Pros and Cons of the Different Methods of Improving Ethics in the Public Sector - Coursework Example

Ethics in Public Sector Name Course Instructor Date Discussion question: Evaluate the pros and cons of the different methods of improving ethics in the public sector. Which methods do you think hold the most promise? Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Ethics in the Public Sector 3 Introduction 3 Pros and Cons of the Different Methods of Improving Ethics in the Public Sector 4 Conclusion 10 References 11 Ethics in the Public Sector Introduction The public sector plays an integral role in providing essential services to the citizens. Its responsibilities encompass critical, universal services such as homeland security, healthcare, defense, taxation, infrastructure development and several other important social programs. Across the world, the public sector is expected to observe high standards of ethics in the provisions of its services. According to Katarobo (2002, p. 43-44), public sector ethics underpin values and behaviors, which the public and government expect of all public institutions and employees. When the public sector consistently acts in accordance with the expected ethical values, it solidifies the ability of its institutions to operate efficiently and achieve their respective objectives. Conversely, an inability to adhere to the expected ethical values erodes the confidence that the public, government and other stakeholders have in the public sector. Undeniably, an unethical public sector is one of the reasons why a government may fails to deliver its mandate to the public. Over the years, there have been debates on how ethics can be entrenched in the public sector. These debates have given rise to the need to review the ethical responsibilities of public sector organizations, and how they should interact with government, citizens, private business organizations and the civil society. There is consensus among researchers that adoption of ethical principles can help public sector organizations to make better decisions in terms of how they deliver their services to the people. However, there are disagreements regarding the most effective strategies for promoting ethics in the public sector. This paper evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of different methods of improving public sector ethics. The methods discussed in this paper are: code of conduct; administrative reforms; elimination of corruption and creation of ethics and accountability commissions. Pros and Cons of the Different Methods of Improving Ethics in the Public Sector i. Code of Conduct In many countries, public sector organizations are required to develop an ethical code of conduct for their employees. By definition, code of conduct refers to a set of rules and regulations outlining the proper practice and responsibilities of an organization or individual. These rules and regulations are a way of promoting ethical values in the public sector. In the United States, organizations in the public sector have codes of conducts and use them as a means of promoting the welfare of their stakeholders, and for respecting the rights of individuals and entities affected by their operations. Accordingly, employees working in these organizations are bound to abide by the prescribed codes of conduct (Scott & Mike 2005, p. 137). As stated by Hicks (2007, p. 12), codes of conduct are an important instrument for improving ethical values and principles in the public sector. They can provide guidelines as well as an ethical framework for making the right decisions on complicated issues. Ethical codes can also promote a workplace environment where all public sector employees and other stakeholders are aware of the expected standards of behavior. When implemented well in the public sector, ethical standards can be a major source of national laws and thus can complement a country’s legal framework. Codes of conduct also play an important role in informing members of the public of the type of conduct that they should expect from public organizations and officials. According to Mantzaris, Tsekeris and Tsekeris (2014, p. 7-9), a code of conduct improves ethics in the public sector by obliging public officials to execute their duties in accordance with lawful instructions and with moral principles that relate to their functions. Moreover, the code obliges public officials and organizations to observe the principle of political neutrality and to desist from frustrating lawful decisions and policies of public institutions. In the United States, the public sector code of conduct makes it mandatory for public officials to serve lawfully constituted authorities, and to serve with efficiency, impartiality and honesty. The code of conduct also requires public officials to avoid conflicts of interest and perform their duties with regard for the public interest. In decision-making, public officials are required to be impartial when exercising discretionary powers, and to act to the best of their abilities with understanding and fairness. Despite the above pros of the code of ethics as a method of improving ethics in the public sector, it suffers from certain limitations, which make it less effective. According to Niamh, a code of ethics can only be effective if it is implemented properly and enforcements done to ensure compliance with its tenets. Many public sector organizations lack the resources and will to follow through on enforcement of the code of ethics. This leaves room for employees to violate some principles knowing that no serious consequences can result from their unethical behaviors. Another limitation is that cultural considerations may hamper adoption of the code of ethics. Codes with principles that violate common cultural values can be difficult to implement. Cultural barriers are especially prominent in public organizations providing essential services across cultural borders (2007, p. 114-116). ii. Administrative Reforms Administrative reforms are another important method of improving ethics in the public service. With regard to the public sector, administrative reforms refer to the aggregate machinery comprising of rules, policies, structures, personnel and systems that provide a framework for guiding the operations of public sector organizations. They also encompass the management of various government activities involving the implementation of decisions and regulations pertaining to public service. According to Hicks (2007, p. 14), administrative reforms in the public sector are usually very comprehensive and include diverse aspects such as decentralization of decision-making authority, public finance, restructuring of personnel and performance-based management among others. These reforms can also include targeted areas of change such as review of public service statutes, strengthening of the powers of regulatory bodies and establishment of task forces. Administrative reforms can improve ethics in the public sector by modernizing institutions in the sector and by fostering strategic partnerships between key stakeholders in the provision of public service. Reforms can also enhance ethical responsibilities by facilitating increased participation by citizens in decisions regarding performance of the public sector. Because service delivery is the primary focus of public administrative reforms, the reforms oblige the public sector to create an ethical environment for efficient service delivery (State Sector Standards Board 2002, p. 17). The main weakness of administrative reforms is that they can be ineffective in promoting ethical values in the public sector if state institutions are not democratic, inefficient in service delivery or ineffective in using public resources. This is a big problem in developing countries because of the existence of weak regulatory frameworks and institutions, which opens a leeway for unethical practices in the public sector. As stated by Rothstein, ethical values can only be improved in the public sector if the public administration can act as the social promoter, capable of facilitating sustainable distribution of public resources and ensuring access to opportunities by all citizens (2014, p. 735). iii. The Fight against Corruption Corruption is one of the greatest hindrances to the entrenchment of ethical values in the public sector. Corruption in the public sector can take various forms such as influence peddling and bribery, improper use of public resources, fraud and theft by civil servants and elected leadership, divulging of confidential information, and conflict of interest. All these forms of corruption undermine governance principles, harm development of strategic relationships between the private and public sectors, and jeopardize the ability of the public to access services. Although corruption is also found in the private sector, it is more pronounced in the public sector. In the developed world, corruption has been recognized as the main obstacle to economic prosperity. In these countries, corruption slows down the efficiency of public service, magnifies the cost of public transactions and erodes confidence in the public sector. As such, the fight against this vice is the surest way of ensuring that the public sector upholds the highest ethical values (Mantzaris, Tsekeris & Tsekeris 2014, p. 11-14). According to Bishop and Preston (2000, 105-109), integrity is essential to building a public sector resistant to all forms of corruption. There are various strategies that can be implemented to eliminate corruption in the public sector. One of them is to pay public servants well. If wages in the public sector are too low, employees may be pressurized to supplement their incomes through corrupt means. Regrettably, good wages cannot end high-level corruption in the public sector, especially when it is perpetrated in collusion with the political class. Another strategy for eliminating corruption in the public sector is by creating openness and transparency in government expenditure. Tax exemptions, soft credits, extra budgetary funds and subsidies are important aspects of the various ways in which the state manages public resources. Ensuring transparency in this process can reduce opportunities for malfeasance in the public service. Corruption can also be eliminated in the public sector by deploying smart technologies (such as financial management information systems) to detect corrupt dealings by civil servants. The main shortcoming to the fight against corruption as a tool for improving ethics in the public service is the presence of structural weaknesses in institutions mandated to fight the vice. These institutions include the judiciary, which in some countries is under the control of the executive arm of the government. In such a case, lack of judicial independence hinders the ability of the judiciary to prosecute corrupt public officials, which in turn cultivates an unethical environment in the public sector. Another shortcoming is that corruption is a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon, and it can be difficult to uncover and eliminate when it involves several departments and individuals in the public sector (Mark 2010, p. 948). iv. Creation of Ethics and Accountability Commissions Ethics and accountability commissions are public institutions mandated with the mission of overseeing ethics in the public service delivery. Organizations in the public sector can improve ethics in their operations by working closely with these commissions. As explained by Katarobo (2002, p. 53) ethics and accountability commissions help in putting appropriate measures and procedures in place to alert public organizations when ethical standards have been violated. This can help in the development of an ethical regime of service delivery in the public sector. Because these commissions are expected to operate with a high degree of independence, they can help public organizations to hold their employees accountable when they engage in ethical malpractices. A key shortcoming of this method is that since the commissions are public entities, they can easily be compromised by the political class. Thus, these commissions will not always be expected to be fair, independent and impartial in their decisions. Sometimes, the structure of the commissions is bureaucratic, which hinders prompt investigation and reviewing of the ethical breaches by public officers and institutions. Accordingly, the public sector could be unwilling to be put under the investigative powers of such an entity (Uhr 2005, p. 69). Conclusion The above analysis has evaluated the pros and cons of the common methods of improving ethics in the public sector. As explained, each of the four methods has its unique strengths and weaknesses and thus none can be said to be more effective than the other. Therefore, it can be argued that all of them hold promise as effective means of improving ethics in the public sector. In a way, the various methods are complementary to each other and therefore can be implemented simultaneously. Their combined effect can result in high standards of ethical responsibility in the public sector, and this can be crucial for effective service delivery. When implemented well, these methods can make public institutions and officials accountable for their actions as well as the decisions they make. In conclusion, the public sector can take action to create ethical institutions by developing a code of ethics, implementing appropriate administrative reforms and by being at the forefront in fighting corruption. The sector can also incorporate ethical dimensions in their operations by working closely with ethics and accountability commissions, and other state agencies responsible for overseeing ethics. References Bishop, P & Preston, N 2000, Local Government: public enterprise and ethics, Leichhardt, NSW: The Federation Press. Hicks, C 2007, ‘A Case for Public Sector Ethics’, Policy Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 11-15. Katarobo, J 2002, Public Service Reforms: A Comparative Survey Perspective. London: Workshop Paper. Mantzaris, E, Tsekeris, C & Tsekeris, T 2014, ‘Interrogating Corruption: Lessons from South Africa’. International Journal of Social Inquiry, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–17. Mark, B. 2010, ‘Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism’, West European Politics, vol. 33, pp. 946–967. Niamh, K 2007, ‘More than writing on a wall: Evaluating the Role that Code of Ethics Play in Securing Accountability of Public Sector Decision-Makers’, The Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 66, no. 1, pp.112-120. Rothstein, B 2014, ‘What is the opposite of corruption?’ Third World Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 737-752. Scott, F & Mike, M 2005, ‘The Ethics of Corporate Governance in Public Sector Organizations’, Public Management Review, vol.7, no.1, pp. 135-144. State Sector Standards Board, 2002, The Ethos of the State Sector, Wellington: State Services Commission. Uhr, J 2005, Terms of Trust: arguments over ethics in Australian government, Sydney: University of NSW Press. Read More