Filane Mikee Z.

Cervantes
2009-12325
PA 209 WZZ
Dr. Lizan Perante-Calina

Definitions of Public Accountability and Ethics

A. Accountability
1. Accountability is defined as “a condition in which individuals who exercise
power are constrained by external means and by internal norms”. It could also
refer to a system of checks and balances that must be established to hold
administrators accountable for the proper stewardship of public resources, power,
and information entrusted to them by the public (Alfiler, 1999, p. 114).
2. Public accountability has two interconnected facets--political and administrative
accountability--that create a continuum, wherein both bureaucrats and elected
political leaders are ultimately accountable to the Filipino people. In the level of
political accountability​, public institutions are made answerable for their
institutional mandates and functions as they form part of the incumbent
government’s development goals. It could also pertain to the national leadership,
particularly national elected officials, who must answer for their performance in
pursuing their promised programs and their judicial use of public resources. As
for ​administrative accountability​, appointed public officials and employees are
accountable for the effective and efficient performance of their official duties
(Alfiler, 2003).
3. Accountability is the evaluation of whether the action of public officials and
employees is within or beyond the bounds of their authority. Such evaluation aims
to protect and promote the people’s interest (Cariño, 1993).
4. Accountability is the “extent to which one must answer to higher authority—legal
or organizational—for one’s actions in society at large, or within one’s particular
organizational position” (Shafritz, 2017, p. 211).
 5. Accountability involves the processes by which appointed public officials and
elected political leaders “demonstrate that they are acting responsibly” with the
end goal of promoting transparency and honesty in democratic governments.
Scrutiny is paramount in accountability. (Schultz, 2004, p. 2)

B. Accountability
1. Administrative ethics refers to the norms of conduct of public servants in the
performance of their duties. It could also constitute the appropriate behavior
expected of public officials by society (Leveriza, 1990).
2. Administrative ethics is the “application of moral principles to the conduct of
officials in organizations.” These moral principles specify the rights and duties
that officials must adhere to, as well as the conditions that practices and policies
must satisfy that would affect the general welfare (Thompson, 1985/2017, p. 444).
3. Ethics could refer to four levels: personal morality is the basic discernment of
right and wrong; professional ethics is a set of norms that obligate public
administrators to act in professional ways; organizational ethics pertains to public
laws, executive orders, and agency rules and regulations that serve as norms for
ethical behavior in an organization; social ethics may constitute the laws of a
given society and the individual’s social conscience (Shafritz, 2017);
4. Ethics is considered an “internal, personal check—a sense of personal
responsibility” (Rosenbloom, et al., 2015, p. 531).
5. Administrative ethics refers to the “ethics or morality in public service
organizations.” It could serve as a guide for public servants in resolving conflicts
and a “bulwark against dramatization of issues.” Every citizen is responsible for
holding officials accountable for meeting these ethical standards (Schultz, 2004,
pp. 5-8).
REFERENCES

Alfiler, M. C. P. (1999). Accountability as a public service value. In ​Philippine administrative

system​ (pp. 113–131). Quezon City: University of the Philippines Open University.
Alfiler, M. C. P. (2003). The political-administrative accountability continuum in Philippine
public service. In L. V. Cariño (Ed.), ​Conquering politico-administrative frontiers: essays
in honor of Raul P. de Guzman​ (pp. 398–407). Quezon City: College of Public
Administration, University of the Philippines.
Cariño, L. V. (1993). Administrative accountability: A review of the evolution, meaning, and
operationalization of a key concept in public administration. In V. A. Bautista, M. C. P.
Alfiler, D. R. Reyes, & P. D. Tapales (Eds.), ​Introduction to public administration: A
reader​ (pp. 539–571). Quezon City: College of Public Administration, University of the
Philippines.
Leveriza, J. P. (1990). Values and ethics of public responsibility. In ​Public administration:
The business of government​ (2nd ed., pp. 314–319). Manila: National Bookstore.

Rosenbloom, D. H., Kravchuk, R. S., & Clerkin, R. M. (2015). Accountability and ethics. In
Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector
(8th ed., p. 531). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Schultz, D. (Ed.). (2004). Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy. New
York: Facts On File.

Shafritz, J. M., Russell, E. W., Borick, C. P., & Hyde, A. C. (2017). Honor, ethics, and
accountability. In ​Introducing public administration​ (9th ed, pp. 187-217). New York:
Routledge.

Thompson, D. F. (2017). The possibility of administrative ethics. In J. M. Shafritz & A. C.

Hyde (Eds.), ​Classics of public administration​ (8th ed, p. 444) Boston, MA: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning. (Original work published 1985)