brought the issues of cutting edge level corruption to the centre-stage. The best part is that the
government, the legislature and even the judiciary have started taking note of such reports and
even action on most occasions has been initiated. What is needed is a rigorous follow-up of the
action taken on such revelations by the media itself.

FUTURE PERSPECTIVE
When A.D.Gorwala presented his report on Public Administration in India in 1951, he had
emphasisd that integrity was one of the cardinal philosophical premises of good administration.
It is paradoxical that despite visible decline of moral standards in public life, the mainstream
reports on administrative reforms have not focused on ethical issues. Except for the Santhanam
Committee report on the Prevention of Corruption in India in 1964 and a specific segmented
report on the theme, the Railway Corruption Enquiry Committee by Acharya Kriplani in 1955,
there have been no major efforts at recommending strategies for integrating moral values with
the administrative system at various levels. True, the ARC report on Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta
was published in 1966, but that again was confined to structural changes rather than bringing
about a new ethical order in public systems.
In 2005, with the announcement of the intention of appointing a second Administrative Reforms
Commission by the Manmohan Singh government, ethical concerns of public services are likely
to be accorded a respectable place in the emergent inquiry on administrative reforms in the
country. The need is to go beyond the general statements of administrative morality and be
more meticulous in recommending modifications in laws, rules, structures and behavioural
patterns in the specific context of individual departments or organisations. The issues of ethics
in the Police Department, for instance, carries a distinctive character and possible solutions
than, say, in the Education Department. This would further require a rigorous modification in
the laws and procedures pertaining to specific functional areas.
How is the administrative ethics of the twenty-first century likely to be different from that of the
twentieth century? The answer is to be found in the increasing convergence of ethical concerns
at the cross-national level. Globalisation of the economic order is likely to pave the way for the
globalisation of governance issues. Not that there would be universally uniform configurations
of the governance systems, much less the bureaucratic systems. But with the mitigation of
chasm among nations in the realm of the goals, philosophy and strategies of governance, the
ethical concerns are likely to transcend international boundaries.
These will reflect the classical concerns of public administration like efficiency, responsibility,
accountability and integrity along with the emergent beliefs in equity, justice, openness,
compassion, altruism, responsiveness, human rights and human dignity. Hopefully, this would
be instrumental to the blossoming of a new citizenship
committed to the sustenance of administrative morality. Even for nurturing such a positive
citizenship, public administration institution will have to act as facilitators and educators. That is
the biggest challenge as well as an opportunity for the administrative system in the times to
come.
CONCLUSION
Ethics is a comprehensive concept, encompassing all facets of administration. Emphasis on
moral and ethical norms has been an integral part of our tradition. Though vices of corruption,
malpractices and bureaupathologies have slowly creeped in our system, the combat measures
have not been very effective. Administrative reforms measures have to be holistic enough taking
into their purview questions on nature of work ethics, various dimensions of ethics, foci and
concerns of ethics and also the nature of obstacles to ethical accountability.
For any governance system to be transparent, accountable, efficient and sensitive, a Code of
Ethics in the form of service rules, procedural norms, and administrative strategies the
requirement of the day is. It is not possible to bring into force a Code of Ethics if it is self-
serving and is subject to constant external interference and manipulation. A certain degree of
autonomy is a pre-requisite for any code to be successful. We are witnessing a change in the
pattern of authority, obedience and discipline. Moreover, globalisation trends have brought in a
kind of universalisation of ethical norms and values. Philosophy of governance has transcended
international boundaries. Almost every rung of administration is involved in decision-
making. The conflict between individual values, organisational standards and societal norms
is clearly visible. Though the code may not reflect a consensus of opinion on ethical issues, it
can still provide direction and advice with regard to ethical conduct and assist the administrators
in analysing their options and alternatives in the right perspective. This Unit highlighted these
very pertinent features.

KEY CONCEPTS
Bureaupathologies
The major ills of bureaucracy such as red tape, conflict, duplication, waste and corruption
could be called the pathologies of bureaucracy. Victor Thompson termed the negative aspects
of Weberian theory of bureaucracy as ‘bureaupathologies’.
Logical Positivism
It is a general philosophical position, also called logical empiricism, developed by members of
the Vienna Circle on the basis of traditional empirical thought and the development of modern
logic. It confined knowledge to science and used verificationism to reject metaphysics not only
as false but meaningless. The importance of science led leading logical positivists to study
scientific method and to explore the logic of confirmation theory, which talked of solving the
problem of induction (inductive knowledge).
Post-behaviouralism
It refers to the developments that took place as a protest against Behaviouralism. It is an
approach to psychology based on the proposition that behaviour is interesting and worthy of
scientific research. Behaviouralism as articulated by Easton, tries to organise research in
political science on model of natural sciences. It emphasises the need to develop a pure science
of politics, giving a new orientation to research and theory building exercises within the
discipline. This movement remained prominent till 1960s. The Post-behavioural movement of
1970s rejected the behavioural tendency to stress on what could be easily measured rather than
what might be theoretically important. The tendency in Behaviouralists to concentrate on
phenomena that were readily observable rather than studying the profound structural factors
that contribute to change and stability within the political system was criticized by Post
behaviouralism.
Quid pro quo
Thing given as compensation
Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) made an attempt to create a liberal ethical philosophy called
Utilitarianism. The case of this philosophy is the utility principle, which means greatest
happiness of the greatest number is good. It is the belief that i) Value of a thing or an action is
determined by its utility, and ii) All actions should be directed toward achieving the greatest
happiness. This philosophy judges everything in terms of its utility or usefulness. It holds that
actions are right in proposition, as they tend to promote happiness and wrong, as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness, is intended pleasure and absence of pain and by
unhappiness, presence of pain and the deprivation of pleasure.