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’

By: Mona Kaushal