ETHICS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Public administration is a social subsystem significantly impacting on the functioning and

development of society. With its position, role and competence, public administration directly or
indirectly determines the principles of sound business, to which it is also subject. In public
administration, work is defined with legality of conduct as its basic principle, but, in addition to
this normative regulation, it is important to stress administrative ethics as the regulator and
internal activator of the public official’s conscience. Th e role of ethics in public administration
is viewed in terms of ethical behaviour and ethical decision-making. Both are usually influenced
by the ethics infrastructures and ethical climates in organisations. It is, arguably, important for
public officials to behave ethically and to enhance their expertise and sense of responsibility and
objectivity with regard to the ethical dimension: ethical decision-making is important for the
credible functioning of public administrations. Th rough the powers granted them; public
officials make decisions. Th e role of ethics in decision-making is particularly prominent in cases
where a specific dilemma is not, as yet, defined in terms of legal regulations. Th is means that
the legislator has not anticipated certain matters, issues or relationships. On the other hand, it is
clear that it is impossible to define in advance every single relationship or state of being. In such
cases, public officials are required to make decisions that are, to the best of their knowledge,
based on the powers granted to them and in accordance with legislation. Th is means that they
have to make a choice from two or more possible solutions, or to independently formulate the
best solutions. Decisions that public officials are required to make based on their own
consideration only serve to underline the significance of ethics in public administration. Th e
issue of ethics in public administration is thus present on two levels. Firstly, there is the lack of
the appropriate tools or instruments, the ethical infrastructure, to introduce ethics into the various
bodies of public administration for the purpose of ensuring the ethical compliance of their
operations, as well as preventing or reducing the unethical conduct of and in the public
administration. Th e second issue lies in the lack of familiarity with the content, possibility and
requirements of said tools and instruments the and lack of communicating encouragement in
terms of putting these mechanisms into practice. Th ere is much research that includes
evaluations of the ethics climate in the private sector (e.g. Kish-Gephart et al. 2010; Victor and
Cullen 1988), but these studies are mainly focused on the impact of the ethics climate on a range
of factors of companies’ operations (e.g. Babin et al. 2000; Moon and Choi 2014) and decisions
in companies (Loe et al. 2000; O’Fallon and Butterfi eld 2005, Belak et al. 2014). Th ere is less
research that focuses on the evaluation of the ethics climate in the public sector (Ashkanasy et al.
2000; Bowman and Knox 2008; Vashdi et al. 2013; Raile 2013). When it comes to the public
sector, ethics infrastructure is more oft en mentioned in literature (e.g. Parker et al. 2008;
Fernández and Camacho 2015; OECD 1996). Despite various research related to the ethics
climate and ethics infrastructure in the public sector, there is a lack of research trying to connect
both of these elements (Vashdi et al. 2013; Vigoda-Gadot and Kapun 2005; GarciaSanchez et al.

1
2011; Bowman and Knox 2008). None of the research connects all elements of the ethics climate
and infrastructure, so this is the main contribution of the presented research.

A. Ethical climates in public administration

An ethical climate can be defined as the perception of what constitutes right behaviour and, thus,
becomes a psychological mechanism through which ethical issues are managed (Martin and
Cullen 2006, 177). Ethical climates are a subset of organisational work climates and also have a
strong influence on several organisational outcomes. “Creating an ethical climate by enacting
and enforcing codes of ethics, policies, and directives that specify, discourage, monitor, and
correct unethical behavior has frequently been suggested as a means for curbing unethical
behavior within the organisation” (Schwepken 2001, 48). Schwepken also fi nds that creating
such a climate may have additional benefits, such as greater job satisfaction, stronger
organisational commitment and, subsequently, lower turnover intentions. Numerous researchers
have since hypothesised that perceptions of ethical climates tap fundamentally into important
issues for organisational participants that likely impact people’s reactions to their work and their
organisation (Martin and Cullen 2006, 180). “Th e prevailing perceptions of typical
organisational practices and procedures that have ethical content constitute the ethical work
climate, for example, when faced with a decision that has consequence for others, how does an
organisational member identify the ‘right’ alternative in the organisation’s view at least? An
important source of this information are those aspects of the work climate that determine what
constitutes ethical behavior at work” (Victor and Cullen 1988, 101). By implementing and
enforcing codes of ethics and policies on ethical behaviour, as well as rewarding ethical
behaviour and punishing unethical behaviour, management can create an ethical climate that
positively influences ethical behaviour in the organisation (Schwepken 2001, 41). Ethical
climates influence both decision-making and behavioural responses to ethical dilemmas, which
then go on to be reflected in various work outcomes (Simha and Cullen 2012, 20 – 21). It seems
that the creation of strong ethical climates, based on an ethical culture, strengthens ethical
behaviour, limiting corruption and other violations (Amundsen and Pinto de Andrade 2009,
Demmke and Moilanen 2011), one of the most important public-sector goals. Th e EU has
introduced a variety of ethics instruments for curbing political and administrative corruption.
Newly suggested instruments include: diversified rules, standards and codes; value management;
ethical leadership; whistleblowing; disciplinary rules; job rotation; vulnerable-position risk
analysis; training, including dilemma training; integrity plans; scandal management; audits;
integrity officers; interest registers; transparency requirements; internet-based self-assessments;
and ethics-climate surveys. Demmke and Moilanen (2011, 121) emphasise that ethics
instruments are more eff ective if they are implemented in a strong ethical climate. Th e
administrative work carried out by public officials is the core of their profession, intended for

2
settling normative and administrative matters and connecting a variety of professional tasks to
realise projected social goals. By preparing expert proposals for the decision-making process of
the competent organs on one hand and implementing these decisions in real social life on the
other, public officials directly involve themselves in social situations, introducing their
professional views and subjective assessments regarding the regulation of normative contents.
By doing so, they affect the content, the manner of regulating social relationships and the
implementation of the constitution and legislation, as well as the protection of the legal system
(Boštic 2000, 10). Civil servants work in an ever-changing environment; on the one hand, there
is increasing citizen demand, on the other, limitations are imposed by requirements to reduce
public spending. This applies to financial, material and human resources. Civil servants assume
responsibility for the ever-increasing tasks resulting from the expansion of their competences,
the increased market-orientation of the public sector and the responsibilities pursuant to new
legislation. Th e OECD has long expressed the great need to improve ethical conduct in terms of
public service. In the document “Building Public Trust: Ethics Measures in OECD Countries”,
OECD member countries introduced significant management reforms which have changed the
way the public sector operates (OECD PUMA 2000). It maintains that a cause for further
concern is the apparent decline in confidence in the governments and public institutions of many
countries and the implications this has for the legitimacy of government and public institutions.
Weakening confidence is associated, at least in part, with revelations of inappropriate actions, in
some cases outright corruption, on the part of public officials. Some remedial measures, broadly
speaking, have the potential both to promote ethical behaviour and to prevent misconduct.
Menyah states (2010, 5) that some of the most common ethical dilemmas with which public
servants are confronted revolve around aspects such as administrative discretion, corruption,
nepotism, administrative secrecy, information leaks, public accountability and policy dilemma.
According to Hanekom et al. (1990), the most common unethical problems in public sectors are:

• bribery, nepotism and theft,

• conflicts of interest,

• misuse of insider knowledge,

• use and abuse of confidential information for personal purposes,

• public responsibility and accountability,

• corruption,

• the influence of interest and pressure groups, and so on.

Th e key objective is to support public officials in their pursuit of the highest standards of
integrity and ethics in the rapidly changing environments of public sectors without weakening,
destroying or undermining the main purpose of public administration reform, whose goal it is to

3
improve eff activeness and performance. Th is could be achieved with the help of a good ethics
infrastructure, declarations on values, such as codes of conduct, and professional socialisation
activities, such as training and education. “Th e ethical dilemma is to distinguish between what is
right and what is wrong, and what seems to be right but is indeed wrong” (Gildenhuys 2004). Th
e real problem in ethics management is not the lack of proper tools or instruments which
managers should implement in their institutions in order to prevent or diminish unethical issues,
but the lack of adequate communication and dissemination of these mechanisms; for example,
we have codes of ethics, but in many cases, if you ask the employees or even the managers
themselves, they do not know exactly where they can read these codes or what these codes really
refer to (Puiu 2014, 606). Despite the long-standing use of ethics codes, there is no dearth of
ethical problems in government and private organisations. Ethical lapses make the news on a
daily basis. When they occur in the public sector, they are not only news fodder but are likely to
become major contributors to citizen distrust of government. Th e question, then, is what tools
are available to help build or ensure ethical competence (Meine and Dunn 2013, 150). Several
research studies deal with different ethical-climate aspects, especially in the private sector.
Victor and Cullen (1988) developed a framework for measuring ethical climates in organisations.
Their framework is the most used in the fi eld, being used by more than 75 % of researchers.
Later, the framework faced criticism from different fronts, and new frameworks were developed
(i.e. Arnaud 2010, Kaptein 2008). Nevertheless, we decided to use Victor and Cullen’s
framework, pursuant to it allowing us to better compare our work with the majority of others. At
the same time, researchers measuring ethical climates in the public sector usually use their
framework. Rasmussen et al. (2003) use the framework to evaluate the difference in ethical
climates between government and non-profit organisations. Th ey found that public servant
ethical climates are externally determined by professional or legal norms. Similarly, Raile (2013)
suggests that “public servant perceptions of ethical climate have predictable sources.” He pointed
out that public administrators can simultaneously help shape ethical-climate perception.
Shacklock et al. (2011) use the framework to test if similar dimensions, as determined in the
framework, are relevant for the public sector. They conclude that there are several similarities,
but they were unable to compare the proportion of variance explained by these five components.

B. Ethics infrastructure

An ethics infrastructure is a set of tools, processes, institutions and other mechanisms that
contribute to the prevention of unethical conduct in a specifi c area of human activity, in an
organisation, institution, etc. Th e phrase “ethical infrastructure” itself indicates that it is
concerned with the basic foundation and tools for the practical implementation of ethics. Only a
well-functioning ethical infrastructure encourages the desired behviour of stakeholders. Th e
term “ethical infrastructure” was originally coined in the United States to refer to policies and
structures that support compliance with professional conduct rules (Parker et al. 2008, 163.) Th e
combination of ethical standard-setting, legal regulation and institutional reform is called “the

4
ethics infrastructure” or “ethics regime” or “integrity system”. Each part is a source of public-
sector ethics; in other words, public-sector ethics emanate from several different sources. Th ese
sources range from the private ethical character of the individual public servant, via agency-
internal regulations, the culture of the agency and national legislation to international
conventions with written standards and codes of conduct. Th e most efficient ethics regime is
when these three sources work in the same direction, in parallel. We will look at each of these
sources of ethical conduct in the reverse order (Amundsen and Pinto de Andrade 2009, 13). An
infrastructure approach implies a comprehensive view of ethics where the various elements
complement each other holistically. They constitute a whole and need to function in harmony.
Concentrating on one single element does not help (Focus 1998, 1). Fernández and Camacho
(2015, 3 – 5) summarise the elements that may contribute to ethics infrastructures (Table 1).
They define three ethical-infrastructure elements, the formal, the informal and leadership, and
three goals, communication, training and management.

Table 1. Summary of elements that may contribute to the ethics infrastructure

5
 Searching for answers on how to protect common values, international institutions have
enhanced legal conventions and standards with their development and utilization of ethical
standards and ethics infrastructures, the provision of sample solutions for administration and
control, thus forming the common foundation for the development of public ethics and integrity
in member states; for instance, the OECD has prepared sample codes and proposals for structural
measures, which serve as global guidelines for administration, resolution of ethical dilemmas
and, consequently, the promotion of integrity in the different fields of the public and private
sectors (Kečanovič 2012, 158). Various studies address ethics infrastructure questions in
different ways. The Office of Public Values and Ethics (2002) analysed individual aspects of
ethics and ethical infrastructures in the public administrations of Australia, Canada, Denmark,
the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. It analysed the frameworks for the
functioning and development of public administration (Statement of Values, Code of Conduct,
Promotion of Values, Controlling Wrongdoing and Coordination and Evaluation). Based on
research, an ethics infrastructure generally includes the following elements: a statement of values
or principles, standards of conduct, tools to promote and raise awareness of values, control of
wrongdoing and the management and evaluation of values and ethics programmes. In 1996,
PUMA (OECD 1996) identified factors affecting the standard of ethics and conduct in the public
service and initiatives taken by governments to strengthen ethics-management frameworks.
PUMA distilled from this the idea of an ethics “infrastructure” consisting of eight elements
serving three functions that are capable of acting together to create an operating environment
conducive to ethical conduct:

• political commitment;

• a legal framework;

• accountability mechanisms;

• codes of conduct or statements of values;

• professional socialisation;

• public-service conditions that are conducive to ethical behaviour;

• ethics co-ordinating bodies; and

• the public’s involvement and scrutiny.

A well-functioning ethics infrastructure supports public-sector environments which

encourage high standards of behaviour. Each function and element is a separate, important
building block, but the individual elements should be complementary and mutually reinforcing.

6
Th e elements need to interact to achieve the necessary synergy to become a coherent and
integrated infrastructure. Th e elements of infrastructure can be categorised according to the
main functions they serve – guidance, management and control – noting that different elements
may serve more than one function (OECD PUMA 2000, 77). Guidance is provided by: a strong
commitment of the political leadership; statements of values, such as codes of conduct; and
professional socialisation activities, such as education and training. Management can be realised
through the co-ordination by a special body or an existing central-management agency and
through public-service conditions, management policies and practices. Control is primarily
assured through a legal framework enabling independent investigation and prosecution, effective
accountability and control mechanisms, transparency, public involvement and scrutiny. Th e
ideal mix and degree of these functions will depend on the cultural and political-administrative
milieu of each country. Drawing on the experience of its member countries, the OECD has
identified the institutions, systems, tools and conditions that governments use to promote ethics
in the public sector: the necessary elements and functions of a sound ethics infrastructure (Bertok
1999, 1). A well-functioning Ethics Infrastructure supports a public-sector environment and
encourages high standards of behaviour. Each function and element is a separate, important
building block, but the individual elements should be complementary and mutually reinforcing.
Th e elements must interact to achieve the necessary synergy to become a coherent and
integrated infrastructure. Th e success of attempts to ensure better ethical environments depends
on the proper management of entire ethics infrastructures (Focus 1998, 1). Larbi (2001) argues
that political commitment to ethics reform is a key requirement for the effectiveness of other
elements of the ethics infrastructure. Th ere is also research on connecting ethical climates with
public organisation performance (Vashdi et al. 2013) and ethical climates and politics (Vigoda-
Gadot and Kapun 2005). Nevertheless, research concerned with the influence of ethics
infrastructures on ethical climates in public administration are rare, whilst in the private sector,
we find several conclusions and results from a greater amount of research. One of the rare
research studies concerning public administrations was carried out by Garcia-Sanchez et al.
(2011). Their results are disappointing as they find that codes do not influence corruption
problems in the public context, both in developed and developing countries. The most
determining factor is the level of education in the control of corruption, especially in developing
countries. Research that tries to connect one of the determinants of ethics infrastructures and
ethical climates was carried out by Bowman and Knox (2008), who evaluated the contribution
that ethics codes make to ethical climates. They found no positive relation.

C. Ethics in public service and the role of public administration

It is already proven that the quality of the public services and the role of the public
administration in their implementation have a direct impact on the life of the citizens. In the
mutual report of the public administration and the community, with special importance and often
determinative, are the ways of behaviour of the officials for the duties they have for the people,

7
in the respect of the law. Already it has been proven in many cases, the damage to the image of
the public employees at all levels. Institutions that operate to control and monitor the work in
public administration, as well as media have given many certified and proven cases concerning
the implication of statesmen in corruptive affairs of all kinds. There have been many cases,
regardless of the political colors that run the country. Misappropriation of funds and monetary
values, affecting impartiality, equality and other requirements for the participation in tenders and
auctions that are held in this period, preferential management of funds that aim to increase the
life-standard of the community, have become daily news and people are no more impressed by
them. Which are the arguments which may illustrate this situation, which has crippled the
prestige of public administration in general? We believe that the problem begins with the
selection of the people chosen to work in public administration and the civil commitment of
those responsible for implementing the tasks in their work. In this regard, we can say that a
determinant factor is the political environment, which provides the framework for public services
conditioning, thus, the performance of those who work in public administration today. We
believe that the ratio of the militants to the real professionals in the field, which are needed in
public affairs, remains very troubling. Each time the colour of the party in power in Albania has
changed, the public administration has been shocked. Often, real specialists have been discarded
to leave their places to genuine militants left to the country policies. Such replacements have
affected the level of management and public affairs jobs, paving the way for poor and
bureaucratic attitudes in the administration’s work and daily tasks. According to authors
Rosenbloom and Kravchuk (2005), the public work’s administrators should act with much
responsibility, because their work consists in many aspects, which can lead to the abuse of public
interest and to corruption. While Bertrand (2004) and Lang (2012) claim that public
administration differs from other forms of government by its competence and by the fact that its
ultimate goal is the general interest. It is important that, the behavior of the public administration
must be characterized by trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, care and honesty. The Public
Officer must be characterized in all his actions by impartiality and civil virtues. A clerk, who
heads a key sector in public administration, should consider “selfishness” as an unknown factor.
He should also be concerned by the welfare of others, acting only on the basis of law. According
to Aliaj et. al., (2003), should be in constant struggle with corruption and other negative
indicators that we randomly encounter today. By constantly seeing such cases, the continuous
discussions about ethics in public administration are very useful. They lead us to the conclusion
that we should do more for the quality and the professional training of the clerks selected to work
in the administration. Particularly, the country's universities should offer courses on
administrative ethics, which will help for an education of quality of the new administrators.

D. Ethics and Governance

Ethics in public service is about the practical application of the moral standards in
governance. According to Chapman (2002), ethics refers to how an individual feels about

8
behaving properly. It is about values and their application in a given context. The major factor
that affects our understanding of public service’s ethics is the meaning of the political
environment that provides the framework for public services and that conditionate its practice.
Particularly in countries with new democracies, the political environment cannot be marked as
the main factor, but as the determining factor. Still today, here in Albania, almost everything that
is related to public administration, to the quality of its programs and the objectives presented in
the activities of government, depends on political elections, politicians in particular and political
parties in power. Despite the efforts made over these years for ameliorating the work in this
direction, it still remains much to be done. Public administration, not only is not independent in
its work, but it is running and related in a pyramidal shape to politics. It certainly has its
influence on Good Governance in the country. There are not a few cases of intervention by the
government officials directly in the working management, on the rights and responsibilities that
employees or their dependents have been assigned by law. This situation has imposed
preferential choices to the detriment of general interest. In some reports of the European
Commission, concerning Albania and some other Balkan countries, it has been accentuated that
public administration’s politization and the continuous reforms after each election cycle, have
been and remain a serious obstacle to its transformation in a stable administration, competent and
efficient based on values and merits, in the service of the needs of citizens. To reduce or to heal
this situation there is only one way, the implementation of ongoing reforms and the regulation of
the legal framework. Both will provide full transparency of public administration in its activities,
competence in managing work, equal treatment of citizens by the law and especially ethics in
public relations. The taking of full responsibilities will create stability in the work of
administration, making it efficient and resultant. In many cases, the government's fight against
corruption is negative. It is a campaign more than the real fight against this pathological
phenomenon. It is in this way that the author Ali Pajaziti (2008) defines the situation in the
Republic of Macedonia. In a similar way also, we could speak for the case of Albania, for which
this definition is very similar and valid (Pajaziti, 2008). According to Chapman (2002) one of the
essential characteristics and qualities of public service work in a modern democracy and also one
of the political environment’s elements is the accentuation of public responsibility. This can be
easily expressed in general terms and it seems clear that the forms of accountability are
important to any political system, though in practice it is complicated. Accountability of public
administration begins with the execution of official duties in strict accordance with the
Constitution and the law. Only in these conditions, public administration employees will perform
their duties conscientiously and professionally by putting themselves more and better in the
service of the community. Application of ethical principles in the relations with people
approaches the administration more and more to the problems they have, by increasing the value
and confidence in their state. Consequently, we will have a high professional level in coping with
the needs of people as well as an increase of the public interest for the Good Governance of the
country. We will stop at two elements of the political environment, related to the role of the
country's constitution and public accountability. Both have a particular impact in the
understanding of ethics in public service for citizens. Government’s institutions according to
9
Chapman (2002) have fundamental importance for the public service. Constitutions are
important to formulate the goals and general rule targets, the values that should be respected and
to determine who should take the decisions and how they should be taken accordingly to the
specific goals or policies of the government. We cannot complain about the lack of laws or an
adequate constitution. We generally have appropriate laws and a constitution drafted on the
principles of Western democracies. In our country work halts in their implementation, in the
respect of values, ethics and human morality. As seen from the angle of these aspects, the laws
and various rules play an important role and influence the behavior of officials when they have to
make impartial decisions (Chapman, 2002). If officials will be taken and kept at work by solid
criteria which include professionalism and respect for the laws and regulations, we will have a
solid administration at work, able to solve not only the duties towards their state, but also the
problems and multiple worries of people in their daily lives. The selection by healthy criteria of
specialists in the local as well as in the central power will guarantee the administration’s
continuity regardless of which political force comes to power. The Public administration, as
elected and trained on the basis of ethical and democratic principles will make us maintain it and
treat it like an asset of the country, which must be respected and furtherly increased. In favour of
this idea, we have many examples coming from the civilized world, from those countries, that
centuries ago, have given the right importance to the growth and consolidation of the public
administration. Anthony Sampson by reporting comments for the public service by ministers and
former ministers in Britain writes in 1962, remembering one of his interviewees as saying: "I
remember that when we came in power in 1957, the same civil servant who used to take care
about nationalization, the same one had prepared a plan for privatization. He did this with the
same enthusiasm (Sampson, 1962). Even in the Edward Bridges (1950) author’s comments on
"Portrait of a Profession", we find very interesting definitions on the qualities of a top state
official, the role and value of his work in public service. He states that a state functionary must
have: some of the qualities "required in the academic world, mainly the capacity and
determination to study with attention and objectively difficult subjects, the desire to find truth at
any cost and without any kind of interest, willingness to face the truth, when it suddenly appears
and that, in forms that may be inconvenient for practical purposes and the willingness to put out
of function the works carried out with difficulty when he realizes that is not on the right track
(Bridges, 1950).

E. New Developments in Public Administration: New Ethical Challenges

The new developments in Public Administration and governance derive from the
adoption and evolution of managerialism central notions. In fact, downsizings, privatisations,
public-private partnerships, and restructurings are modern phenomena that raise countless and
complex ethical doubts.

10
 Effectively, if normative foundations for public administration are still ambiguous and
non-defined, how can we identify norms for the context of frequent developments in a changing
public administration? Which are the consequences of these new formats in administration terms,
of clarification of responsibilities, of managers' action and their orientation? How is their
effective relationship with the citizens? In addition, what about their statute while users? Are
they considered citizens or customers? Who can be held responsible for errors made by
computers and technologies?

Besides these necessary reflections and answers, we live in an Era, when a crisis of
values appears to be evident. Several authors confirm this illation, visible in the relativity and
ephemeral mode of the events that jeopardize decisive aspects in our daily life. Wisely, John
Naisbitt highlights that we are in a “multiple-choice society”, within a board of showmanship,
alienation and dependency, strikingly present societal characteristics. Marcuse talks about the
“one-dimensional men” that can be translated to our time of consumption, where the recognition
of the individual is made by a system of objects. Debord emphasizes an era of “generalized
autism” (Debord, 1979:43) and still valid Feuerbach pronounces “This is without doubt our
time…the image is preferable than the thing, the copy instead the original, the representation
instead the reality, the appearance instead the being…” (Feurbach, 1904).

The Governance has to face continuously great expectations of citizens, combined with
the evaluation criteria of efficiency, effectiveness, economy and value. In fact, the economic
conception of public service leads us to the idea of delivering a good or a service below its cost,
not forgetting quality and the essential factors named above (Bilhim, 2002-A:173). The
outcomes are obviously imperative, but Public Administration “must, primarily, have the duty to
observe the legality of its acts and to respect the citizens’ rights and needs” (Barata, 1998:57).
Nevertheless, the ethically responsible conduct emerges as a fundamental factor of evaluation.

Public administration is now functioning as a network, served with a great number of actors. It
has numerous faces, plentiful environments and positions. Therefore, we deeply believe, from
our in loco direct experiences, that this current framework enables the possibility of full control
of responsibility, correct decision-making and public servants’ performances. Less bureaucracy,
less control. The diversity and complexity of the contemporary structure amplify the difficulty of
ethics management. For that reason, we suggest a multidisciplinary perspective that combines
different tools, described in point four.

F. The E-Government Example

The implementation of ICT and, for example, e-government contributes with more ethical
questions. It is clear that the Information Society brings issues that seem more complex in this
particular area. As the OECD project underlines “the term “e-government” focuses on the use of
new information and communication technologies (ICTs) by governments as applied to the full

11
range of government functions” (OECD, 2001). Therefore, in the context of the Internet
exponential development, the concept of cyber management and administration becomes
evidence for updating as public agencies go progressively online. In fact, “Public Organizations
and private-sector firms are reorganizing and realigning themselves to take full advantage of new
information technology and the promise of the Internet as a medium for rapid communication
retrieval and dissemination.” (Menzel, 1998:445-452). The Internet can bring positive and
negative factors to public administration. Consequently, this new reality represents a serious
challenge for managers. There is need to promote Internet use for employees and clients, having
in mind the simplification of procedures, decision times, quality, effectiveness and efficacy of
the public service. It is also imperative to establish policies for discouraging Internet abuse and
corruption by the employees and public. The traditional strategies and organizational hierarchy
may not be successful (and surely are not) in cyber working places. For that reason, the OECD
project affirms that “In particular, the networking potential offered by the Internet and related
technologies has the potential to transform the structures and operation of government.” As a
result, we have to develop a more meticulous statement of acceptable and unacceptable
behaviors on the World Wide Web.

The big ethical questions are rapidly defined: What can be the ethical or unethical
implications of Internet? What will be the impact of e-government on public administration
ethics? Who must have full access to websites? What kind of restrictions must be established?
Can employees access Internet for their personal use? Can the public access the government data
bases harmlessly? Can privacy be at risk? Who can be responsible for ICT errors? What policies
must be implemented? What strategies must be followed? How can e-government facilitate
reform?

Some studies, inclusively the one developed by OECD stresses that e-government has the
potential to support good governance practices. In effect, Salvador Parrado emphasizes that:
“There is a strong belief (…) that implementation of information systems brings good
management per se.” (Parrado, 2002).

However, the Internet implies other illations, explicitly its impact on workplace and work
relationships. On one hand, through e-mail or networks communication, employees can select
whom they want to talk and can neglect teamwork, not sharing their knowledge or information
with others. In brief, individualism and depersonalization, usually related to Internet, can involve
problems in the workplace, quickly transparent to the public. On the other hand, Internet can
provide a more open, participative and democratic workplace. (Menzel, 1998:445-452). This
theme needs a more profound reflection and discussion, although a few basic premises are
highlighted in this paper.

G. New Ethical Approach

12
We can underline factors that justify the magnitude of the ethics in a contemporary public
administration, more concretely:

• material and resource difficulties

• needs of a growing and multifaceted society

• critical and attentive perspective implied in citizenship

• restructuring subjects and change of the administration

• constant demand that decision processes become more thoroughly participated.

The ethics of this new millennium concerns employee and service, so it involves the
absolute need of an orientation according to clear and internalized values, especially for the
higher administration levels. It is crucial to have a leadership that provides the integration of
these values; a strong organizational culture based on those principles, a serious
evaluation/attendance and an Aristotelian process of learning and continuous recycling. This
accomplishment lives in a real political will for true ethical politics, homogeneous and global. It
is essential to pass from impositions of bureaucratic sense to internalized practices, consensual
conducts, conception of systems and organizational structures.

In effect, the present reality requires innovative approaches and combined measures. For
that reason, we suggest that a public administration ethics framing can be consummate with the
following joint procedures:

• Accountability Tools

• Conduct Codes

• Monitoring Mechanisms (e.g. internal and external questionnaires)

• Development of Supportive Structures (to encourage ethical conduct and to reward those who
act morally)

• Implementation of Audit Methods at Inter-governmental level

• Professional Socialization (e.g. formation, awareness and training)

• Introduction of whistle-blowing systems (in a careful way)

• A stronger appeal to the active participation of citizens (for instance in the denunciation of bad
practices) • Definition of Leadership Responsibilities

• Assertive Communication

13
H. Management of Ethics

The process of ethics is obviously dependent on a true political will. Only this way, is
there potential enough to constitute a complete ethical code in an inclusive and coordinated
manner. In fact, isolated measures are worthless. Through the creation of particular structures of
an ethics management, it is possible to provide, not only a posteriori treatment to eventual ethical
occurrences, such as dilemmas, conflicts of interest, etc. It is also useful to promote the
development of prospecting mechanisms and methods of ethical problems’ anticipation,
advantageous to endorse resolutions in a more harmonious direction.

I. Ethics and Law

This is an imperative subject, because it raises relevant ethical questions, namely in the
new developments framework. Is law the ultimate ethical frontier? How can we harmonize ethics
and the juridical perspective? The guarantee of law enforcement allows citizens to have reliance
on the public administration and on the State. In effect, the legality is one of the main
characteristics of the Etat de Droit, its crucial pillar. For that reason, and in a very simplistic
conception, in the State genesis rests the communion of collective interests and desires, that only
through the congregation of efforts and wills can be achieved. Consequently, laws can be defined
as the last frontier, but not as a moral frontier. If not, and in a considerably reductive vision, law
would be a simple norm that must be followed and we should all be obedient to norms, even if
they were immoral or unethical.

In our Portuguese context, this relationship between law and ethics has a curious nuance,
designated previously. Laws based on the NPM reforms were published; however, procedures
and regulations of the old bureaucratic model were not erased. This state of affairs leads us to a
situation, where employees and managers have to face an attitude of cognitive dissonance, not
knowing who and what to follow.

14
REFERENCES

Stare, J., & Klun, M. (2016). An Analysis of the Ethics Infrastructure and Ethical Climate in
Slovenian Public Administration. Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in
Central and Eastern Europe. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 9(2),
147.

Hallunovi, A. MSc. Arjeta HALLUNOVI, Dr. sc. Elez OSMANI, Dr. sc Elidiana BASHI.

Bilhim, J., & Neves, B. (2005, June). New ethical challenges in a changing Public
Administration. In conference of the American Society for Public Administration and the
European Group for Public Administration,‘Ethics and Integrity of Governance: The First
Transatlantic Dialogue’, Leuven, Belgium.

Radhika, D. (2012). Ethics in public administration. Journal of Public Administration and Policy
Research, 4(2), 23-31.

15