CIVIL SERVICE ETHICS IN DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
Emphasis on Efficiency and Hierarchy
In the nineteenth century, with the advance of science, technology and the emergence of new industrial organizations, the ethical concerns retreated into the background. Even in late nineteenth century, writers like Dorman Eaton lamented about “the long practice of making merchandize of public authority”. But the general theoretical trend, as reflected in Woodrow Wilson’s The Study of Administration, held that efficiency was the hallmark of good government and that it can be achieved by adopting a scientific approach to administration. Ethical conduct of government servants, it was believed, can be ensured by creating a merit based civil service.
ThesethinkershadinviewthethenemergingbureaucraticorganizationswhichMax Weberlater analysed.Bureaucracy is a much deridedinstitution now. But it marked a great advance over feudal modes of administration and other forms of inequitable social relations based upon a person’s status. Purely bureaucratic organizations function on the basis of universalized rules and procedures. Hence, they render personal status or connections of individuals irrelevant. In bureaucracy, rules ensure similar treatment of similar cases. Rules and procedures also constrain the individual preferences and discretion of the administrator.
In such a system, the individual views or personal preferences of a government servant do not matter. He is bound by hierarchical discipline to followtherules of thesystemandobey hissuperiors. His good conduct would follow automatically from the discipline of the hierarchical system of which he is a part.Withtheadvance of democraticinstitutions, a distinctionwasmadebetweenthepolitical leadership in government and the bureaucratic structure. The bureaucrats simply had to implement the policies which the political leadership formulated. As we shall see, after some time, this view of public administration was seen as flawed. And this is what brought virtue ethics into prominence in public administration.
We will now see how the views on values which public servants should adopt have changed over time due to changes in public administration theory. The changes have mainly resulted in addition
to the earlier lists with some modifications in specific individual values. In the process, some values considered desirable in government servants conflict with one another. To understand such differences, we have to contextualize them by linking the prescribed values to their theoretical roots. In practical administrative situations, government servants have to follow the existing codes of conduct and of virtues which apply to their jobs.
As we saw before,the classical model of public administrationincludedthe principles of hierarchy, efficiency and separation of politics from administration. This model tacitly relied on utilitarian ethics. The earlytwentieth century progressivesin their adherence to the authoritative command system of administration aimed at “the greatest good for the greatest number”. ‘Good’ or ‘happiness’ is defined as the maximum balance of good over bad for the largest number of people.
Of course, this leaves open the question of what is good. Here, the early thinkers adopted what is known as procedural utilitarianism or the view that the greatest happiness will follow if proper procedures are followed. They believed that individuals should be left free to decide what they think is happiness. They should be free from government interference in following happiness within existing social arrangements. To the extent happiness depends on society, it should be pursued through democratic majority rule. The criterion for good becomes that which an elected majority decides to do to promote happiness.
In this conception, bureaucrats have little role in formulating the political will of the elected representatives. In fact, as politically neutral functionaries, they should provide no political inputs into policymaking. In returnfor jobsecurity, at eachlevel,bureaucrats have to implement theorders of their superiors in the hierarchy. This hierarchical structure of command and control derives legitimacy from the policies or directions emanating from the ministers who represent popular will. People will either endorse or repudiate the policies of ministers by supporting or defeating the government in elections.
In this theory, the ethical choices before public servants are limited. Ethical conduct consists in obeying rules or orders of superiors. Contrawise, unethical conduct consists in acts of omission and commission which flout rules. The hierarchical accountability is the procedure which enables the people to ultimately exercise their sovereignty and express their current view on the greatest happiness of the greatest number. This conception is the ‘foundational myth’ nurtured by elected officials, the press and textbook political theory.
Weaknesses of the Model
Many thinkers believe that this view is in a shop–soiled condition. But no commonly accepted position has emerged as an alternative. Most official codes of conduct for civil servants follow this classical conception with additions to accommodate more current views. For example, the political neutrality of governments is derived from this conception. This approach leads to a plethora of rules with many layers. Basically, to enforce one set of rules (R1), another layer of rules (R2) is created,
leading thereby to many-layered rules systems.
More fundamentally, the conception of “overhead democracy” which legitimizes the ethics of authoritative command no longer corresponds to realities. Publicservants at various levels exercise discretionary power. It means that they do not simply follow rules, but take decisions based on their individual judgments. As we mentioned earlier, rules can never cover all possible contingencies.
Therefore, if rules cannot enforce democratic accountability or prevent wrong doing, then ethical norms should be internalized so that bureaucrats will act ethically on their own. This process relies on internal rather than on organizationallyimposed external controls.
As the classicalviewofethicsin bureaucracy no longerseemsvalid,manywritershaverecommended a different set of virtues for bureaucrats. Among such writers are Bailey, Cooper, Kathryn Denhardt and Hart. Now we will consider the theoretical positions which underlie their ethical prescriptions. Writers who take this general position are known to be from “discretion school”.